"Catholics" and the right to choose?

[fix]

BillP: You very eloquently have defended the right of an individual to vote for a pro-abortion candidate under certain conditions. A number of us, I think, wonder if you can define and defend what ‘truly grave moral reason’ in THIS election you felt took priority over the issue of abortion. The arguments that any good Catholic had the right in accordance with Church teaching to vote for Obama only makes sense if that individual can also defend such a ‘truly grave moral reason.’ I, personally, don’t see such a reason. So, maybe you can enlighten us on what you think we don’t understand. If you can’t - thanks for playing.

I will keep you in my prayers.

And that reason must be objectively proportionate to the gravity of abortion. It cannot be exclusively a subjective opinion. If it is true any subjective opinion is sufficient to justify cooperation with evil that would mean there is no point in the magisterium giving any direction in how to vote as it would not matter as long as one claims they have a serious reason.

 

[BillP]

BillP: You very eloquently have defended the right of an individual to vote for a pro-abortion candidate under certain conditions. A number of us, I think, wonder if you can define and defend what ‘truly grave moral reason’ in THIS election you felt took priority over the issue of abortion. The arguments that any good Catholic had the right in accordance with Church teaching to vote for Obama only makes sense if that individual can also defend such a ‘truly grave moral reason.’ I, personally, don’t see such a reason. So, maybe you can enlighten us on what you think we don’t understand. If you can’t - thanks for playing.

I will keep you in my prayers.

My reasons for voting Obama over McCain boil down to efficacy. There is simply put no prospect that either of these men is going to make a meaningful impact on the number of abortions performed in this country. I say this for three reasons:

1st: The party of the presidency has no correlation with the number of abortions performed in the US each year.

Carter: 1,196,683

Reagan : 1,327,361

Bush I: 1,393,505

Clinton: 1,103,033

Bush II : 843,029

Avg. for GOP 1,187,965

Avg. for Dem 1,149,858

(before getting too excited about Bush’s decline, the number of abortions has been trending down since they peaked at 1.4 million during the Bush I administration in 1990)

In short, there is no correlation whatever between the pro-life stance of the president and the number of abortions that occur during his term.

2nd; The president, no matter how pro-life, has no authority to end abortion. Right now that power resides in SCOTUS. Right now, seven of the nine members of the court have been appointed by nominally “pro-life” presidents.

Has the SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade? No.

Is there any practical possibility that a Justice committed to overturning Roe v. Wade will be confirmed by a Democratically controlled Senate? No, in fact, 41 Democratic Senators would be enough to filibuster any such nomination.

Was there EVER a possibility of the 2008 election producing a filibuster-proof GOP dominated Senate? No.

3rd: McCain ain’t all that pro-life. In the 2000 campaign and even as late as 2007 he was trying to get the GOP platform changed to permit incest, rape and life of the mother exceptions. McCain has also said if his daughter had an unwanted pregnancy it would be her decision whether she carried the child or not.

blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/04/mccain_still_wa.html
abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4823197&affil=wls

McCain is also on record has having come to regret the Senate’s interference in the Terry Schiavo case and being in favor of embryonic stem cell research.

msnbc.msn.com/id/8245636/

In short, McCain is only pro-life when he needs the support of the base, and even then he is only as pro-life as he needs to be.

Since McCain wasn’t the “great pro-life ender of abortion”, the next question is will Obama make the problem worse? Well, abortions have been trending down for the last 18 years and Obama’s chances of getting the FOCA passed into law are non-existent (the GOP has 41 senators and can filibuster it). The preponderance of the evidence is that the downward trend will continue.

Since, as I’ve demonstrated, the party of the president has no practical effect on abortion, and since McCain wasn’t authentically pro-life anyway, it simply became a matter of deciding based on the other aspects of the candidates. In terms of foreign and domestic policy, respect for human rights and the rule of law, I feel that Obama is the better choice.

 

[BillP]

The Church teaching is clear: You can NOT vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a more pro-life option.

You are COMPLETELY distorting the Church’s teachings to suit your own needs. It’s moral relativism at its finest…

No one has denied the things you have posted. They are truth, and they are Church teaching…

So where are we? You now believe the Church teaches that we can vote against a pro-life politician for “proportionate reasons”?

Well, I suppose that’s progress of a sort.

 

[Ockham]

Bill, you are mixing partisan politics with actual positions on abortion. Obama campaigned on a promise to lift all restrictions including medical aid to the survivors of botched abortion attempts.

Consider this. Let’s suppose Bobby Jindal runs against Obama in 2012. His platform is simple: ending abortion. He comes right out and says it is the only issue. If elected he’d work with both parties in both houses on all other matters. Would you vote for him?

 

[BillP]

		 			Bill, you are mixing partisan politics with actual positions on abortion.

And you believe politicians never say one thing while intending to do another?

Seriously? You think that Catholics are forced to vote for whoever regurgitates the best pro-life sound bites whether they intend to follow them up or not?

Let’s suppose Bobby Jindal runs against Obama in 2012. His platform is simple: ending abortion. He comes right out and says it is the only issue. If elected he’d work with both parties in both houses on all other matters. Would you vote for him?

IF I thought there was a reasonable chance he could actually get that agenda enacted, and he wasn’t in favor of something else completely crazy (like launching a nuclear war against China which would cause an even larger number deaths) then yes.

 

[Ockham]

As Catholics and anyone who believes in the sanctity of life, yes we are obligated to vote for the politicans most likely to repeal abortion.

Abortion is state sanctioned murder. Just like the Holocaust, the Rape of Nanking, Stalin’s gulags, Khamer Rouge campaigns, etc, etc, etc. We have an obligation to do whatever we can to end the killings.

Yesterday Obama signed off on stem cell “research”. This will mean the murder of thousands, maybe even millions more. When a society has lost its moral value on life it is on the road to destruction.

 

[BillP]

As Catholics and anyone who believes in the sanctity of life, yes we are obligated to vote for the politicans most likely to repeal abortion.

Right, and if neither politician is actually going to repeal abortion, then we vote on other grounds…

Which is:

• What the Church teaches
• What I did, and
• What we’ve been arguing about for the past couple of days

QED.

 

[Ockham]

Obama is the most pro-abortion politican America has ever seen. Check his record out:

lifenews.com/obamaabortionrecord.html

This isn’t the same as a politican saying he’s pro-choice, pandering to special interest groups and then just staying the course, status quo, like so many of them do. This is about a man on a mission of death. You can’t avoid his record or his campaign promises.

Unfortunately partisan politics does get in the way. I don’t know how you place your votes nor is it my business. As a Canadian, obviously I’m not a Republican so my objections to Obama are not along party lines. No other American politican has done so much so quickly to murder the unborn. May God have mercy on his soul.

 

[savienu]

Right, and if neither politician is actually going to repeal abortion, then we vote on other grounds…

Which is:

• What the Church teaches
• What I did, and
• What we’ve been arguing about for the past couple of days

QED.

You are, very, very, very, sorely mistaken. I will pray for you.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

Obama lifted the restrictions on stem cell research today. Thousands, maybe millions more will be killed to satisfy his quest for power.

No, that’s not what he did. He lifted the restrictions on public funding of embryonic stem cell research that had been put in place by Bill Clinton. Stem cell research of every kind has been legal all the way through the hysteria about Bush’s supposed crusade against them. If any of you still trust the mainstream media’s coverage of anything, this is one more reason to stop.

There are some very good secular arguments against public funding of the research. Public funding of this research amounts to free investment for anyone trying to break into the field. If you don’t develop anything with your work, you still get to walk away with millions.

If embryonic stem cells are such a sure-fire winner, private investment should be flowing into the research, and Michael J. Fox should already be cured. If I think IBM stock is about to triple because of its incredible new doohickey, I don’t wait for the government to give me money to buy stock. I buy the stock myself and get filthy rich.

Embryonic stem cell research is, of course, tied into the abortion industry, so it gets all kinds of cover from the press and the other usual suspects.

 

[BillP]

Obama is the most pro-abortion politican America has ever seen.

Oh spare me the hyperbole. Last week, Hilary Clinton was the “most pro-abortion politician America has ever seen”, the week before that, it was Bill Clinton.

The entire substance of Obama’s record on abortion is vocal support for the FOCA, lifting the Mexico City Rule (which Clinton did in '93) and approving federal funding of embryonic stem cell (which McCain is on record as supporting). His appointments, which have your source website hyperventilating, are all more or less mainstream Democrats, which are generally pro-choice.

As far as the FOCA, which has the pro-life community in such a tizzy, its been kicking around congress for years never once making it out of committee. It hasn’t even been introduced into the current Congress, and even in the utterly improbable circumstance where it passed it would not do what you’all claim it would.

In early 2009, Catholic News Service asserted that in its interpretation of the legislation, FOCA neither poses any such risk to Catholic hospitals, nor would require religious hospitals to participate in abortion.%between%

time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1880451,00.html

Give me a break.

People who overstate the dangers, misrepresent Church teaching and generally shade the truth in their efforts to stop abortion aren’t actually helping to stop it. In fact, they are damaging the credibility of the entire pro-life movement.

And its not only the credibility, it’s even impeding the effectiveness. Their demands for EVERYTHING OR NOTHING are preventing any progress whatever on ending abortion.

Instead they have locked into a position that 85% of American’s don’t support.

Ask yourself which you would rather have? A Government where Catholic politicians (however imperfect) can get elected so they can influence public policy or one where Catholic’s have no representation whatever, because 75% of the electorate views them as subservient mouthpieces of the Bishops and Vatican?

If you really want to see a Congress and Supreme Court completely Catholic Free, keep on demanding that the Bishops publicly humiliate and chastise Catholic politicians.

 

[BillP]

You are, very, very, very, sorely mistaken. I will pray for you.

As I will for you.

But, until you trouble yourself to actually make a rational, well researched, properly thought out argument, I’m not inclined to read any more of your posts.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

The entire substance of Obama’s record on abortion is vocal support for the FOCA, lifting the Mexico City Rule (which Clinton did in '93) and approving federal funding of embryonic stem cell (which McCain is on record as supporting). His appointments, which have your source website hyperventilating, are all more or less mainstream Democrats, which are generally pro-choice.

He also voted three times against legislation to protect babies who had survived abortions and were living outside the womb. And he opposed the partial-birth abortion ban. And he decried the Supreme Court decision upholding it.

And his quote about having one of his daughters “punished with a baby” was pretty precious, too.

As to being more pro-abortion than other Democrats–I dunno. Seems to me that anyone who could vote for partial-birth abortion must be pretty pathological. Obama is certainly more dangerous because of his current position.

 

[Ockham]

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – The White House quietly announced on Friday that President Barack Obama is starting the process of overturning protections President Bush put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not forced to do abortions. The move is the latest that will add to Obama’s growing pro-abortion record.

Sorry Bill, the facts speak for themselves.

I imagine in Nazi Germany there were folks who rationalized the Holocast. Sentiments like, “oh, come on. of course people die in concentration camps, sick and elderly die anywhere they’re at”, “Jews are just getting what was coming to them”, “Hitler is making our country safer”, etc. And yes, I am comparing Obama to Hitler on this issue.

If you continue to employ moral relativism in supporting Obama you are no different then those who stood by history’s other holocausts and convinced themselves it was for the best.

As for Catholic-American politicans, the Nancy Pelosi types disgust me. They are Catholic only by baptism and petty vote grovelling. It wasn’t by accident the Pope didn’t give her the cherished photo-op she sought.

Whether your argument will satisfy Christ is not for me to decide. However, you have failed in your duty to defend the innocent. The man you supported and defend will slaughter thousands to satisfy his political aspirations and/or evil motivation.

 

[savienu]

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – The White House quietly announced on Friday that President Barack Obama is starting the process of overturning protections President Bush put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not forced to do abortions. The move is the latest that will add to Obama’s growing pro-abortion record.

Sorry Bill, the facts speak for themselves.

I imagine in Nazi Germany there were folks who rationalized the Holocast. Sentiments like, “oh, come on. of course people die in concentration camps, sick and elderly die anywhere they’re at”, “Jews are just getting what was coming to them”, “Hitler is making our country safer”, etc. And yes, I am comparing Obama to Hitler on this issue.

If you continue to employ moral relativism in supporting Obama you are no different then those who stood by history’s other holocausts and convinced themselves it was for the best.

As for Catholic-American politicans, the Nancy Pelosi types disgust me. They are Catholic only by baptism and petty vote grovelling. It wasn’t by accident the Pope didn’t give her the cherished photo-op she sought.

Whether your argument will satisfy Christ is not for me to decide. However, you have failed in your duty to defend the innocent. The man you supported and defend will slaughter thousands to satisfy his political aspirations and/or evil motivation.

It’s good to know there is someone still thinking throughout all of this. I’m in complete agreement with you.

 

[pennsylvan]

It would depend on her knowledge. Most women are lied to about what an abortion really is and entails, so her culpability would be reduced. The doctor who rips the baby to pieces, however, has no excuse.

Most women are lied to? Very doubtful.

So, what penalty would you assess on a woman who has an abortion?

 

[savienu]

Most women are lied to? Very doubtful.

So, what penalty would you assess on a woman who has an abortion?

Telling a woman that her unborn child is nothing more than a “clump of cells” and “doesn’t have a gender yet” (it has a gender at conception!), aren’t lies? These are things that I know personally were told to a friend of mine, who had an abortion. They are also lied to when the pro-abortion movement uses the words “products of conception,” etc, to refer to their child.

 

[Ockham]

Some politicans are now thinking it wise to force a woman considering abortion to view her child via ultrasound or at least hear the baby’s heart beating prior to any “procedure”.

 

[savienu]

Some politicans are now thinking it wise to force a woman considering abortion to view her child via ultrasound or at least hear the baby’s heart beating prior to any “procedure”.

I’d be happy to just have laws in place in all states to allow a woman the OPTION. There was a law that was just shot down in Kentucky that would have done just that. One has to wonder, if they are truly on the “right” side, what they are trying to hide? If abortion is no big deal, and the baby is a “clump of cells,” surely an ultrasound won’t change a woman’s mind, right?

 

[LindaSK]

Some politicians are now thinking it wise to force a woman considering abortion to view her child via ultrasound or at least hear the baby’s heart beating prior to any “procedure”.

I heard Father Frank Pavone say that the ultrasound is one of the best ‘weapons’ in the efforts to end abortion and has prevented a number of abortions to date. This would be good news! If women doubt this is really a life…???