Gothamist: NYers Show Up in Force for Pope Benedict, Even Giuliani

starrygordon

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:36:53 -0500

A group can reasonably call itself "pro-life" only if it strictly opposes all forms of killing, certainly of human beings and maybe of all sentient beings. The Roman Catholic Church touches some pro-life bases but not all; it opposes abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment, but by and large it has supported Just War doctrine, which allows for the killing of large numbers of human beings under certain circumstances. If the RCC were all that we were talking about, there might be some reasonable argument for giving them a pass on the phraseology, although I doubt if I could be convinced. Many anti-abortion groups, however, are quite enthusiastic about war and capital punishment, so as a whole anti-abortionists cannot be possibly called "pro-life" with any sort of accuracy. It just isn't the truth; it's deceptive labeling. Additionally, when we use the term anti-abortionist we almost always mean not only those who think abortion is a bad thing, but those who believe that State power should be used against those who seek or perform abortions. I'll remind you that State power includes and depends upon its basic power to imprison and kill. In referring to the aesthetics of abortion, I'm just noticing the content of the discourse -- what it seems to be about when it comes to my attention. The anti-abortionists whose utterances I observe generally avoid the political issues and focus on morals and aesthetics. That's why I said the two sides are talking past one another, and why there can be no compromise between them. It's force against force.

drliving

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:27:28 -0500

Re: 19 Given the fact that your first post was meant to point out a perceived discrepancy, that Rudy is 'pro-choice', not 'pro-abortion', I find it a little ironic that you are now informing me that my position is 'anti-abortion' and not 'pro-life.' The designation is important, and the correct term for the Catholic worldview in regards to abortion and pregnancy is 'pro-life.' We believe this, because we think a fetus is a human life, and should be accorded the same dignity and respect as any other human person. Catholics are not concerned with the aesthetics of surgical procedures, although that may be your own view. Its interesting to note, also, that many media outlets have guidelines by which reporters are required to refer to 'pro-life' groups as 'anti-abortion.'

Tim N.

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:38:34 -0500

Upon looking out on the crowd Pope Benedict was seen to smile and feel the warmth of the group, until he could spot the balding pate of Rudolph Giuliani bobbing its way towards the front row, at which point he quietly gestured to Cardinal Egan to come over to his presider chair. Egan, still smarting from a right cross to the nose that His Holiness administered upon his landing in Gotham, scurried over and bend down to hear the words of the Holy Father. "Get that f***ing Nazi out of here," His Holiness was heard to whisper through clenched teeth. "I saw enough fascists as a kid and I DON'T need any now!" Fortunately for all concerned, the services concluded before anyone had to make a scene, but not before Benedict was heard to comment, "Guy's a friggin' bigger media whore than I am, for Christ's sake."

starrygordon

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:36:43 -0500

Both sides in this debate are mostly only interested in winning an argument than in trying to see the other's valid viewpoints, and that is what has grown tired starrygordon. The pro-choice and anti-abortion discourses (not "pro-life", anti-abortion) have different focuses. The anti-abortion discourse focuses on the life of the fetus and the unaesthetic qualities of the surgical operations associated with abortion, which are held to subordinate all other concerns, whereas the pro-choice discourse is about limiting the power of the State. I don't see any common ground or any possibility of common ground.

Editrixie

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:26:47 -0500

Correction of typo: should be "coerced."

Editrixie

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:24:24 -0500

TXinBklyn: Pro-choicers support a women's right to CHOOSE (duh). That includes having an abortion or NOT. Supporting choice means supporting CHOICE, not advocating only for abortion. It means giving a woman all information on every option before her in order to make an informed decision. It means that it is up to the woman faced with the decision to be the one who makes that decision - not any church and not the courts. And, as long as the woman is informed and is not corrced against her will to do something she doesn't wish to do, it means supporting that woman's choice not to have an abortion equally as much as having one. Calling pro-choice "pro-abortion" is ignorant. Calling anti-abortionists "pro-life" is ignorant, too. Furthermore, opinions on "morals" are totally subjective.

bjornsaucey

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:39:13 -0500

It would have been a miracle had Il Papa cured the kid's MS. Until he shits in the woods, I don't care, right?

TXinBklyn

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:12:36 -0500

Thanks Holy Father for visiting and blessing us. "And any idiot knows that pro-choice is NOT the same as pro-abortion." Only someone who has allowed ignorance to rule their minds and morals think their is a distinction between the two. If someone was pro-nazi could you then say that they were not pro-Holocaust?

drliving

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:09:40 -0500

Re: 13 ?

kapusta

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:27:11 -0500

The catholic church is just another political party. Politics and religion are equal. No difference. Mr.Pope is just another politician on the make. P.S. It's not the popemobile, it's the Popecycle.

Albert Sharpton

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:55:30 -0500

Paypal looks like a Klans member here.

Editrixie

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:20:13 -0500

What ignorance to call a prayer said by a man who runs a superstitious and corrupt organization a "miracle." People are fools. And any idiot knows that pro-choice is NOT the same as pro-abortion.

Armchair_warrior

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:58:50 -0500

http://jdoe.fstudio.com/images/emperor.pope.jpg

Kojak

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:56:57 -0500

Just SWELL drliving. I'm just so ENERGIZED at the coming of our Holy Father. Praise the Lord. lol and yes dooWOP. Can't he put his hand somewhere else? Thats what armrests are for.

drliving

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:38:27 -0500

Re: 2 and 6 I beg to defer that starrygordon has made a "good point." The Church is opposed to abortion because it believes that a child in the womb is a human person and that it is the responsibility of all to protect life, especially the vulnerable and marginalized. The Church is adamant about pro-life issues, because it feels that children in the womb are the most vulnerable and are in the most need of having someone defend them. The Church's teaching on life issues is a seamless garment, that is why the Church opposes the death penalty, unjustified wars like the one in Iraq, and it is why the Church is the world's leader in giving to the poor, caring for the sick, especially those with HIV/AIDS. The Church backs up her beliefs about abortion with reasoned argument. And we also feel that this issue is important, because what the law says about abortion and life issues goes a long way to forming the character of people in society and contributes to a larger worldview. In the Church's eyes, a society that accepts abortion as a legal right encourages a negative type of individualism that encourages people to consider moral action solely in regards to how it affects themselves without concern for others, whereas the Church thinks that a society which rejects abortion as legal encourages the individual in society to see how ensconced s/he is in a community of others and how his actions must account for this responsibility. Is it possible to disagree with the Church on abortion? Yes. That is one of the things about what living in a society like ours is about; we shape our society laws and ethics through a consensus. But this requires honest and charitable dialogue. People on both sides of this debate have for too long failed to see one another's viewpoints, such that now both sides of the abortion debate mostly only see a caricature of one another's actual views. Pro-lifers are definitely guilty of this too, of trying to see the legitimate reasons others have for supporting a woman's legal right to an abortion, and because of that, we have failed to also come up with an adequate solution to this issue that authentically addresses women's rights and their dignity. Both sides in this debate are mostly only interested in winning an argument than in trying to see the other's valid viewpoints, and that is what has grown tired starrygordon. That pro-life groups seek to make abortion illegal does not mean that they see "all who believe in reproductive freedom are slavering to maximize abortion." I know that this is a bit of diatribe, but its just my way of saying hello to Kojak...how you doing?

dooWOP

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:15:57 -0500

Note the mischievious look by the pope and where his left hand is placed.

Jen Chung

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:01:16 -0500

starrygordon--good point and taken.

nivek

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:58:12 -0500

#1 and Regis

Fritzdecat

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:50:09 -0500

Interesting body language from Rudy in the above picture. He looks like he is trying to keep his lips shut with his thumb and forefinger...?

Kojak

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:46:03 -0500

Its not my intention to sound corny and gay, but that story about the Secret Service Agent & little boy with muscular dystrophy was touching.

starrygordon

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:12:58 -0500

I hate to defend Rudy, but he's pro-choice, not pro-abortion. That all who believe in reproductive freedom are slavering to maximize abortion is a canard of the Right which really needs to be retired -- it's worn out.

Armchair_warrior

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:01:02 -0500

he still looks like the emperor of star wars lol.