December 10, 2009

Caprio on Abortion

Justin Katz

Not to pick on gubernatorial candidate Frank Caprio, but he's been providing a lot of material, lately, such as the following, from Ed Fitzpatrick's recent column about the politician's experience as an unwed teenage father:

Did that experience inform his views on abortion? "I'm pro-choice because of all the experiences I've had in my life and the fact that I believe the individual has the right to make the decision," he said. "Each person can, in my view, be free to make their own choice. I know what choice I made and my girlfriend made, and others are free to make whatever choice they want to make."

One wonders what other circumstances Mr. Caprio believes give people the right to choose to kill. A crying newborn, perhaps? An ailing parent currently unconscious in a hospital bed? The Roman Catholic Church, to which he and I are both adherents, is unequivocal in its conclusion that life begins at conception and ends at natural death — full life, with no adjustments for "personhood" as a presumed state of being or socio-legal construct — and that the life of every human being ought to be protected. Caprio is free to take the position that his faith is a private matter, but if he wishes to be governor, he'll need to persuade Rhode Islanders that his judgment is sound, and reconciling his stated religious foundation with a right to kill is certainly relevant.

It's wonderful that Frank chose life when he had a direct role in making the decision, but how can he possibly look at his daughter through the eyes of a Catholic believer and still insist that his teenage girlfriend should have had the right to snuff out the life in her control for no reason but the inconvenience of motherhood?

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Tonight Conservative Sean Hannity, will again feature 2 time convicted felon, and friend of organized crime, Buddy Cianci, as a member of the "GREAT AMERICAN PANEL" ?

Fox Fake News 9:00 pm est

Posted by: Matt at December 10, 2009 3:47 PM

Why do these liberals believe in lenient sentencing but they don't believe in letting it go after someone has paid their debt to society? Buddy is not very likely to commit his crime again and he served his time that we as a society set up a process to give him. The man is free and clear. What's the big deal?

Sorry to help in hijacking your thread, Justin.

Posted by: Patrick at December 10, 2009 5:17 PM

It is the conservative Fox News

staring Buddy Cianci, great American ??

Posted by: matt at December 10, 2009 6:56 PM

Frank put his money where his mouth was when it came to being pro-life. Guess that's no longer enough for some people - I'm thankful that he doesn't need to impose his choice upon others.
He is making Dan Yorke look like a whining fool Somebody please tell Pope Daniel he's not the only media person in the world, and it doesn't all revolve around HIM.
I may yet wind up voting for the fifth-ranked conservative in Rhode Island.

Posted by: rhody at December 10, 2009 7:11 PM

Allowing others to choose their faith and choose their beliefs is what America is founded on. You can choose, as a Catholic or otherwise, to believe that abortion is killing. One can choose, likewise, to believe that it is not. To allow one to choose is the American way, regardless if you think it is wrong or right. And as long as the law of the land, the United States or the State of Rhode Island (formerly and Providence Plantations), is permissive, our elected officials are OBLIGATED to uphold the law.

I think the bigger issue should be the consequences of banning abortion. It is some 38 years since the Supreme Court left it up to states to decide, so many in this country do not recall the "killing" of women through illegally performed abortions. In countries where legal abortion is outlawed, the rate of death of pregnant women who have sought abortions from "back-alley abortionists" (remember, just because it is illegal does not mean it will stop) is horrific. Legally provided abortions are (generally) safe for the individual and, although it may be detestable to some, one "death" is clearly better than two. I hope that is something that can be agreed upon.

If a religious person wishes to express their displeasure for the permittivity of abortion, that is their Constitutionally-provided right. To ban an activity because one (or a group of ones) finds issue with that activity in a religious light imposes upon the first Amendment right of Freedom of Religion.

Mr. Caprio, as a public official, has an obligation to provide Rhode Islanders ALL rights ensured through the United States Constitution, which does not provide for one group to impose its religious views on another. Mr. Caprio CHOSE not to have an abortion; he may find it odious, as some may find opulence odious, but I do not see anyone illegalizing fact, we seem to embrace it in this culture despite its detrimental effect on the individual and upon other individuals who may suffer due to lack of sustenance. But I would not support outlawing opulence just because it is odious to me (although I may seek to ban it due to its impact on others). I would certainly never seek to impose MY religious beliefs to hinder YOUR religious beliefs. We live in a culture that requires tolerance of others and the views of others. Because Mr. Caprio adheres to a view of tolerance for the beliefs of others makes him a true American. If you believe that the Catholic god views this unfavorably, then Mr. Caprio may have some questions to answer in the afterlife. If Mr. Caprio were running for Bishop or Pope, then the application of Catholic doctrine applies, but as an elected official, he is beholden to the laws of this land, NOT the Catholic church. And if the Catholic church were the end all be all of morality, perhaps it would enforce the laws of the land on its own people and turn over all the child-molesting priests for punishment under Caesar's laws...and, of course, they have to answer to their god once they do pass.

Posted by: Paul at December 11, 2009 7:00 PM

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I dont understand how people can be pro choice. I have a question on my blog that I need answered to help clear his up.

Posted by: Jason at December 18, 2009 10:27 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.