Critique to a World War II Conservative Vet Against Abortion

[CarlSheeler4U]

May I have your thoughts? This gentleman wrote a somewhat simple, but scathing letter about Catholics and pro-Life. It's self-explantory.

Support family, faith and flag candidates this year

I’m responding to a recent letter to the editor “Support pro-life candidates this year” written by Mr. Norman Lowrey of the RI Veteran’s Home in Bristol. First, as a veteran myself, thank you for your service to our country. Second, I agree with your opinion the primaries (September 12, 2006) are where the public gets to decide who will represent them in the general election (November 7, 2006). This is true for Independent voters, too. I also respect how faith is important to your family values. Mine, too.

Pregnancy termination is a very difficult and personal issue. Two-thirds of Rhode Islanders are pro-Choice. This is true for Sheldon Whitehouse, a primary opponent of mine, as well as Senator Lincoln Chafee, the incumbent. I think many pro-lifers will agree the goal is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, not have mostly men legislate what women do with their bodies. This is not the top issue for most voters.

Being Catholic does not make me morally superior. Being compassionate and having convictions may. My goal is progress, not perfection. Terminations should remain legal when a woman’s life or physical health is in danger, when pregnancy is caused by rape or incest and in most cases during early pregnancy. I stand for women equality, which means reducing government intrusion in the bedroom and to have terminations “safe, legal and rare”. Norman, I think Luke 6:37 is where Jesus instructed “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned…”

Frankly, people vote on a candidate based upon getting serious on values’ issues like rolling back millionaire tax cuts, Homeland Security, ending energy dependence, the Iraq war as well as greed and materialism. I think these issues impact our hope and are more central to our middle class values. This is why I support faith-based movements to combat poverty like the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

“God is not a registered Republican.” We’re both optimists. I pray he’s on my side. I think we’d agree faith and convictions in public policy is a covenant centered on issues of economic security, health care, educational opportunity and equality. “We the people” means the public doing their part and being engaged in our elections in order to rebuild stronger families and stronger communities. Shared values means we need open, honest and ethical elected officials who are going to put family, faith and flag first.

Carl
Sheeler for US Senate
www.carlsheeler.com

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I think it is a good letter

and addresses the concerns of those in RI. One line wasn't quite clear.

Terminations should remain legal when a woman’s life or physical health is in danger, when pregnancy is caused by rape or incest and in most cases during early pregnancy.

Do you mean that you support most abortions when they occur during early pregnancy or only those where health, life of the mother, rape, or incest are involved? That wasn't quite clear to me, and since you (or Mr. Sheeler if you're not the gentleman who wrote the letter)are running for elective office, I'd hate to have a sentence that's not quite clear be twisted to a meaning you don't intend by your opponents.

[CarlSheeler4U]

5. Valid point Twisting will occur, no doubt.

[TahitiNut]

2. A couple of suggestions.

I'd drop "This is not the top issue for most voters." It's not necessary, and tends to be dismissive of those for whom it is a major issue.

I'd change "I pray he’s on my side" to "I pray I'm on His side" or drop it. I'm not sure God takes sides and probably wouldn't demean God's 'side' as merely half of a dialectic.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with any claim of 'moral superiority.' Indeed, I'd probably take a different tack: humility. Humility would guide me in taking my own best stance regarding my own dicisions, as best informed by God, and retreat from attempting to do so for any other person - pacing my faith in God to inform them and not trying to take His place.

Just my $0.02. :shrug:

[CarlSheeler4U]

6. Good thoughts. I'm trying to wrestle the GOP's contrtol of morality

[TahitiNut]

11. I understand that.

I just don't think one opposes their claim of moral superiority by playing "King of the Mountain." I think the more conscionable stance is to shine a light on their presumed role as a "secular priesthood" ... interceding with God on our behalf and coercing compliant behavior. This is a corruption of Christ's precept of a priesthood that serves and subordinates themselves, instead elevating themselves and demanding service unto themselves.

Even the Roman Catholic Church is, five centuries after Martin Luther, backing off from the stance that man can only relate to God through the intercession of a priesthood. Lest we forget, that was the major theme of Reformation. Indulgences (campaign funding?) were a means of obtaining intercession; confession was a rite of intercession; a Bible and liturgy in Latin rather than the language of the populace was a mechanism of intercession.

It's no surprise to me that a conservative political ideology would mirror an arch-conservative theological model. Right now, women are being told that their right to abort a fetus is dependent upon the opinion of a political priesthood - that their own consciences are somehow defective and require intercession.

Thus, employing the concepts of the same abstract context, I resort to the precept of humility - we can only do the best we can do and the assumption that we can not only reliably do right by ourselves but impose that 'right' on others is hubris, not humility.

[CarlSheeler4U]

12. I humbly acknowledge an intellectual argument that may not do

well among many members frequenting Dunkin' Donuts.

[CarlSheeler4U]

14. Can you help me?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=529406&mesg_id=529406

[Clark2008]

3. Good letter - but edit this typo:

I stand for women equality...

Shouldn't that say, "I stand for women's equality"?" or did you mean something else?

[CarlSheeler4U]

7. You're right. Good catch

[cally]

4. Good letter and I agree with the editing suggestions above

I'd also change the word Frankly. Your statement that follows is not frank.

[CarlSheeler4U]

9. Good point Thank you.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

8. Great letter....

....though I expect you'll be attacked by the usual band of wingnuts who have nothing better to do than fire off letters to the Pro-Jo.

[CarlSheeler4U]

10. No doubt. Sad to say.

[leftstreet]

13. The "rape/incest" exception is morally reprehensible

Suggesting a woman should be "allowed" to terminate a pregnancy if she can prove she wasn't at fault is transparent and disgusting. It's typical of the rightwing cognitive dissonance found in the pro-life/pro-death penalty stance.

If anti-choicers believe that a fetus has a right to life then they must support banning ALL abortions. Any attempt to make exceptions quickly exposes a misogynistic agenda for controlling a woman's sexual choices.

[CarlSheeler4U]

15. Poor wording on my part.

Be aware that there are statsitcis where even those who support choice do not when it is for third term pregancies and a host of other items. Those who support, but won't in certain cases rises to almost 85% against in those certain cases, which while are few are wedged as an all or nothing by the right. You probably already know this. Carl