“Step into my parlor” said the spider to the fly.
The GOP, back when it was the party of the northeastern elite, used to be the major party supporter of Planned Parenthood. That was before the party that owned all the Catholic votes told their followers to trample over their consciences and the elites moved over there.
Excuse me! What proof do you have Alexander that proves the GOP was a supporter of Planned Parenthood? If the support was there was it before Planned Parenthood involved in the murder of unborn children? At one point Planned Parenthood did provide assistance and information on true women’s health issues! But, today there is more money to be had in murder!
Planned Parenthood has always supported contraception and abortion. “More Children for the Fit, less for the Unfit” was Margaret Sanger’s original slogan.
Didn’t Sanger herself oppose abortion? I always thought she was a rabid contraception, eugenics, and free love advocate, but stopped short at child murder.
Like many today, she saw contraception as a way to reduce abortion. She was wrong, of course. She supported abortion for any of several classes of unfit: The disabled, the poor, Native Americans, African Americans. But she supported providing free contraception to those groups even more.
But like I said elsewhere- the real problem to my mind isn’t so much the abortion, although that is indeed a grave intrinsic evil. Abortion, Euthanasia, the Death Penalty and even war (both just and unjust) are all symptoms of a MUCH more serious problem: Bigotry. Hating certain groups of people so much that you think that the world would be better off if you killed them.
The unwanted. The unfit. The enemy. The convicted felon. The disabled. The terminally ill.
It’s the bigotry that is the root of the issue.
Just war is the result of bigotry? That’s a novel theory. I’m glad Jan Sobieski III, Charles Martel, and Constantine XI Palaiologos didn’t think so. We probably should have sat out World War II, I guess, since fighting the Nazis was bigotry (and YES, I am well aware of bigotry in the way the war was fought, but I am talking about the act of fighting *itself*)
And while the death penalty is something the Church now preaches against, how is it hating *groups* of people, i.e. bigotry? What about prison time in general? Any sort of legal sanction – is that bigotry? Did the Church practice bigotry all those years when it adamantly supported the death penalty, or when the Papal States executed criminals?
Sanger’s real hatred was of the poor, the “useless eaters”. It just so happened that the majority of blacks were poor. Many black preachers and intellectuals (including WEB Du Bois) bought into her crap that reducing their family sizes would bring them prosperity and better chances in life. Many black intellectuals STILL think she was great. She thought she could “better” the “lower races” through her eugenic and contraceptive programs. It was sick, twisted, and evil, but I do not think it was as straightforward genocidal as many people think.
And I’m not defending Sanger at all. I’m just saying she is disgusting enough where we do not have to ignore what her own positions actually were and cherry-pick quotes to make her into a genocidal maniac. She’s evil enough.
Nothing to see here – unless of course you are interested in how the dead body actually decays and turns back into dust from whence it came.
Its time to move on . The GOP is dead. Finish crying it out and lets get on to better things.
…seriously, I mean we all know magots feast on the carcasses of dead animals.
Richard Nixon was a huge Planned Parenthood supporter, even after abortion was legalized. There’s even a recording of him applauding abortion because he thought it would limit the number of people with darker skin than he. (I encountered this in the documentary Maafa 21.) I don’t know why you’re so hostile about it… The GOP tended to represent the progressive establishment prior to 1980. Some haven’t even left the party yet (often for economic reasons. The progressive establishment has investments they need to worry about!)
While I have no doubt Nixon, like most country-club Republicans of his era, would support contraception and sterilization, I have a a hard time believing he was happy about abortion because more dark-skinned people would be dead.
I have NO problem believing that- because he believed the same thing about the Vietnamese and the Chinese.
One of the top reasons I could think of for not voting for Romney is that it lowered the bar for what qualified for the label “pro-life candidate”. So low, that it could embolden the GOP to ignore/alienate pro-lifers more than they already do, and bring the U.S. closer to the state Canada is in: where NO major political party is identifiably pro-life. I always got a reply like “we are in no danger of that happening in America.”
Many pundits on FOX News have spent the last week blaming a “social conservative takeover of the Tea Party” on recent Republican failings, and now PP is logically following up on that. How many candidates for office in either party will bother to even pay lip service to pro-life concerns in 2014…2016…2022?
Right, no danger at all here.
If the Republicans drop pro life issues, they’ll be even more screwed. Remember the Reagan Catholics? They left the Democrats, which were their historical home, because of its position on abortion (though it didn’t help that Carter was Reagan’ s opponent), not because of the Rep’s anti-tax, pro-rich mantra. And most Catholics are probably still sticking with the Reps because of abortion. If both parties endorse abortion, even passively, those Catholics will go back to the Democrats. We need a viable third party to oppose both the Dems and the Reps.
Here you go:
I agree. I voted for Joe Schriner, their candidate, as a write-in.
I liked much of what Schriner had to say, and if I could have voted for him, I think I might have.
But I do not like the fact that he completely and totally buys into the Al Gore model of climate change, and believes we need to immediately adopt a system of carbon caps and carbon indulgences to fight this major threat, as well as get on board with the UN on this issue, which will inevitably lead to population controls.
Also, it’s not encouraging to see people discussing homosexual civil unions favorably as an alternative to gay marriage right there on first post.
Oh, and I see they’ve changed their name, partially because they were afraid the “Christian” part may scare away non-Christians. “American Solidarity Party” is not descriptive at all unless one is already inclined to “get” the reference to Solidarnosc.
I do not see what is wrong with “Christian Democracy” as it actually IS a political tradition that has a long pedigree in Europe.
And am I reading things right are are there people in there who want to ban alcohol and tobacco?
I think any time there’s an attempt to start some sort of organization it runs the risk of being hijicked into “The Party of Exactly What I Think Ought To Be” for every person disillusioned with the two major parties. And there are a lot of disillusioned folks who are.. well.. also somewhat delusional.
I wish people on this blog would stop assuming that all otherwise conservative voting pro-life Catholics are identical to themselves. A lot of Catholics who have lives and who are not “professional Catholics” like a lot of blog commenters are pro-life (not as true blue as you all, maybe, but enough to be hated by pro-abortionists) AND generally go along with the Republican agenda (I am not one of them — I don’t vote). They might not just be as “deep” as you and have an eye more towards the bottom line, concerning their household, their and their childeren’s futures, etc. It is laudable to be an orthodox Catholic who tries to follow the Church’s social teachings, but that is a minority position and there comes a point for sake of sanity for a minority to admit to itself that it is in a minority.
The problem is what you describe is as much Cafeteria Catholicism as the Brazilian Roller Skating Angels Circus.
How, pray tell?
It’s ignoring the teaching of the church in a matter of faith and morals. It doesn’t matter WHAT those morals are about- economics, chastity, even the liturgy. Truly faithful Catholics believe in ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH- not a menu of morality you can pick and choose at your leisure based on “what works for you”.
It is the ultimate test of Catholicism when you are faced with a moral choice and to stay Catholic you must pick the option that DOES NOT WORK FOR YOU. That is IMPRACTICAL and UNECONOMIC. That from all outside-0f-Catholicism thinking, makes you look like a fool and an idiot.
That’s where the test lies. And far too many people fail it- and end up supporting oppression of the poor, or abortion, or roller skating circus angels because of it.
Please provide any place where the Church actual gets behind any particular practical policy or economic system. They don’t. They say things, even very specific things, but do not give exact guidelines about how this is supposed to be practically carried out. Goals, such as “all citizens must have access to adequate healthcare”, and we have to figure out how best to apply that.
I’ve met a lot of very faithful, prayerful, intelligent, and loyal Catholics whose opinions sometimes vary from yours, Mr. Seeber. They also claim to follow the Church’s teachings in their entirety. I guess everyone else is a heretic, though. I am glad there is at least one person who is always right about everything and who knows what it is to be a truly true Catholic, in all caps.
Bush41, or was it R-squared signed an executive order to prevent any federal funds to PP at any location which provided abortion. It was on hold until the courts finally decided in the waning days of Bush41 that it was constitutional. Mr. Unitary excecutive I can do whatever I want Bush43 REFUSED to reinstate it. Or the Sanctity of life act. Or do for Terri Schiavo what Clinton did for Elian Gonzales, except instead of sending her to communist slavery, to instead prevent her slow death by torturous dehydration and starvation.
Critchlow, “Intended Consequences” covers the Nixon era and the Catholic complicity.
Does Planned Parenthood even see the irony of the quote in this article “keeping government out of personal health care decisions” when Obamacare is now the law of the land?
No. They do not. To them, their point of view is a self-evident truth.