Are abortion, death penalty, and other moral issues only important in American politics?

I heard recently that things like abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, and other “moral problems” are only talked about in American politics. To be honest, just from watching the news these things are some of the most talked about topics during presidential elections. But I was surprised when I heard from a Canadian academic that these issues aren’t talked about in Canada or Europe. These are just not things that politicians will sit and argue about in these other countries.

What do you guys think of this? Is it true?

Also, just to throw it out there, does it really matter if a politician says they are against abortion. Bush was against abortion, was president for 8 years, and didn’t do a thing about it while in office. These people might say they are against abortion to get the conservative Christian vote, but if they don’t do anything about it, what good is it?

I posted earlier that I believe that “moral” issues such as abortion and homosexuality should be regarded as in-group voluntary forms of social conduct. While abortion maybe considered immoral, it is not prohibited by the rule of law whose purpose is not to enforce morality maintain order conducive for the welfare of its citizens.

Perhaps countries such as Canada and European social democracies are more concerned about the provision of public goods and the maintenance of their culture for foreigners reflecting the concerns of the left and right respectively over abortion.

I live in Canada, and I’d say it’s mostly true. If I remember, there was an issue where the Conservative party wanted to put the issue of gay marriage to an open vote. I remember (somewhat vaguely) the Conservative leader reassuring Canadians that abortion would not be an issue for his party.

It’s pretty interesting to watch Canadian and American news. American news are filled with screaming “opinion” people, discussing “controversial” issues like the ones you mentioned, often on a very superficial and sometimes even misleading level.

Canadian news is much more calm, full of specific stories about specific goings on in specific parts of Canada. There are no analogues of someone like O’Reilly or Maddow on Canadian TV.

In my travels, it’s mostly true.

If true, it is because most of the world is post- (that is anti-) Christian.

I don’t agree with that.

Just because people aren’t always having a flaming debate on these issues 24/7 doesn’t mean they are “anti-Christian”.

I always saw countries with strong social safety nets as far more Christian in the way that counts.

It’s very cheap for those in power to sing songs about how evil abortion and homosexuality are, it costs them very little, and pays homage to Christian values held by voters.

However, it costs to do the thing that Jesus said to do: give up your extra shirt to the brother that doesn’t have one. This those same people are very opposed to, and hold on dearly to their vast wealth.

Europe, and to a lesser extent Canada take very good care of the “least of us”, the poor, the sick are protected in these societies, which in my opinion is far more Christian than mouthing off about making an amendment to ban gay marriage while at the same time selling out the poor and the middle class to the wealthy elite backers.

When the EU Supreme Court court ordered Italy to take down crucifixes in classrooms, that was most certainly anti-Christian. You can disagree with that if you like, but if you do, you will need to prove how attacking Christianity is not anti-Christian.

:confused:…That’s not even what we’re talking about.

But to address it…

By having crucifixes in classrooms…That’s anti-Jewish,Islam,Hindu,Buddhist etc etc.

By taking them down it wasn’t “anti-Christian” nor was it “attacking Christianity”.

Do you want you to put up pictures of Muhammad,Budda or Hindu Gods up our schools?

No…You’d protest and call that “anti-Christian” as well.

The EU ‘Supreme Court’ did nothing of the sort, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the EU or any of its various bodies.

lol…no. That is not why. It is because Christians in other countries don’t want religion to effect their politics.

GREAT point.

Separation of church and state is not anti Christian. How is that fair to non Christians in Italy that a crucifix is in every classroom? There have been lots of things that have been stopped in America for similar reasons.

When you take away my freedoms and use the excuse that it is because you are trying to enforce tolerance, what you are really doing is being intolerant of me. It is intolerant to force so-called diversity. Those who promote this "diversity, are, in fact, the most intolerant of of all.

To claim otherwise is to be fooled, foolish or dishonest.

You need to be better informed. This made news around the world. Even Japan wrote about it.

This ruling was celebrated by the norotious Catholic baiter Richard Dawkins.

It is you who needs to be better informed. The ruling was made by the European Court of Human Rights which is not an EU body, it was set up by a separate treaty. For example, Switzerland is not a member of the EU but it is a member of the ECHR.

Your mistake is a common one. The EU is the most well known pan-European organisation but it is not the only such organisation. The ECHR is separate from the EU.


How would you feel if in every classroom in America there was a statue of vishnu? Would you be upset if they took all the statues of vishnu out of the classrooms too?

If I moved to a country whose history was wrapped up with Vishnu and they had statues of Vishnu and because of their worship of Vishnu they gave me free medical care, I would not be upset that they had those statues.

However, it seems that in Italy there are those who want to wipe out the source of those “Christian” virtues which are supposedly exemplified in their cradle-to-grave support by the government.

The reason that these things are not discussed in those countries is that the people who bring them up have been appeased: what they want is now the law.

Also, just to throw it out there, does it really matter if a politician says they are against abortion. Bush was against abortion, was president for 8 years, and didn’t do a thing about it while in office. These people might say they are against abortion to get the conservative Christian vote, but if they don’t do anything about it, what good is it?

Bush did accomplish some things wrt abortion. However, he did not use his presidency to educate the people, nor did he advocate the use of certain ploys to get what he said he wanted into law regardless of what the American people said they wanted.

The Catholic Church has consistently taught that She is a part of the social order. When the Church is functioning well in a society, She is a force for good, and provides a social “safety net” for the people. Moreover, the Church provides an outside counter-balance to the otherwise boundless desire for power of the government.

This is how Europe was during the Middle Ages. When the Protestant Revolt occurred, and the Church’s properties–the monasteries which helped the poor and sick, for example,–were stolen by the greedy rulers who turned themselves and their people away from the Church, the safety net of the people was gone.

Now we have a situation in which there is no check upon governmental power, no basis for morality other than what people feeeeeel, and a totally inadequate and unworkable safety net for those in need.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit