<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pro-Life Pragmatism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/17/pro-life-pragmatism-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/17/pro-life-pragmatism-2/</link>
	<description>Politics and Culture from a Catholic perspective.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 14:50:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Personhood Initiative &#171; The American Catholic</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/17/pro-life-pragmatism-2/#comment-16433</link>
		<dc:creator>The Personhood Initiative &#171; The American Catholic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:51:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=14874#comment-16433</guid>
		<description>[...] in the context of the debate over the efforts of Bart Stupak and the pro-life Dems, I wrote about pro-life pragmatism. I argued that the much-derided &#8220;incrementalism&#8221; is actually the most viable way of [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] in the context of the debate over the efforts of Bart Stupak and the pro-life Dems, I wrote about pro-life pragmatism. I argued that the much-derided &#8220;incrementalism&#8221; is actually the most viable way of [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Politics and Pro-Life Pragmatism &#171; University of Toronto Students for Life</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/17/pro-life-pragmatism-2/#comment-16432</link>
		<dc:creator>Politics and Pro-Life Pragmatism &#171; University of Toronto Students for Life</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:55:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=14874#comment-16432</guid>
		<description>[...] Alleyne Leave a comment Go to comments    The American Catholic had a post a few weeks back about pro-life pragmatism which touched on a lot of themes that come up when talking about abortion to people on campus. In [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Alleyne Leave a comment Go to comments    The American Catholic had a post a few weeks back about pro-life pragmatism which touched on a lot of themes that come up when talking about abortion to people on campus. In [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lwestin</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/17/pro-life-pragmatism-2/#comment-16431</link>
		<dc:creator>lwestin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:55:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=14874#comment-16431</guid>
		<description>The exception is a loophole. Don&#039;t be fooled into thinking that the goal is to eliminate 99% of abortions. The goal is to have legislation that includes abortion funding. The focus has been sidetracked , and now the &#039;unreasonablemess of hardcore prolifers&#039; is supposedly &#039;endangering the progress&#039;.

 Baloney.

Try looking at the history of abortion is any country. Howabout the UN&#039;s stated goal of open access worldwide. How about activist courts?

Baloney.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The exception is a loophole. Don&#8217;t be fooled into thinking that the goal is to eliminate 99% of abortions. The goal is to have legislation that includes abortion funding. The focus has been sidetracked , and now the &#8216;unreasonablemess of hardcore prolifers&#8217; is supposedly &#8216;endangering the progress&#8217;.</p>
<p> Baloney.</p>
<p>Try looking at the history of abortion is any country. Howabout the UN&#8217;s stated goal of open access worldwide. How about activist courts?</p>
<p>Baloney.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Hargrave</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/17/pro-life-pragmatism-2/#comment-16430</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Hargrave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:52:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=14874#comment-16430</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m sorry I didn&#039;t see this before.

As much as I despise this ridiculous and unfair &#039;exception&#039;, I don&#039;t know how I can justify to myself allowing 99% of the abortions that have nothing to do with rape to be federally funded because these moral midgets want to allow 1% to be.

What we are faced with here is a sort of hard-headed, irrational moral position that isn&#039;t likely to be overcome any time soon. Those rape babies have been marked for death by our society, and I would like to defend them - and I think we can, eventually. Clearing this first hurdle, though, I think, is a necessary first step without which the second step cannot take place.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sorry I didn&#8217;t see this before.</p>
<p>As much as I despise this ridiculous and unfair &#8216;exception&#8217;, I don&#8217;t know how I can justify to myself allowing 99% of the abortions that have nothing to do with rape to be federally funded because these moral midgets want to allow 1% to be.</p>
<p>What we are faced with here is a sort of hard-headed, irrational moral position that isn&#8217;t likely to be overcome any time soon. Those rape babies have been marked for death by our society, and I would like to defend them &#8211; and I think we can, eventually. Clearing this first hurdle, though, I think, is a necessary first step without which the second step cannot take place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: restrainedradical</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/17/pro-life-pragmatism-2/#comment-16429</link>
		<dc:creator>restrainedradical</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:15:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=14874#comment-16429</guid>
		<description>As far as this analysis goes, I find no problem with compromise. But the Stupak Amendment may enable MORE abortions for victims of rape or incest. So is that acceptable?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As far as this analysis goes, I find no problem with compromise. But the Stupak Amendment may enable MORE abortions for victims of rape or incest. So is that acceptable?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Hargrave</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/17/pro-life-pragmatism-2/#comment-16428</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Hargrave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:17:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=14874#comment-16428</guid>
		<description>Steve,

You can&#039;t just lump in the Civil War with &quot;the civil rights movement.&quot; The latter couldn&#039;t have existed without the former, and the former was a bloody war that claimed tens of thousands of lives.

The notion that black people count as &quot;3/5&quot; of a human being to balance out the population differences between the states WAS a compromise - not some kind of hard position - without which the Constitution may not have been ratified. Those representatives of states that abolished slavery after the revolution had to choose between a racist Constitution or no Constitution.

A compromise is nothing but a temporary truce between opposing parties. It does not have to become the status quo - it remains in effect until one side gains the power to press on further. We have to remember that it is not only we who compromise - in recent years it has been the radical pro-aborts who have had to compromise because of our growing influence and power. The day will come when we no longer need to compromise at all, because they will have become a voiceless and powerless political minority.

I&#039;ve said this for a long time - if you aren&#039;t willing to go to war over abortion, then you must be willing to compromise UNTIL final victory can be achieved.  With half the country currently in favor of keeping abortion legal and less than a quarter willing to ban it in ALL cases, I doubt we would win Civil War Pt. II.

The only other option is effective inertia. But this brings me to Pinky&#039;s point.

Pinky,

I totally agree that the non-political activist is doing their part. Sidewalk counseling, alternatives, CPCs, educational programs and events - all are essential. No political pragmatist would reject any of them. I have great respect for people who engage in that work.

But as I said in my post, if the ultimate goal is to acquire LEGAL recognition of the human rights of the unborn, the final victory has to be a political one. It isn&#039;t our only goal - our immediate goals are always to help people who are in need and save what lives we can, and we don&#039;t need politicians for that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve,</p>
<p>You can&#8217;t just lump in the Civil War with &#8220;the civil rights movement.&#8221; The latter couldn&#8217;t have existed without the former, and the former was a bloody war that claimed tens of thousands of lives.</p>
<p>The notion that black people count as &#8220;3/5&#8243; of a human being to balance out the population differences between the states WAS a compromise &#8211; not some kind of hard position &#8211; without which the Constitution may not have been ratified. Those representatives of states that abolished slavery after the revolution had to choose between a racist Constitution or no Constitution.</p>
<p>A compromise is nothing but a temporary truce between opposing parties. It does not have to become the status quo &#8211; it remains in effect until one side gains the power to press on further. We have to remember that it is not only we who compromise &#8211; in recent years it has been the radical pro-aborts who have had to compromise because of our growing influence and power. The day will come when we no longer need to compromise at all, because they will have become a voiceless and powerless political minority.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve said this for a long time &#8211; if you aren&#8217;t willing to go to war over abortion, then you must be willing to compromise UNTIL final victory can be achieved.  With half the country currently in favor of keeping abortion legal and less than a quarter willing to ban it in ALL cases, I doubt we would win Civil War Pt. II.</p>
<p>The only other option is effective inertia. But this brings me to Pinky&#8217;s point.</p>
<p>Pinky,</p>
<p>I totally agree that the non-political activist is doing their part. Sidewalk counseling, alternatives, CPCs, educational programs and events &#8211; all are essential. No political pragmatist would reject any of them. I have great respect for people who engage in that work.</p>
<p>But as I said in my post, if the ultimate goal is to acquire LEGAL recognition of the human rights of the unborn, the final victory has to be a political one. It isn&#8217;t our only goal &#8211; our immediate goals are always to help people who are in need and save what lives we can, and we don&#8217;t need politicians for that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

