Assailed for my pro-life belifs!

I got an email from one of my cousins saying that “Obama and Warren support the rights of working people,” but they are pro-choice. I believe that being pro-life is part of Catholic social justice, but my family members are telling me to “look at the whole picture,” the “seamless garment,” as they say.
I’m a pro-life Democrat, but I am disgusted by the way the Democrats are behaving today. They have helped build social programs that help poor and working families, but they won’t defend the right to life. I try to tell this to my family, but they always beat me down. And when I talk about traditional marraige, I’m always being asked, “Why don’t you want people of the same sex to marry? This is 2012!”
The Republicans won’t help working families, the Democrats won’t defend the right to life. What am I, a pro-life Democrat, to do when I try to defend my views in the face of a family who just doesn’t understand?

all you can really do is keep fighting the good fight. the ratio of people who are pro-life or pro-choice in this country is almost 1:1 and the issue is very divisive and passionate. same goes from same-sex so-called, “marriage.” hugs we’re all facing these kinds of obstacles when we voice our pro-life and traditional marriage beliefs. just keep being respectful, keep being rational in your discussions, and know that you’re not alone. :slight_smile:

I would simply tell them that you HAVE looked at the whole picture and you cannot support Obama…I mean - it isn’t like we just LOVE the guy except for one or two things…

I get kind of fed up with people accusing pro-life people of being “single issue voters”…How many of these accusers are themselves “single issue voters”…the issue being their own pocketbook.

Much of this election - and many other elections over the decades - has been about the economy. Why? because the party pollsters have told the candidates that this is what the people are most interested in…In other words, a single issue…the economy = their pocketbook.


The “seamless garment”, as proposed by Cardinal Bernardin, has often been misunderstood and misapplied by many “liberal” Catholics. This is not the late Cardinal’s fault; he had a good idea, but his “followers” took it to absurd lengths.

In the Gospel of St. John, Christ tells us that He came “that we might have life, and have it in all its fullness”. Note the order of terms. Life is a gift from God, and we are not permitted to take innocent life under any circumstances. Those who argue for “social programs” (which have their own flaws; I’ll come to that later if you want) forget what Christ himself said; one must have life before one can have the “fullness” that these “social programs” try to bring.

Put another way: Existence is an absolute good. Even those of us who lack the “fullness” of life, either materially or spiritually, are often loth to give it up. None of us would say that
a mentally retarded child, or a disabled elderly person, should give up his life so that others might enjoy the “fullness” thereof. To place “fullness” before “life” is to deny the intentions of the Creator in giving us the gift of life, and to fly in the face of what Jesus himself taught us.

And as for “same-sex marriage”, it’s perhaps no coincidence that the nature of marriage appears almost at the very beginning of the Bible, in Genesis 2. This is ratified through the laws of Moses, and by the time of Christ, it is clear that marriage is between one man and one woman, that they may become “one flesh”, and that they may have “God-given offspring” (Malachi 2). In Homosexual acts provide physical pleasure, and nothing else. They are a perversion of God’s gift of fertility and of union between a man and a woman. In his greatest epistle, St. Paul mentions homosexuality as one of the first and gravest sins that are consequent on turning away from God. Therefore, they can never be supported by Christ or His Church.

Finally, politics is a messy, real-world field. No political party is ever perfect. But, as I’ve outlined above, some evils (the taking of life) are far graver than others, and are not “negotiable”. As I’ve said earlier, you guys are lucky to have a pro-life party out there; we Indians haven’t had that luxury since the 1970s. :frowning:

Gosh, what do you mean? I’ve always loved that distinctive Chicago style of politics… :slight_smile: And I love his subtle to attempt to change the Constitution’s “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship.”

It’s hard to think of someone I would not vote for before I would vote for Obama. Basically the best thing about him is that he’s not Catholic. :smiley:


That’s why I register as an unaffiliated voter.

I’d like to clear something up… because something you said is dreadfully wrong (particularly given that in the game of who gives most to private charity, Republicans are winning). I think that Frederic Bastiat said it best:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. … We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting people to eat because we do not want the state to raise the grain."
– Frédéric Bastiat

There is certainly a difference of opinion between Republicans and Democrats on HOW social services should be delivered to the poor. The Republicans feel that charity by compulsion is wrong, that the government is inefficient at distributing social services (high cost to benefit ratio), and that the proper office of social services is on individuals in society (not the government). What republicans have NEVER said is that the poor should starve to death, or that the homeless should freeze and rot in the streets.

For example, I am a registered independent, but I am a fan of flat income tax at all levels (aka, no sales tax, no property tax, no gas tax, etc… just federal and state flat income tax). At first glance, one would say that this is incredibly pro “1%” and sacrifices the poor to having to pay income taxes they can’t afford… but the truth of the matter is that with a flat 18% federal income tax (plus some undefined state flat income tax) with NO deductions and NO additional “hidden” taxes, the poor would actually pay LESS of their income to taxes than they do presently. Furthermore, the capitol gains tax is one of the biggest scams in history… precisely because it serves as a cap to block the middle class from investing successfully enough to ever move into the upper class (who mostly make their money by hiring VERY saavy investors to manage their money for them).

So at the first glance, it would APPEAR that my flat tax position is pro-rich, when in truth it is very much about reducing taxes for EVERYONE (but only if you understand and have read up on “real tax burden” as a cultural phenomenon).

So to be sure, there is leeway for various approaches to cultural problems. Where we enter into issue is with non-negotiables: baby-killing being one key example. This isn’t a debate about means, it’s a debate about whether or not the wanton slaughter of even ONE innocent baby is allowable in our society (for reasons other than a threat to the life of the mother, and even then only a passive abortion is allowable under the principle of double effect). So you might explain to your family about the difference between a non-negotiable vs. a difference of opinions on how society is to provide what is already concluded as a good service (such as the debate between private charity and public government providing social services).

John the Baptist understood the sacredness of marriage. He payed with his life for speaking up to Herod. Jesus spoke highly of John the Baptist. He was a courageous, holy and righteous man. Many people will make secular arguments defending same-sex marriage and abortion. Sadly, including many Catholics.

Ask them why does a person have the right to anything necessary for life if that person does not have the right to live in the first place. The “ignore the right to life, focus on everything else” approach makes about as much sense to me as making sure the cart is in good repair but ignoring the fact that the horse is dead. You’ll have a great cart, but don’t expect to get anywhere with it.

Please remember that discussions of political parties or figures are not allowed in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation.

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