Are there US politicans who fully uphold the Church's position on abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hokomai
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hokomai

Guest
Are there any politicians in the US who seek to establish laws fully in line with the Catholic position on abortion, including making unlawful abortion to save a mother’s life, abortion in the case of very young pregnant girls, in the case of incest etc? Or to all politicians in fact vary from the Church position to some extent? If so, how can any of them be supported by Catholics?
 
Uh, abortion to save a mother’s life isn’t forbidden to Catholics. I’m pretty sure that an ectopic pregnancy isn’t viable anyway. But suppose we didn’t need to outlaw abortion. Abortion rates are down in the USA. Suppose Catholics actually had the right to full media access that would allow further exposition of what abortion entails? What if abortion is eliminated, not in upholding the right to life per se, but in demanding FREE SPEECH?!? I’ve seen open heart surgery on television. Why no abortion? Let’s pray for better P.R. Having said that, the Democratic platform is pro-abortion, including so-called Partial Birth Abortion of late-term viable babies. And the Republican platform upholds our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we were a righteous nation, we would elect righteous leaders. But Catholics vote like their grandparents, and practice birth control and purchase abortions. The parties simply reflect our own failings.
 
Bishop Gracida:

*Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).

Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances. *

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6159
 
nordskoven said:
Uh, abortion to save a mother’s life isn’t forbidden to Catholics. I’m pretty sure that an ectopic pregnancy isn’t viable anyway.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, if the fetus is directly killed or expelled as the means of saving the life of the mother.
 
From what I understand there are very few times where the life of both child and mother can’t be saved. Eptopic pregnacies are one of those time, but the abortion of the fetus isn’t the main goal of the operation to remove the affected tube. It is a direct side effect of the surgery, but it cannot be helped. In cases like these it is permissible to perform surgeries, administer medicine, or other medical procedures where the life of the child will be lost, but is not the primary goal of the treatment. If a mother has cancer and takes her treatment and it does end the life of the child, that was not the first cause of the treatment. It was meant to cure cancer, not abort the child. As far as politians go, I do believe there are some, but couldn’t name one off the top of my head right now…
 
Hokomai said:
Are there any politicians in the US who seek to establish laws fully in line with the Catholic position on abortion, including making unlawful abortion to save a mother’s life, abortion in the case of very young pregnant girls, in the case of incest etc? Or to all politicians in fact vary from the Church position to some extent? If so, how can any of them be supported by Catholics?
Click to expand...
I’m fairly certain Ron Paul is inline with Catholic doctrine on abortion. His primary intent, however, seems to be to put abortion laws back into state control, where the people have the most influence, and where changes can be more easily made. So, I wouldn’t expect his administration to enact new abortion laws, but rather repeal existing ones, put it back into state control, and encourage states to outlaw all abortions.

ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/
 
My mother had an ectopic pregnancy in 1963. The fetus had no chance of survival. Neither did my mother without emergency medical care to remove the nonviable fetus. If my memory serves me correctly her fallopian tube was removed.
I did have a mass said for the baby once.

I remember the election of 1980 when politicians stated that being prolife was the number one priority. I rejoiced over their victory. Then I saw that priority turn into a nonentity. I will admit that I am still bitter nad distrustful over what happened.
 
Certainly not Obama married to Planned Parenthood along with many other democrats,

Consider Bachmann or other conservative Christian republicans.
 
nordskoven said:
… Why no abortion? Let’s pray for better P.R. …
Click to expand...
Because the truth hurts. A pro-abortion editorial appearing in the September 1970 issue of California Medicine contains a revealing statement on lying in the service of killing:
“Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everybody knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but the taking of a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.” [Emphasis added] This is not even a religious perspective; it was written by those who support abortion on demand. You can’t get much better PR than that.

People get upwards of 90% of their information visually. The reason you don’t see abortion on TV is because seeing it tears at peoples’ consciences, just like slavery did, perhaps even more so. There was an organization in the news a couple of years ago that put a large picture of an abortion on the side of a big truck and parked it in front of a middle school. The students were shocked and started asking difficult questions. The school called the police and had the truck removed. The group sued and won on free speech grounds. The truck was back. They also drove the truck around town.
michaelkeller.com/news/news586.htm

redcounty.com/node/32870. To view the truck click on the below link [WARNING–it is VERY graphic, and may be very upsetting].

azcentral.com/i/F/F/C/PHP4E4D43111CCFF.jpg

If you can take it , you can see other pictures of aborted babies on priestsforlife.org/images/index.aspx [page down].
 
My understanding of the Catholic position on ectopic pregnancies is that it is permitted to removed the fallopian tube containing the fetus, but not to directly remove the fetus from the tube, which is sometimes possible, allowing the tube to be repaired. I would be surprised to find that there was a politician in the US willing to advance this as public policy, but I may be wrong.
 
I think Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) is the guy who comes closest to 100 percent Catholic beliefs-in fact, I think he is always consistent to the church teaching.
 
SteveGC said:
I’m fairly certain Ron Paul is inline with Catholic doctrine on abortion. His primary intent, however, seems to be to put abortion laws back into state control, where the people have the most influence, and where changes can be more easily made. So, I wouldn’t expect his administration to enact new abortion laws, but rather repeal existing ones, put it back into state control, and encourage states to outlaw all abortions.

ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/
Click to expand...
One of the main reasons why Ron Paul won’t get my vote unless he’s the only other choice next to Obama… The Federal government obviously has the duty to protect the lives of it’s citizens. If you truly believe that a pre-born child is a living human (which science says it is) then it is deserving of the same protections the federal government extends to all other citizens. Have you heard Ron Paul say that federal laws on murder should be revoked and turned over to the States to decide if it’s legal or not?
 
cemiller said:
One of the main reasons why Ron Paul won’t get my vote unless he’s the only other choice next to Obama… The Federal government obviously has the duty to protect the lives of it’s citizens. If you truly believe that a pre-born child is a living human (which science says it is) then it is deserving of the same protections the federal government extends to all other citizens. Have you heard Ron Paul say that federal laws on murder should be revoked and turned over to the States to decide if it’s legal or not?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that Paul’s intent is to immediately repeal Roe v Wade, which I think would have the immediate effect of transferring final jurisdiction to the state. However, Paul’s plan is also to pass a federal Sanctity of Life Act, which if successfully passed, would have direct implications on the prohibition of all abortions on the federal level. Suffice it to say that Paul believes abortion is murder, and I have optimism that, if elected, his first term would ultimately result in a federal outlawing of all abortion.

So, while it is unclear what his exact strategy would be, his views on abortion are quite clear, and I think Americans have justifiable reason to believe he would eventually give the unborn the same life protection as the born…at the federal level.
 
There are probably American politicians who would fully uphold the Church’s teaching on abortion, but their positions are such that it never comes up (I’m thinking local government) or comes up only in a roundabout way (they could prevent a clinic being built, but couldn’t outlaw abortion outright, for example, because it’s not in their power to do so.) I can think of many around here that would fit that description.
 
I guess I should have been more specific. The federal government has laws against murder, therefore it has the power to make such a thing illegal in all States.The States govern the penalties for murder unless it’s committed in a Federal offense, but it’s a Federal crime to commit murder regardless… I don’t think a State has the power to make murder legal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top