Responding to the pro-life argument

[Hyper_Eye]

I found out recently, to my astonishment, that my father and his wife are voting for McCain. I live in Alabama so I shouldn't be too surprised but my dad is from New York and has not in recent memory shown an interest in elections. I guess I just assumed that he would vote Democratic were he to express an interest in voting. His wife sent me an e-mail with the following text:

I hope all of you will view this clip and see what the Catholics have done to encourage their 67 million people on election day.

They don't tell them how to vote but they do get their message across.
Click here to view: http://www.catholicvote.com

This was my response:

I'm not religious so I don't have to look at things through such a
filter. There is truth out there. There are simple realities. The issue
of life is an important one so here are some important numbers:

Coalition Confirmed Deaths in the Iraq War - 4,494 (US: 4,180, UK:176,
Other: 138)
Coalition Reported Wounded in the Iraq War- 30,634
Contractors Killed in Iraq - 1,193 (US: 249)
Contractors wounded and injured - 10,569

Iraqi Civilian Deaths: 700,000+ (30% - 40% were children under 15)

The children of Iraq suffer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_ErygrYrXs

Anyone who doesn't understand what makes the "intelligence" that sent us
into the Iraq War so outrageous has never bothered to find out how valid
that evidence was. While right-wingers attempt to re-write history there
was a reason given for the war and it was a lie. The administration says
that everyone thought there were weapons but our own CIA refused to
validate the evidence because they said it was faulty. The
administration didn't care. The Downing Street Memo (meeting minutes
noted by a key person in the Tony Blair administration) said it best:

"IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss
Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It
should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its
contents...

...C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN
route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's
record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after
military action...

...The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference
politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors.
Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime
that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing
with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would
support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan
worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military
plan the space to work...."

The most important part was: "But the intelligence and facts were being
fixed around the policy."

See all of the Downing Street documents here:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/840

The policy was a war in Iraq. The "evidence" was simply a means to that
end. It didn't matter if it was credible. They lied to us. John McCain
supported it and still supports it.

Now here is the part that might surprise you. This memo was written in
July of 2002!!! They pretended to apporach diplomacy and avoid war but
they never intended to avoid war. They dug up faulty evidence so they
could start one. We were the agressor. We invaded a sovereign nation
that wasn't a threat to us.

See what McCain had to say about Afghanistan and Bin Laden in 2001 only
one month after 9/11 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWUS0J9Pt9U
Notice how he was already pushing the case for Iraq only a month after
9/11. There was no evidence tying 9/11 or the anthrax deaths to Iraq but
they were already pushing it. Of course we now know that Iraq had
absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and the guy that sent out that
Anthrax was an American sending it from the U.S.

In the meantime Afghanistan was on it's way to success and we diverted
attention. Now the Taliban are resurgent there and control huge portions
of that country. They now produce 97% of the worlds opiate and that
money goes directly to terrorists. Terrorist heroin is sold on the
streets of America. Now Al Qaeda is as strong as they were on the day of
9/11 and they are actively plotting. Does that make you feel safer?

Will electing McCain help provide a brighter future for the children of
America? What will this country be like for the children that are
growing up here right now? Will there be sound financial institutions
they can bank at? Will there be jobs for them to work at? Will they be
safe from terrorist attack? Will we send them to Iran?

I am sure they will forgive us. All we have to tell them is that the
social issues trapped us once again. We couldn't face reality because we
relied on the same crutches we always rely on. In the face of
overwhelming evidence we still voted for the guy ready to feed us more
lies. Do you think they will be able to comprehend the pro-life/pro-war
platform? I hope we have a system of education that makes them smart
enough to realize the absurdity of it.

Do you think John McCain gives a damn about you or your social causes? I
think he only gives a damn about himself and his corporate buddies. I
think he says whatever he has to say to get elected. He has canged his
stance on almost everything he believed when he started running for
President. He voted against bill's he wrote because his stance changed
when he started running for President!

I am going to vote for the guy that knows what it's like to walk into a
grocery store with foodstamps. I have been there twice in my life and I
can relate. I am going to vote for the guy who's mom died of cancer in
her 50's and had to fight with her insurance company to keep her care
covered. I am going to vote for the guy who turned down all the offers
from wallstreet to go back to Chicago and fight for regular people. This
man understands what my struggle and that of the average American was
like because he has been there. Barack Obama is the right choice for
this country and for my children.

Take Care,
Mike

[Kerrytravelers]

1. Never go along with the phrase "pro-life." They are forced birth.

Take back the language.

Also, these same "forced-birthers" who claim to love the "unborn" of so much, these very same people are against social safety nets that emotionally, medically and financially support lower-income women who are pregnant. If they love the zygote and the fetus so much, then shouldn't they be supporting the women who are carrying them? If they want to cut down on unwanted pregnancies, then why not have sensible and thorough sex education in schools? They do none of these things. They just want everyone to agree to their stipulations in life.

So, pose the questions. Ask them why the "forced-birthers" don't support these policies. Until they do, they are nothing but hypocrits and you can't have a resonable and intelligent conversation to someone who contradicts themselves and are hypocriticalto their very own beliefs.

[KamaAina]

2. We used to call them "anti-choice".

Or just "anti's" for short. "Look out, everyone! Here come the anti's!"

[Hyper_Eye]

3. I talked to my dad about sex eduation.

I told him that abstinence only education causes more teen pregnancies. I also told him that it has been proven to cause higher rates of oral and anal sex among teens at a younger age. HIV is five times more likely to be transferred during anal sex and, as such, increased anal sex causes increased spread of HIV among teens that practice it without contraception. The sad thing is that these teens don't realize that they can get these diseases from anal sex and they don't know anything about the contraception that would protect them during anal, vaginal, and oral sex. And abstinence-only sex education is at fault. He was silent while I talked about it and then he said, "Abstinence-only sex education is stupid." It didn't change his mind on abortion though and he said he can't vote for Obama because of it. So that is what this back-and-forth is all about.

[meow2u3]

10. Take "pro-life" literally

The repukes are blowing the dog whistle when they use "pro-life." They really mean opposition to abortion rights, blatantly disregarding any life issue that has nothing to do with controlling female sexuality.

This includes the opposition to racism, excessive economic disparity, unjust war, the death penalty, etc., that real pro-lifers also oppose--they don't involve sex, so they don't count.

[democrat0986]

4. good stuff

i hope that at least some of this will hit home with dad. maybe he can just tell tricia he is voting for mccain and then complete the arrow for obama. lol :)

[Gregorian]

5. This is really good.

When I saw their email, and thought about the response you'd give, I was pissed. But you defused my anger right off the bat. You can't do any better than you did. I now realize my anger is a result of how I react to people who don't pursue the truth. Let's hope they see the light in your reply. I hope they don't defend their ignorance by calling you a nut. I'm sure you're prepared for that. I've gotten it a couple of times lately. And that was from a long standing friend.

[Hyper_Eye]

6. Thanks for your support. n/t

[happyslug]

7. Wrong Argument, never turn off the person you are trying to convince.

The first thing you learn when trying to change someone's mind is NEVER look at where you disagree, try to find something you agree on first. The best argument, if the question is Abortion, is agree that abortion is wrong, but how do we reduce it? Right now they are studies that shows no difference in abortion rates between countries with strong anti-abortion laws and countries that prohibit abortion. The reason being is that the women involved basically can NOT afford to have the child. Getting an abortion is cheaper. It is a sad fact but true. The Question then becomes how do we help more women decide NOT to have an abortion? (I will ignore birth Control, a different but related subject). Right now a woman who is pregnant and gives birth to that child gets only $190 a month in Alabama to provide for herself and her child. Food stamps kick in and provides her an additional

Some more information of Welfare in Alabama:
http://www.alabamapoverty.org/myths.html
http://www.dhr.state.al.us/Index.asp

Alabama "TANF" Plan (Transitionally Aid to Needy Families, replaced AFDC in the "Welfare reform" movement of the mid 1990s, AFDC= Aid For Dependent Children:
http://www.dhr.state.al.us/large_docs/State%20Plan.pdf

Welfare payment increases to $215 a month for a family of three in Alabama:
http://www.alarise.org/121902web.pdf

Here is Alabama bragging that an "Average" Family on Welfare gets only $190 per month (remember a family of three get $215, so this means a mother and one child).

Food Stamps Regulations (Food Stamp, unlike Welfare is a Federal program):
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/7cfr226_08.html
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/applicant_recipients/fs_Res_Ben_Elig.htm

She would get $343 extra in Food stamps. Total income in Alabama is thus $533 per month for both Mother and child. Out of this $543 comes her rent, utility bills extra. If she can get into Public Housing she has to pay 30% of the $190 welfare grant for housing, thus her rent will be $57 a month, leaving her $476 per month, which she has to pay for formula, food for herself and the child, any transportation costs, any medical cost NOT covered by her state Medicaid program (And any co-payments which most states access).

If she can NOT get into Public Housing (Mostly because it is filled and has a waiting list) then she has to pay market rent, whatever that is in your area. Hopefully she can find something below $190 so she does NOT have to use her Food stamps for Housing, but I have heard of it being done (and at $190 I suspect all she can find are rat-traps, that is where most of my Clients paying less then $250 a month are in).

Furthermore tell him that the Federal Government will pays 1/2 of the cost of welfare, up to the standard of Need ($637 a month in 2008) but no state wants to pay its half so you have state like Alabama paying her $190, of which $95 comes out of the Federal Budget, and $95 out of the State Budget. So we can increase her welfare to $637 a month and all the state would have to pay is $318.50 per person instead of the $95 it is paying today.

What has this to do with abortion, everything. The state of Alabama says it is against Abortion, but it has set up a system where a woman, if she can borrow $600-1000 dollars, can get an Abortion (and sometimes cheaper) but the state only wants to spend $95 a month for her to keep the baby. Alabama could bankrupt many abortion clinics if it would increase its welfare payment to $637, for then the mother can KEEP afford to the baby. Right now Alabama (and McCain) says they are Against Abortion, but the best way to reduce abortion in the US right now is to increase the Welfare payments to pregnant women. Unmarried (or women NOT already living with a man) Women, do NOT look to get pregnant. They can NOT afford it. The Increase payment of welfare will help such women make the choice to keep the baby for it will be more affordable for her to keep it. Right now at the money mentioned above, the payment is a joke and a clear incentive to women who are pregnant to get an abortion.

Now he may come back that the above will encourage women to get pregnant, and ask him does he think women (like you) would get pregnant just to get a welfare payment of $637 a month? To put up with all the problems of being pregnant and them a screaming baby for a $637 a month check? He may say that some women will, but then ask him are these the same women who would do it for $190 a month? If that is the case they are doing it NOW, so what is the harm? I bring up Welfare for it is the one thing most, if not all, of the Catholic hierarchy has come out in favor of increase payments. Thus point this out that the

Some Catholic Sites on Welfare Reform:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/applicant_recipients/fs_Res_Ben_Elig.htm

A report from 2001 where it is reported about 74 malnourished children, the victim of Welfare Reform:
http://www.macathconf.org/is_welfare_reform_working.htm
http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/publications/report/r-fea74b.htm

As I said above, look at things you can agree with him on, and then slowly show him that the best way to resolve the problem is to vote for Obama. McCain will do nothing to improve welfare payments, he will NOT increase the money for education of people on welfare nor pay for day care for their children (needed if you want the mothers off welfare). Ask your father does he support buying a car for a person on welfare? I suspect he will say no, and then tell him that almost all the jobs a person on welfare can get is in retail in the suburbs. A person can NOT get to that job without a car, and most states forbid you have more then $400 in assets (including a car). A lack of a Car was the number one problem when welfare reform was passed in the mid-1990s. The people on welfare could NOT get to the jobs people were offering, for everyone assumed everyone had a car, and a working car was beyond the asset limitations of welfare. It was a problem and took a while for Congress and the States to address (and they still have NOT addressed it, except that welfare may pay up to $500 for a down payment as part of a welfare to work program, $500 is better then nothing but I deal with the poor, cars wroth less then $2000 are NOT worth keeping, they break down to often, thus the states had to work out a system for people to buy $2000 cars for a down payment of $500).

Thus use the welfare argument to show him that any person who really oppose abortion supports increasing Welfare payments. As long as the welfare payments are so low, the state is telling people go get that abortion, it saves you and our state a lot of money.

[Hyper_Eye]

8. Thanks for this very useful information.

I am a man btw but I could mention my wife or one of my sisters in place of the "like you". My intention here, though, was to show that Democrats support a pro-life agenda in that the Iraq war contradicts any advocation of life. I do not know their stance on the war but I don't think it is a very favorable one. Also, this is not the first e-mail that I have sent to them that notes the fact that I am voting for Obama so that my children can have a future. The implication is that if they vote for McCain they are voting against the futures of their grandchildren. My hope is that they will walk into the voting booth and it will just hurt their hearts to fill in that McCain arrow. It is my hope that they feel an overwhelming need to complete the arrow for Obama and that it allows them to leave feeling that they did the right thing. On the otherhand... if they fill in the wrong arrow I hope they feel like shit about it.

My mom is voting the right way. She is one of those people in North Carolina that have helped tip the state in Obama's favor (which is crazy!!!)

[Trekologer]

9. One sentence

"Historiclly, abortions decline under Democratic presidents and rise under Republican ones."

You can then cite statistics of the increase since Bush entered office.

Abortion is never going to be made illegal. The prudent solution is to reduce abortions through comprehensive sex education and support programs. But it will never be made illegal. The ones that use anti-abortion as a wedge issue will never take the steps to make it illegal because it gets them votes by pulling it out every election season. The Republicans had control of all three branches of government from January 2001 through January 2007 and made zero attempts at outlawing abortion. That was as good as its going to get for a very long time. If that doesn't tell the "values voters" that they've been strung along nothing will.

[Hyper_Eye]

11. Thank you. I said this to them at my dinner table.

They were here for my brother's (who replied to this thread above) birthday and it was the day they let loose the fact that they are voting for McCain. This was one of the first things I said.

[happyslug]

12. Catholicvote has nothing to do with the Catholic Church

Some more on the website "CatholicVote" and its sister website "Fidelis
http://news.aol.com/article/fidelis-debuts-catholicvotecom/169226

The Conservative Catholic group the founded CatholicVote:
http://www.fidelis.org/

Both groups seems to concentrate on three things, Abortion, increase aid to Catholic Schools, and preserving the Traditional family. No mention of helping the poor, or improving the life of unfortunate, for that you have to go to the liberal Catholic Sites, such as:

The Dorothy Day Catholic Worker Site:
http://www.catholicworker.com/
Her Biography (Can't knock someone who stayed Neural, while other Catholics were pro-franco in the Spanish Civil War, who maintain her anti-war attitude during both WWII AND the Cold war).
http://www.catholicworker.com/ddaybio.htm


http://www.vatican.va/

Some Vatican Sites on Different Subjects:

Immigration, to leave people immigrant if they want or need to:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/pom2002_90/rc_pc_migrants_pom90_Blume_Ecclesiology.html

A letter regarding the rich and poor and that the Gap is to large:
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01071997_p-19_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2006/documents/rc_seg-st_20061005_unctad_en.html

A decree on Universal Education (A Vatican II document, supporting education):
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_gravissimum-educationis_en.html


Some more liberal sites:
Catholics for Obama:
http://www.romancatholicsforobama.com/

One last comment, remember the Catholic Church OPPOSES the death Penalty, ask your father does he support it and thus going against Catholic Teachings, or does oppose it and have to choose between two candidates that technically both support the Death Penalty? This is important for that brings us back to Abortion. If you have an candidate that supported increase funding for schools (Including Catholic Schools), who wanted increase funding for welfare and the poor, but who supported Abortion would he vote for that candidate's opponent who oppose abortion, but who wanted to cut funding to education and the poor? The later two are opposes by the Church in addition to Abortion.

Also ask him the related question what if Candidate A, who supports education and the poor also supports the Death Penalty, but his opponent who opposes education and the poor opposes the Death Penalty, who would he vote for.

The problem is the issues of this campaign is NOT one issue, but all the issues, the Economy, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the price of oil, the increase in people losing their homes etc. Where does the candidate stand on these issues? The Catholic way to voting is to look at ALL of them and vote for the candidate that supports most of what the Church wants. The Church knows it will NOT get everything but increase support for education and the poor will do more then electing an candidate on Abortion, an issue the President has to least amount of control over (Congress has eliminated all Federal Funding, many states have driven out their abortion providers and those states that still have abortion providers believe that even if the Supreme Court would rule states can abolish Abortion, those states will NOT (And Congress will not). Thus Abortion is a non-issue, the real issues are the poor, the economy and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Hyper_Eye]

13. Thank you. I sent a new e-mail and used your links.

This e-mail went a little more into the personal side so I will not post it here but I went much deeper into the issue of abortion and made the case that it is our issue and that Republicans have the wrong ideas on how to reduce abortions.