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

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

Because I’m not pro abortion. It’s that simple. I am pro choice. I am not for abortion. I am for maintaining abortion as a legal option.

I am also for legalising cannabis. That doesn’t mean I am pro cannabis.

 

[JSRG]

JSRG:

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.

Do's and Don'ts Guidelines During Election Season | USCCB

This is only a prohibition on the parishes themselves, though. There’s no rule saying that Catholics who aren’t an actual representative of the parish can’t on their own initiative leave pamphlets around.

The major reason for this prohibition, after all, is that it’s a rule for churches who participate in the tax exemption. Obviously, independent people (whether actual parishioners or not) would not run afoul of this.

 

[JSRG]

In a clearly public place like a parking lot, I believe that simply putting stuff on windshields would not qualify. For it to be trespassing, you would have to make it clear they were unwarranted, such as putting up a sign declaring someone to be trespassing for doing that, or you would need to actually personally warn the person.

And again No, the main reason for this is NOT tax exempt status. That view is cynical, tiresome and utterly uninformed. See my post above for the “main reason”.

The reason I advanced that supposedly “cynical, tiresome and utterly uninformed view” is because that’s what the USCCB themselves seem to be saying:
https://www.usccb.org/resources/dos-and-donts-guidelines-during-election-season

Let’s look at its first few sentences:

“Parishes and other IRS-designated section 501(c)(3) church organizations are prohibited from participating in political campaign activity. Thus, certain political activities that are entirely appropriate for individuals may not be undertaken by church organizations or their representatives. The USCCB Office of General Counsel (202-541-3300) provides detailed guidance on what is allowed and not allowed under the law.”

 

[jeannetherese]

I would have thought that having no access to contraception wouldn’t change many people’s desire to have sex.

I would agree with you on this (unless we come up with information about contraception affecting libido.) However, I would anticipate conflicting desires between the libido based desire and the desire to avoid pregnancy.
I also wonder if people might think about sex differently if they attended more to its pro-creational aspects.
Men and women might be more likely to abstain if they thought about those 24-26 years of child support (judges often mandate support through the college years here) or of the possibility of figuring out how to co-parent for 18 years with someone you really might not want to marry.
Would this halt all extra-marital sex (and extramarital pregnancies)? I doubt it. However, I think one might anticipate a decrease in such activity and consequent pregnancies.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I would have thought that having no access to contraception wouldn’t change many people’s desire to have sex.

I would agree with you on this (unless we come up with information about contraception affecting libido.) However, I would anticipate conflicting desires between the libido based desire and the desire to avoid pregnancy.
I also wonder if people might think about sex differently if they attended more to its pro-creational aspects.
Men and women might be more likely to abstain if they thought about those 24-26 years of child support (judges often mandate support through the college years here) or of the possibility of figuring out how to co-parent for 18 years with someone you really might not want to marry.
Would this halt all extra-marital sex (and extramarital pregnancies)? I doubt it. However, I think one might anticipate a decrease in such activity and consequent pregnancies.

A reasonable argument. But I think we’ll have to agree to disagree at this point. But it would be instructive to see how many abortions are the result of failed contraception v using no contraception at all. I think more of the former would support your view.

 

[jeannetherese]

Possibly, but I would contend that what you might consider successful contraception might involve abortion.
If we were to factor in that quantity (and I do not know how we might go about quantifying it) then we might acknowledge even more lives saved from abortion if at least some forms of contraception were withdrawn from the market.

 

[Freddy]

Possibly, but I would contend that what you might consider successful contraception might involve abortion.

I don’t consider a day-after pill to be contraception. By it’s very name the word means to prevent conception. Not to end it. Although I have no objection to its use.

 

[Elf01]

But I would prefer women not to have to go through the procedure of having an abortion in the first place. If it was my daughter I would prefer her not to get pregnant in the first place (especially as another child would put her at very grave risk). So a permanent means of contraception would obviously be the sensible solution.

I’m sure you’d prefer your daughter didn’t get cancer?

 

[dochawk]

I want people arrested for this anywhere.

It is an act of trespass against a chattel and of vandalism, and I’ve had brand new wipers ruined by it!

‘Pro-abortion’ is more accurate than ‘pro-choice’.

“abortion” itself is an inaccurate label for “prenatal infanticide” . . .

 

[JSRG]

If that is the case, parking or even stepping into a church’s parking lot without explicit permission is trespassing. Heck, entering a church without explicit permission is trespassing. That is clearly not accurate.

Obviously, the specific rules regarding trespassing do vary form state to state, but this gives some generalities:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/criminal-trespassing-law.html

Specifically:

“In many states, laws require there be a warning that you aren’t allowed to be on property before you can be convicted for trespassing on the property. While a property owner can directly tell a trespasser to leave the premises, in many states, there are other ways to provide notice that property is off limits. For example, a sign saying “No Trespassing,” a fence around the property, or a locked door to the property will do the job.”

Obviously, this is a general statement. Laws vary from state to state and city to city. Maybe things are more strict in your area. But by your idea of trespassing, it means anyone who goes into the church parking lot–whether for parking or anything else–without explicit permission is trespassing. That seems rather absurd.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But I would prefer women not to have to go through the procedure of having an abortion in the first place. If it was my daughter I would prefer her not to get pregnant in the first place (especially as another child would put her at very grave risk). So a permanent means of contraception would obviously be the sensible solution.

I’m sure you’d prefer your daughter didn’t get cancer?

If she got cancer then it might kill her. If she went through another pregnancy it almost certainly would. I won’t put you in the position of deciding what you might do if it was your daughter who became pregnant but for me the question wouldn’t even arise.

 

[Elf01]

If she got cancer then it might kill her.

Would you say you are pro chemotherapy?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If she got cancer then it might kill her.

Would you say you are pro chemotherapy?

I’m all for anything that saves her life.

 

[dochawk]

Gosh, you have me beat by a year!

Although the People’s Republic of California has found a right to use property of others for first amendment type activity (The Pruneyard case).

 

[Elf01]

I’m all for anything that saves her life.

So why do you have a problem with saying you’re pro abortion?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’m all for anything that saves her life.

So why do you have a problem with saying you’re pro abortion?

Good grief…do you think that accepting the fact that your child needs to have an abortion to save her life is pro abortion? What if she needed a leg taken off to save her life? Would you call me pro amputation?

Give me a break…

 

[Elf01]

What if she needed a leg taken off to save her life? Would you call me pro amputation?

Yes, and I don’t think you would have a problem with it.

 

[blackforest]

Braun says the letter focuses on his opponent’s voting record on abortion issues.

“A voting record does not lie,” Braun said in the video. “Anyone can look it up.”

That right there is the issue. Why is Pittman so morally outraged? Was he hoping that no one would find out how he voted? His “clarification” didn’t provide any reassuring context for pro-lifers.

C’mon seal. It’s pretty obvious. Accuracy doesn’t close doors. But misrepresenting someone’s position does.

I have no problem saying “pro-abortion-rights.” Where I’ve heard “pro-choice” used on everything from school choice to vaccines, I avoid such a vague term.

There is such a thing as pro-abortion. I meet a number of “pro-choicers” who clearly espouse abortion over the other options. Also, the state of Oregon is pro-abortion in that it requires 100% funding for abortions but not for prenatal, postnatal, or delivery care.

I agree, but that wasn’t why Pittman raised the issue.

For whatever it’s worth, one Sunday, the evangelical church next door distributed leaflets in our parking lot. My priest took it in good humor. I’m not sure how he handled it, but it wasn’t with a police presence.

 

[Annie]

That right there is the issue. Why is Pittman so morally outraged? Was he hoping that no one would find out how he voted? His “clarification” didn’t provide any reassuring context for pro-lifers.

Exactly. I was surprised everyone was talking about whether or not it was ok to put these papers on people’s windshields while they were at Mass, because I don"t think Pittman would have complained if the fliers had been positive towards him, would he have?

 

[goout]

sealabeag:

I understand where you’re coming from here, and I can agree there is potential when using certain language, even if that language is accurate, to shut down discussion. From your perspective you think pro-choice is more accurate than pro-abortion because you would prefer no abortions, but I find your position illogical - why do you want there to be no abortions? That implies there is something wrong with abortion, which the “pro-choice” side in general does not concede. So why do you want to reduce abortions to zero?
And can you understand why a pro-life or anti-abortion person would find the phrase “pro-choice” unacceptable to them to use on conscience grounds, considering that, from their perspective, the “choice” is the murder of a human being, and the phrase itself is the invention of those who want to make that form of murder palatable?
So long as we understand where one another is coming from, dialogue will be more fruitful.

It will bear no fruit whatsoever. If someone wants to misrepresent me as actually wanting women to have abortions then they are excluding themselves from any discussion with me. I don’t mind taking the time to explain my position but further to that there is nothing practical to talk about.

So you don’t want abortions. Ok
How about starvation? Do you want starvation?
Homelessness? Do you want that?
Robbery?
Murder?
Racial violence?

So if you are going to be consistent with your hands-off stance on abortion legislation, you would like laws prohibiting all of these things done away with. because dialogue gets contentious, and legislating these things is fruitless, and there are better ways to prevent them.

Are you in favor of any laws protecting people???
If you are in favor of some laws protecting people, but not others…how do you justify favorable treatment and protection of some, but ignoring the plight of others? Not very consistent.