Democratic politician angry that letters on his pro-abortion voting record distributed by private group at local Catholic parishes

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If y’all insist on calling people who are pro choice ‘pro abortion’ then you are closing the door to any sensible discussions on how to reduce the number of abortions. As long as you know that.

How about a more specific “pro-legalized abortion” or pro-abortion choice."

Everyone is pro-choice. We believe in a default freedom to choose. Not everyone agrees this should apply to abortion, slavery, rape, etc.

I also agree that pro-life is miss used when applied only to abortion. Everyone is pro-life in some way.

Well, pro choice re abortion does actually mean pro abortion choice. Simply reworded. And if you allow the choice then it must be legal. So I am obviously for abortion to be legal. I am also for the numbers of abortions to be reduced.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Your actions would show your true colors.

I don’t see any pro-choice politicians doing anything to help change women’s minds. They may on occasion vote for something that helps the poor, but are just as willing to vote for something that encourages the poor to abort their kids.

 

[Freddy]

Your actions would show your true colors.

I don’t see any pro-choice politicians doing anything to help change women’s minds. They may on occasion vote for something that helps the poor, but are just as willing to vote for something that encourages the poor to abort their kids.

But I’ve explained my position in some detail. Do you class me as pro abortion?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Again, actions speak louder than words. If you are not anti-abortion (legally) but you still claim you’re not pro-abortion, then I want to see the evidence of this beyond just talking.

I don’t think a situation has ever come up where someone was genuinely against abortion on more than just a personal “I wouldn’t get one or have my wife get one” level, but still “for” abortion legally. So you’d be kind of a first in my book. I’m open to thinking outside the box but I need to see what you actually do, not just talk.

 

[Victoria33]

Kansas, home to operation rescue, some fervent pro-lifers there. Not the best state to be a choicer in.

 

[Freddy]

Again, actions speak louder than words. If you are not anti-abortion (legally) but you still claim you’re not pro-abortion, then I want to see the evidence of this beyond just talking.

I don’t think a situation has ever come up where someone was genuinely against abortion on more than just a personal “I wouldn’t get one or have my wife get one” level, but still “for” abortion legally. So you’d be kind of a first in my book. I’m open to thinking outside the box but I need to see what you actually do, not just talk.

What I do is nothing more than use my vote. I support representatives on a state and federal level that support sex education and contraceptive advice. Who push for larger remunerations for women to support them in regard to child care and pre school. Who say they will allow men to take paid leave for child care for the same length of time as women have.

I spent a not inconsiderable time and effort supporting my daughter’s husband in his attempt to become a Federal MP and parts of his platform were the policies I noted above.

And I would rather my wife not have to go through an abortion - although we’re way past the point where the reason for having one would be at all possible. But I would have supported her (and my daughter) if they had so chosen.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I support representatives on a state and federal level that support sex education and contraceptive advice.

Well, see, now we have a second problem with you teaching the kiddies to commit grave sins of contraception, unless you’re only teaching abstinence. (I’m personally more “liberal” than many Catholics on here so I won’t carp about you about the sex ed part, but many others would.)

I don’t think this is going to work out here, sorry.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I support representatives on a state and federal level that support sex education and contraceptive advice.

Well, see, now we have a second problem with you teaching the kiddies to commit grave sins of contraception, unless you’re only teaching abstinence. (I’m personally more “liberal” than many Catholics on here so I won’t carp about you about the sex ed part, but many others would.)

I don’t think this is going to work out here, sorry.

Obviously not. But God allowed certain sins to continue until we realised ourselves that it was wrong (slavery comes to mind). But an option that was available to God is apparently not available to us.

That becomes a problem for you. But not for me.

But imagine if I invented the perfect contraceptive and it ended all abortions. Another quandry for you. Would you be able to celebrate the fact that abortions had ended?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Of course i wouldn’t be able to clap and cheer because you created another grave sin to replace the first grave sin. You know that too. TTYL.

 

[Freddy]

Of course i wouldn’t be able to clap and cheer because you created another grave sin to replace the first grave sin. You know that too. TTYL.

So you think they’re equally bad?

 

[phil19034]

Deacon,
I don’t know if this was distributed inside the parish or not, but I know that at parishes around me Candidate pro-life / pro-abortion records are printed in a pamphlet and placed in car windows during mass before each election.

I know the parish isn’t doing it, but it is from the Pro Life Alliance from our area that is lead by Catholics

By point is that such flyers are kind of common

 

[jeannetherese]

If y’all insist on calling people who are pro choice ‘pro abortion’ then you are closing the door to any sensible discussions on how to reduce the number of abortions. As long as you know that.

I disagree with that contention, Freddy. It seems to me that sensible discussions may still continue and, as in any discussion, some may choose not to participate.
To be pro-something is to be in favor of it and those in favor of keeping abortion legal are favoring it (even if they wouldn’t or couldn’t have one themselves.)

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If y’all insist on calling people who are pro choice ‘pro abortion’ then you are closing the door to any sensible discussions on how to reduce the number of abortions. As long as you know that.

I disagree with that contention, Freddy. It seems to me that sensible discussions may still continue and, as in any discussion, some may choose not to participate.
To be pro-something is to be in favor of it and those in favor of keeping abortion legal are favoring it (even if they wouldn’t or couldn’t have one themselves.)

If you don’t understand my position then how could we have a productive talk? Notwithstanding that if someone is determined to use emotive terms such as ‘pro abortion’, then I personally see no point in engaging with them.

And you might know that the number of abortions is drastically reduced by a means used by nearly all women. Being contraception. Which, looking at all the threads about that (virtually none) versus those about abortion (one current at any given time - so they’re effectively constant), seems to be somewhat less of a concern.

And you do know that if you managed to get contraception banned then the abortion rate would skyrocket. Yet the opposite tack - increasing the efficacy of contraception use to reduce abortions is a non starter. You’re between a rock and a hard place.

 

[JSRG]

As far as I can tell, there is no rule against someone leaving political pamphlets in a church. The USCCB seems to discourage churches putting them on their website or on official bulletins but that’s no prohibition on parishioners leaving such things in the church (though I personally would say they should be kept out of the chapel itself) or on car windowshields.

 

[Wampa]

To see @Freddy’s point, think about how you’d react if someone constantly called you anti-choice: probably the same way he is (“hey, you’re misrepresenting my position!”). I’ve long felt that if each side can’t even call the other by the name they’ve chosen to embody their position, then we can’t get anywhere.

Or an even stronger example: I knew a diehard pro-choicer we would only call us pro-lifers “pro-coat hanger.” He argued that since women would go back to back alley abortions if we outlawed it, that was our true position since we were pushing for that outcome. That’s obviously absurd, but it probably has the same impact as when we say pro-murder, which is in occasional use on CAF.

Then again, I tend to think few Americans today have the ability to hold a constructive conversation with someone with an opposing viewpoint, so it’s probably a moot point what we call each other. Doors that were never open don’t get closed.

 

[mdgspencer]

The letters were distributed in public places outside church property. They were left on windshields of cars parked on the street. Nothing illegal about this. Of course if they were distributed inside the church, clergy could tell them to leave, but this was not the case. I expect many priests wouldn’t mind though if they were left in the church, but this is another matter.

 

[jeannetherese]

If you don’t understand my position then how could we have a productive talk? Notwithstanding that if someone is determined to use emotive terms such as ‘pro abortion’, then I personally see no point in engaging with them.

And you might know that the number of abortions is drastically reduced by a means used by nearly all women. Being contraception. Which, looking at all the threads about that (virtually none) versus those about abortion (one current at any given time - so they’re effectively constant), seems to be somewhat less of a concern.

And you do know that if you managed to get contraception banned then the abortion rate would skyrocket. Yet the opposite tack - increasing the efficacy of contraception use to reduce abortions is a non starter. You’re between a rock and a hard place.

I’m not sure why you should consider the term pro-abortion an emotive term. It’s commonly used in reasoned discussion of the issue and, in the U.S. is utilized by liberal newsmedia including National Public Radio and the New York Times. Of course you are not obligated to engage in any conversation; abstinence is always an option.
Many contraceptives function as abortaficients, a fact which is not known be everyone who engages in that discussion.
I’m not sure how you could prove that banning abortion would cause the abortion rate to skyrocket; I think you might need a controlled experiment in order to support that hypothesis. Pregnant women have options other than abortion, including raising their children and putting them up for adoption.
Banning abortion also might encourage men and women to ponder the joys of parenthood and to think about the beauty of procreation in its unitive and generative aspects.
Banning abortion might also lead to a drop in pregnancy rates as more men and women choose to delay procreation. Given the current use of contraceptives which have abortificient functions, I’m not sure how we might determine the actual pregnancy rates though, an interesting topic for future consideration.
I think one thing we could safely argue is that banning abortion would likely save the lives of some babies. We could even argue that banning some forms of contraception, which have abortificient qualities, could save the lives of some babies.
And I imagine we could agree, if you chose to engage, that saving the lives of babies is good.

 

[whatistrue]

Then again, I tend to think few Americans today have the ability to hold a constructive conversation with someone with an opposing viewpoint

Sometimes I think the same, but then I remember that we tend to hear the loudest voices, not necessarily the most common. People who only shout are more often on the news than people who speak quietly and reasonably, no matter the relative numbers. And I don’t think that situation is unique to the USA.

 

[pnewton]

As far as I can tell, there is no rule against someone leaving political pamphlets in a church.

There is such a rule. I did not know this until Deacon Jeff referenced it, so I hunted it down.

• Do not authorize distribution of partisan political materials or biased voter education materials (those that support or oppose—or exhibit bias for or against—any candidate or party) on church property, in church publications, or at church activities. Authorization should be given only after materials have been approved by your diocesan attorney.

https://www.usccb.org/resources/dos-and-donts-guidelines-during-election-season

 

[Freddy]

And I imagine we could agree, if you chose to engage, that saving the lives of babies is good.

I would have thought that having no access to contraception wouldn’t change many people’s desire to have sex. Which would be required for the abortion rate to even remain steady. If you knew absolutely that the girl you took home from the bar would definitely get pregnant if you had sex then you probably wouldn’t go through with it. But nobody thinks it’s going to happen to them.

And if contraception is as bad as abortion, why don’t we see thread after thread about banning it?

And we have a bone of contention as regards when we can class that which a woman is carrying as a baby. It certainly is a day before birth but it certainly isn’t a day after conception.