Cardinal Wuerl: abortion remains 'the fundamental basic issue' [CC]


In an interview with Newsmax TV, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington said that abortion “remains the fundamental basic issue” in an election year.

“One reason it strikes me, one reason why we are so casual in our country with violence, we see violence exercised with such ease, such disrespect for human life,” he said on January 11.



Well, there we go!

Now can the lame, selfish excuses for voting for pro-abortion politicians please stop?


so cardinal wuerl is blaming abortion for violence in our society? singling out this issue is an effective way to influence voters but given the fact it will never be made illegal, im not sure it makes any difference.

blindly voting GOP hasn’t stopped abortions: ronald reagan signed the “theraeutic abortion act” as governor of California.


It’s not directly responsible for the increase in violence in our country, but having the government acknowledge someone has a “right” to kill their child certainly sends some messages about how little we respect life, and a low respect for life leads to increased violence.


But the GOP has several restricted its expansion, and in many cases curbed it. Look at the outrage about the laws requiring admitting privileges and facility standards, and the supposed “chilling effect” it has on access to abortion. There have even been reports of clinics shutting down because of the laws. Name a single Democrat in support of those laws. Every single one was proposed by a Republican and passed by GOP majorities.

Second, you’ll note how Reagan recognized his mistake and changed. Hey may have legalized abortion in CA, but he made efforts to undermine it while president. The Mexico City policy was created in his administration. And guess what? Every single Democrat administration has rescinded it, and every single GOP administration re-instated it.

So, let’s quit pretending that the GOP does nothing and that the Democrats, if they had their way, wouldn’t wildly expand it.


Let’s see, many abortion states in Republican states or at least with big Republican presence like Wisconsin and even New Jersey have seen abortion clinics shut, planned parenthood defunded and the rates go down. States like Missouri have one remaining clinic.

As to what Reagan did, he could have been trying to make the abortion law less lenient by signing a more stringent bill:

But make no mistake, if one votes for some politicians, they are voting and promoting and enabling abortion. It is all up to our consciences and likewise, we humans should not judge each other but such statements as above should have a response.

What Reagan did was in 1967; what is the excuse for the blocking of Judge Robert Borke on the Supreme Court when Reagan was trying to overturn Roe v. Wade in the 1980s?


A new report in the Lancet confirms yet again that laws restricting access to abortions are not the best way to discourage abortions. It just drives women to unsafe means.

The global abortion rate was stable between 2003 and 2008, with rates of 29 and 28 abortions per 1000 women aged 15–44 years, respectively, following a period of decline from 35 abortions per 1000 women in 1995. The average annual percent change in the rate was nearly 2·4% between 1995 and 2003 and 0·3% between 2003 and 2008. Worldwide, 49% of abortions were unsafe in 2008, compared to 44% in 1995. About one in five pregnancies ended in abortion in 2008. The abortion rate was lower in subregions where more women live under liberal abortion laws (p<0·05).

The substantial decline in the abortion rate observed earlier has stalled, and the proportion of all abortions that are unsafe has increased. Restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. Measures to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion, including investments in family planning services and safe abortion care, are crucial steps toward achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

(Emphasis added. Full text available for free, but you do have to register.)

Education and availability of contraception work better. I know you guys don’t like contraception, but isn’t it better than abortion? Especially as we are necessarily talking about women who are not orthodox Catholics.


We have laws against rape, and I am sure that such laws drive men to rape in unsafe ways. That does not mean that rape should be legalized.


Subtle. But an abortion commercial. Return to Post 2. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.


It’s not directly responsible for the increase in violence in our country, but having the government acknowledge someone has a “right” to kill their child certainly sends some messages about how little we respect life, and a low respect for life leads to increased violence.

one would think there’s a connection, but violence is a complex problem that can be related to many things. i guess id like to see some empirical evidence that abortion is releated to overall violence in a society.


The report, dated 2012 so possibly not “new” is taken to task here. These kinds of studies are always debated.

WHO/Lancet Paper Inflates Number of Illegal Abortions

New York, NY (CFAM/LifeNews) — A widely publicized report in The Lancet medical journal calling for the legalization of abortion contained inflated numbers, flawed data collection and highly misleading language.

The recent article on “Induced Abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008” updates abortion estimates to show progress on improving maternal health. The Alan Guttmacher Institute and staffers with the World Health Organization claim the number of unsafe abortions per 1,000 women has risen from 44% to 49% between 1995 and 2008 while the global abortion rate has declined from 29 to 28 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age. “Unsafe abortions” are concentrated in developing countries. In Middle and Western Africa 100% of abortions are deemed “unsafe.” Presenting various statistics, the authors call for increased efforts to legalize abortion and expand investment in contraception in developing countries.

However, the paper suffers from three main faults. First, the authors use quasi-legal rather than medical definitions. Second, the authors use problematic data collection. Third, the authors have manipulated the data non-transparently. These recurring problems in World Health Organization (WHO) data on maternal mortality have been well documented by Donna J. Harrison, M.D.

Though not a WHO paper per se, much of the Lancet article draws on previous WHO studies, with the estimation of unsafe abortions “developed and commissioned by WHO.” The WHO defines “unsafe” abortion as “a procedure for terminating an unintended pregnancy carried out either by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both.”

Read more at:

Here, another study by Lancet was taken to task and this physician even seemed to say Lancet had an agenda:

A leading Belgian cancer physician will tell an international symposium in Dublin on maternal health this week that induced abortion does nothing to improve the prognosis of pregnant women with cancer. Described by The Lancet as “leading the agenda on cancer on pregnancy” Professor Frédéric Amant will say, “In the case of cancer complicating pregnancy, termination of pregnancy does not improve the maternal prognosis.”


It involves killing an innocent child, how is that NOT violence?


I do wonder if there is a correlation between the group where abortions are most frequent; that from data one reads would be the African American community and at the same time, one could say some cities with sizable African American populations do seem to have a crime problem. So in this, I believe the good Cardinal’s words may well bear out a truth on this subject.

It seems to be a bit of the? What do they call it? Throw away society or something?


I’d like some evidence that America is more violent. According to the FBI, we are less violent than we have ever been (with the exception of police violence). This is a world wide trend. Were there a lot of abortions in the wild west?



The article you cited has the built-in false pre-supposition that the pre-born human is NOT a person.

Thus the phony distinction between “safe” and “unsafe” abortions.

This is bogus “research”.

Cardinal Wuerl is right. Abortion “remains the fundamental basic issue”.

Abortion “remains the fundamental basic issue”, because of life’s centrality as a human right.

God bless.


. . . To date, estimates of safe and unsafe abortion worldwide have only been made for 1995 and 2003. . . .

. . . Safe abortion estimates were based largely on official statistics and nationally representative surveys. . . .

There is no such thing as “safe abortion”.


What does contraception work better for?

Regarding contraception, there is question about whether various forms of contraception can act as an abortifacient. This is regarding the contraceptive pill:

WHO said in 2000:

Abortion statistics are notoriously incomplete. Where induced abortion is restricted or illegal, its occurrence can be estimated only indirectly.51 As there are no feasible data collection methods that can reliably reflect the overall burden of unsafe abortion, one is left to work with incomplete information on incidence and mortality from community studies or hospitals. This is then adjusted to correct for misreporting and under-reporting, using information on abortion laws and their application, providers of unsafe abortion, common methods of unsafe abortion and other pertinent information. The adjustments depend largely on the methods commonly used to perform the abortion, and assumptions about the relative incidence of unsafe abortion in rural and urban areas.

My emphases.


It’s just a few days until the 43rd annual March for Life in Washington D.C.

I wonder if Cardinal Wuerl will be there. Or any of the Presidential candidates of either party.

Scheduled to speak (i.e. invited to by the leadership of the March this time) is Carly Fiorina.

Rick Santorum tends to go every year whether he speaks or is just a marcher … though so far Breitbart has only affirmed Fiorina as being there for sure this time. In 2015 Santorum, a non-speaker, was the only prospective candidate for President publicly seen at the March.

[size=]Carly Fiorina to Speak at ‘Pro-Life, Pro-Woman’
March for Life Rally in D.C.

For all the lip service pro-life gets during the Iowa primaries, I’m surprised more of the LARGE field of GOP candidates (at least) wouldn’t go there to add at least morale support to this yearly phenomenon (that yearly gets ignored by the MSMedia despite its size and location).

Besides Fiorina, the other most prominent politicians confirmed to be there will be

Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA)
Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) and
State Senator Sheila Jackson Broome (D-LA) …

at 3:30 pm January 22, marchers are encouraged to see their Senators or Congresspersons.

Representing Christian clergy will be

His Eminence Metropolitan Evangelos, Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops.

I hope some Catholic Bishops or priests are there … maybe Cardinal Wuehrl himself as this is in his Diocese?

At last years’ West Coast Walk for Life (this year it’s on Saturday, January 23 in San Francisco) Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone made an appearance.

closed #18

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