NCR, hardly pro-life, hijacks pro-life language

The poll-challenged Fishwrap‘s editor has piped up with this: “The pro-life challenge of gun control”

I respond with what I wrote about the dopey piece by their same site’s Sr. Maureen Fiedler HERE.

NCR doesn’t defend the unborn.

People who don’t defend the unborn don’t get a free pass when they hijack the language of the pro-life movement.

Let NCR name “The Unborn” their “Person of the Year” and they might be able to disspell some of their hypocrisy.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to NCR, hardly pro-life, hijacks pro-life language

  1. benedetta says:

    They convince no one of their commitment to prolife but themselves.

  2. Fr. Martin did get one thing right in his article in America:

    gun control is a religious issue.”

    If an individual is going to be lawfully armed with a firearm for the protection of self, and of others, it is vital that the individual practice rigorous gun control. This would include:

    • Assume a comfortable but solid body position from which to shoot,
    • Ensure proper sight alignment prior to putting your finger on the trigger,
    • Squeeze, don’t jerk, the trigger;

    And of course, always observe Col. Jeff Cooper’s four rules of firearms safety:

    1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
    2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
    3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.
    4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

    If you can’t follow those rules religiously, you should not carry a firearm for protection, whether of self or of others. You should stick with swords instead, but that is another topic.

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  3. wmeyer says:

    NCR, hardly honest, hijacks language for every cause they espouse. In other news, sun rose in the east.

  4. benedetta says:

    Well there are assumptions Fr. Martin is making about prolife and gun control that are strange…first, I always thought their position was that prolife being a religious issue was disqualified from advocating in the public square: the annointed position of Cuomo, Biden, Pelosi etc, that they do not impose their religious beliefs on others’ constitutional rights.

    I am surprised that while they buy all that when it comes to slaughter of tens of millions of innocents in and slightly out or even entirely out, as it is happening more and more, of the womb, they all of a sudden renounce that viewpoint to say that their religious beliefs serve as a foundation for advocacy of changes in gun laws.

    So, if they are prolife, and they want to be prolife then their only logical next step is to also say that precisely because of their religious views they advocate for the abolishment of human abortion (Joe Biden “I accept what the Church teaches”) and that the previously held position of “no imposing my personal religious beliefs on the populus” was an (grievous) error. This is a real game changer!

    However though I would note for them another aspect: being against murder is really something that all civilizations and creeds have agreed upon. Prolifers can and do make the argument all the time that one need not cite to expressly Catholic or even Christian beliefs, or any religious beliefs, to defend the cause of the innocent and helpless unborn from the vile abortionist’s attack. As a matter of fact there are a fair number of atheists, people of no particular belief in God or creed, who advocate for prolife. This is just basic humanitarian values, and being opposed to torturing and murdering, well, each other…

  5. pmullane says:

    It amazes me that rational adult human beings think that people who use guns to rob petrol stations/kill rival gang members/take revenge on society would respect laws banning the possession of guns. It’s similar to the credulity of those who think that an african who sleeps with prostitutes would obey the churches teaching on the use of contraception.

    We in the UK have a total ban on handguns, and guess what? There are more handguns than ever, all illegally held by criminals. Because you know what criminals don’t respect? Laws. Who’d have guessed. So I live in a country where children shoot at each other in the middle of the night because the only role models young boys have are drug dealers and pimps. You know what’s pro life? Being able to defend a school full of children from an armed maniac. Instead modernists who want to destroy manhood and wussify our culture cede ground to the violent bully who has disdain for the law. Good work.

  6. benedetta says:

    Well as usual with this crowd, they go right to one select issue to the denial of all the other obvious factors that contributed to this mess. As we have been discussing on the other thread in terms of the way American liberalism can’t bear to look at the damage brought on by their actions. Along with the concern about access to guns by those who shouldn’t have them, I would like to see a real examination of the deeper causes by this group of leaders of the American Church. Their side won the election, and will of course listen to them on this (once again, the Boomer crowd has an opportunity laid in their lap) whereas the other side will be shut out from contributing much at all. It’s their responsibility to address the problem. When the guns are gone we will have knife rampages as atheist/pro abortion China does, unless our leaders properly address the systemic issues.

    There seems a fair number of bloggers who have decided that politics is not appropriate for discussion after the tragedy, and particularly that prolife has nothing to say in response. I don’t disagree that there must be mourning, but I think the bloggers who indict people’s anger are too quick to disqualify that anger and holy anger as a part and process of the grieving process, and, in some cases, a movement of the Holy Spirit. I think there is a general denial about death in this country and in general the death of the unborn which goes unspoken is a huge denial. Prolifers are in the grips of the same kind of rage that people responding to this tragedy go through, on a daily basis, because they see the truth that what has been killed is an actual child, and not some verbiage or legal definition of one nor one whether desired or not nor a clump of some cells. Just as the murderer dehumanized these poor victims, abortionists and the legalisms that protect his acts dehumanize children daily and only prolifers recognize or mourn their passing. So I think collectively what prolifers were saying on Friday and Saturday was “Yeah, we are mad as hell and are sick of this!” That many wish they would just once again shut up is another symptom of the denial that grips this country when it comes to what our entrance in to the world, as little ones contained in a womb, is all about.

    Children are in general being commodified, sexualized, victimized more than ever before. To only deal with the gun aspect would be such a failure in my mind to seize an opportunity to change.

  7. dominic1955 says:

    Is it any wonder? They would rather be taken care of by Holy Mother State anyway.

    As to their “pro-life” stance (recently found, hallelujah…), it strikes me odd that they can him and haw about abortion as if it had all the moral import of drinking. I hardly find “gun control” pro-life. Totalitarians love unarmed populaces-it just makes their ruling with an iron fist that much easier. Look at all the life loving societies like China and the former Soviet Union and their peaceful paradises with extremely restricted civilian gun ownership. Oh, wait, never mind.

    Speaking of which, the Red Chinese actually had the nerve to say we need to restrict citizen’s gun rights, appealing to the “blood and tears” of innocents. That has to be the most offensively hypocrtical thing I’ve read in awhile. This is the Chicom government, which forces women to abort under their 1 child policy. The same ones that mowed down protesters in cold blood at Tiananmen Square. The same government that has the blood of untold millions of innocent people on its hand, who’s only crime was their perceived resistance to the foolish commie plans of Mao and his cohorts.

    There are the equivalent of how many Newtown massacres per hour because of abortion? Catholic liberals-can it, save your crocodile tears for St. Peter.

    There have been the equivalent of how many Newtown massacres because of the policies of Communist China? Chinese government-you are one of the most evil regimes the world has known, you have no business saying a peep about the polices of any country.

  8. Scott W. says:

    Frankly, we shouldn’t balk at being “anti-abortion” because it is specific. “Pro-life” is a moniker that lends itself to mission creep. I can’t imagine 19th-century abolitionists having much use for being called “pro-freedom”.

    If one concentrates precisely on the act that is objectionable and keeps it vivid: namely, that reaching into a womb with forceps and ripping an innocent human being to shreds is evil, then pro-abortionists will be too busy trying to weave fog around the concrete act to indulge in “well if you were really pro-life, you would support [insert pet government entitlement program non sequitur]”

  9. Jackie L says:

    @ Scott W.
    I agree and have welcomed the anti-abortion tag myself.

  10. Suburbanbanshee says:

    China has had many, many cases of knife-wielding maniacs killing scores of children and teachers in schools. The major difference is that some of their slasher maniacs actually kill higher numbers of people than our gun-wielding ones.

    Buuuuut we don’t hear 24 hours of news coverage about the mad Chinese slashers and cleavers.

    The history of crime has also had large numbers of mad clubbers, mad bombers, mad stranglers and garrotters, mad gassers, mad mass poisoners, and so on. Those without guns just get creative.

  11. nykash says:

    @Martial Artist Well said! That’s how I was taught by my father… a gun is a serious matter.

    I grow tired of the nonsense from Fishwrap and similar publications and individuals. Aiding the poor through contraception is not pro-life. Gun control is not pro-life. I was sickened when I heard a Senator (who’s name I forgot) decry how terrible it is that children died. Yes, it’s absolutely terrible.

    So are the deaths of 53 million through abortion since 1973.

  12. benedetta says:

    Good point Scott W. If you are pro choice and pro abortion then it would be impossible for you to also be prolife. Anti abortion is correct.

  13. acricketchirps says:

    Also agree with Scott W. I’m quite unashamed to be characterised as “anti-choice” (on abortion and other homicides) too.

  14. tioedong says:

    Actually, most gun deaths in the US are in the inner city, and most shooter or victims are gang members.
    When the NCR figures out that enforcing gun laws on gangs might work, instead of taking guns from hunters, then they’d have credibility.
    And when they write editorials on the carnage in our inner cities, maybe I’ll believe they care about children.

  15. Pingback: Congratulations to the Great Nation of Colombia! | Big Pulpit

  16. sciencemom says:

    Re: Scott W’s comment — I see your point, but I disagree. Here’s why:
    1. anti-abortion is specific, but doesn’t really cover it. Aren’t we also against euthanasia, assisted suicide, embryo-destructive stem-cell research, ….? “Pro-life” conveys the idea that we respect the (God-given) value of human life in all circumstances.

    2. The fact that the likes of Fishwrap are trying to co-opt the term only means that it resonates with the general public. It’s not a coincidence that left-leaning folks are trying to grab the pro-life mantle only after polling has revealed that a majority now self-identifies as pro-life. “Pro-choice” was considered quite the PR coup back in the day. The fact that these folks are trying to call themselves pro-life instead speaks volumes. Let’s not let them simply take over the term after we’ve done all the hard work to make it valuable!

    3. It’s just like the term “social justice” — how strange it is that anyone can speak of social justice while completely avoiding all the life issues! And yet, there it is. I don’t want to see the same happen to “pro-life” — yet that is exactly what Fishwrap and the Fishwrap of Record are setting out to do. Language matters, and they are trying to semantically take back the moral high ground with this move. That, and confuse people into thinking they are truly pro-life when they are emphatically not. I, for one, will not abandon the term to those who wish to abuse it for their political / ideological purposes.

    PS Sorry for the delay — I only just got my Fr Z credentials!