Follow up question: What voting issue could possibly outweigh the murder of millions of unborn babies?

[Randolph]

Abortion is considered intrinsically evil. That means there are no possible circumstances that can possibly justify it.

Let’s pray to end abortion. The most dangerous place for a child to be can NOT be in his/her mother’s womb. Over 600,000 abortions/deaths were done in the US alone per year. To equate/reduce this intrinsic evil/human tragedy to other debatable issues is just simply silly and disingenuous.

 

[TMC]

Thomas and Scalia ruled on a case that addressed the central issue of Roe (Casey). Having rendered a judgment it was acceptable for them to repeat that judgment elsewhere. Neither Roberts nor Alito have heard a case where Roe was challenged, therefore it would be totally inappropriate for them to proclaim their personal opinions on abortion.

Justices rule on specific cases; they do not issue general proclamations. For either of them to make a statement about abortion without actually hearing a case on the matter would be to pre-judge the case and be contrary to everything a justice is supposed to stand for.

Justices do not have “opportunities” to proclaim their beliefs. They have an obligation to rule on particular cases argued before them.

It is true that the Justices rule on the cases before them, but it is simply untrue that Roberts and Alito have not had the opportunity. The Court could revisit Roe in any abortion case - and Thomas regularly does. For example, Thomas wrote a concurrence in Gonzales v Carhart opining that Roe should be overturned, and Roberts and Alito declined to join that opinion. There is no rule or principle that Roberts and Alito could not have joined Thomas’ opinion. The fact that they did not does not necessarily mean they won’t do so in the future, but it certainly calls it into question.

 

[ZMystiCat]

How can any Catholic vote for a ProChoice candidate when a ProLife candidate is running?

Personally, I don’t really care to give a politician a pass on inconsistencies with Catholic teaching, particularly as it relates to recognizing the dignity and sanctity of human persons, all because they take a stance that, for all I know, is simply part of a political ploy. How am I supposed to believe that they’d remain consistent? How am I supposed to know that they’d even really put effort into stopping abortion rather than put their effort into the many issues I disagree with? Frankly, I’m just not convinced that a candidate who spouts out pro-life talking points will actually do any meaningful good for the unborn just because they figured out that they could appeal to a large group of single-issue voters.

 

[Randolph]

Personally, I don’t really care to give a politician a pass on inconsistencies with Catholic teaching, particularly as it relates to recognizing the dignity and sanctity of human persons, all because they take a stance that, for all I know, is simply part of a political ploy.

You are giving politicians a pass for allowing abortions (an intrinsic evil) throughout the pregnancy including partial birth abortion??? You do realize that none of us here would have even taken a breath of life had our own mothers chosen abortions done upon us…

 

[Ender]

It is true that the Justices rule on the cases before them, but it is simply untrue that Roberts and Alito have not had the opportunity. The Court could revisit Roe in any abortion case - and Thomas regularly does. For example, Thomas wrote a concurrence in Gonzales v Carhart opining that Roe should be overturned, and Roberts and Alito declined to join that opinion.

This is from the first paragraph of Thomas’s concurring opinion:

I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S.113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution.

Given that neither Roberts nor Alito had ever expressed any view on the subject just how were they supposed to join a judgment written expressly to “reiterate” a particular view they had not themselves expressed? There may possibly be an argument somewhere that makes a case that Republican court nominees will never overturn Roe, but this isn’t it.

 

[EndTimes]

How can any Catholic vote for a ProChoice candidate when a ProLife candidate is running?

Yet they do… There’s even Pro-Abort ‘Catholic’ Politicians in office. Over a dozen I believe

_

 

[jofa]

You misunderstand: the states decided abortion law before the FEDERAL government got involved.
When I say “government”, assume I mean Federal.

 

[JSRG]

This wasn’t directed to me, but…

TheLittleLady:

Agree. It is never justified. This is why I left the Republican party and joined a third party!!

So, you left a party that can and does do some things to curtail abortion — 1) Supreme Court appointees,

Republicans have had a ton of Supreme Court appointees. How well has that worked out so far for overturning Roe v. Wade?

Furthermore, William Pryor, who is on Trump’s list of possible justice picks, would be a guaranteed vote to overrule Roe v. Wade, given that he’s one of the very few federal judges who’s actually said he disagrees with the decision. Yet he was passed over as a choice for the Supreme Court twice. Maybe you can say that he would’ve been too hard to get past the Senate, especially with Murkowski and Collins, but then that brings up the question of how good the Republicans are at getting people to actually overturn Roe v. Wade if the best they can do is pick justices who maybe, maybe might do it rather than picking justices who would do it.

1. oppose at every turn using public revenues to promote or carry out abortions, 3) support tax incentives for those who choose adoption over abortion,

I’ll take your word for these ones.

1. have actually defunded PP,

The Republicans had two years of control of the Senate and House and presidency and they didn’t defund it as far as I am aware. Maybe you mean on the state level, but we’re primarily talking federal level here.

1. endorse a guarantee to all Americans that the Fourteenth Amendment ought to apply to unborn children,

I assume this is in reference to this remark in their platform:

“We support… legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth”

So where was this legislation during the recent 2 years of control they had?

1. reinstated and broadened the Mexico City policy, among others

You mean the policy that studies indicate actually increases abortions?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(19)30267-0/fulltext

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You misunderstand: the states decided abortion law before the FEDERAL government got involved.
When I say “government”, assume I mean Federal.

Oh, I see. State government does not mess up everything it gets its paws on then. Is that it? Then you have no problem with individual states instituting the very same programs I was proposing to discourage abortion by providing free health care for pregnant women?

 

[EndTimes]

Republicans have had a ton of Supreme Court appointees. How well has that worked out so far for overturning Roe v. Wade?

The SCOTUS would overturn Roe v. Wade
if the majority of those who Opine in accordance to their legal Whimsy
give Abortion the Thumbs Down

Abortion is Murder of babes in the Womb.

The Prince of this world - and those who follow his lead - peddle, support, promote, nudge - Death.

 

[ZMystiCat]

You are giving politicians a pass for allowing abortions (an intrinsic evil) throughout the pregnancy including partial birth abortion???

I didn’t say that. It’s definitely a mark against them (and a pretty big one at that). I just said that I don’t consider a politician claiming to be against abortion, which seems to normally be the standard for considering one pro-life, to be an automatic vote.

 

[Randolph]

I didn’t say that. It’s definitely a mark against them (and a pretty big one at that).

My apology… I misunderstood you.

 

[Victoria33]

Agree. It is never justified. This is why I left the Republican party and joined a third party!!

Fine, those are your standards, it’s not what the Catholic Church teaches though. This is your choice that you repeat that bashes the Republican party, not ever the Democrat party that according to many, is now pushing infanticide. Just check what Mayor Pete says.

The Church teaches us to vote for the most pro-life candidate. Not the perfectly pro-life candidate. One should stop spreading this notion. If one votes 3rd party, to many, this is just throwing one’s vote away.

It’s a child not a choice.

When some Democrats are even pushing for infanticide, the choice is clear.

The Catechism says nothing about “perfection”, that is your loophole.

Your ideas expressed on this too, do not even seem pro-life at all, when you have repeated criticized pro-life laws, such as the “drive to the next county” argument.

If one judges in this way, their ideas should be judged in the same manner. Your ideas find loopholes to not support what is regarded by nearly everyone as pro-life measures. It’s shallow and it seems to serve the Democrat party of whom you don’t seem to criticize. To bring this into every pro-life discussion should likewise be seen.

Like saying above, the situation of abandoning the baby after surviving may be manslaughter, okay, fine, that may be one’s view but I don’t see the clear need to add this and this seems to speak for the pro-abortion OR pro-choice side and not the pro-life side.

If one presents these arguments, they should likewise be taken to task and if one has a record of making these kinds of arguments.

 

[Peeps]

True, but our taxes are already going to Planned Parenthood and plenty of other horrible/wasteful organizations. I’d be glad to hear of a new program that gives pregnant women the support they actually need, especially when they don’t have any from their parents. I’d even support “free” daycare so they can still go to college or lessen whatever other fear they may have.

Does your area of the country have a rescue mission and/or a pregnancy life care center?

Our city is pretty crumby on the list of “good places to live in the U.S.” (usually listed last place or at the bottom in various polls in business magazines and journals).

But we have a wonderful, highly-ranked rescue mission that DOES provide the help that pregnant women with limited/no resources need.

We also have a great pregnancy life care center staffed entirely with volunteers, and the board is made up of influential and respected Christian women from both Catholic and Protestant churches in our area, including medical doctors.

These two facilities, along with a thriving St. Vincent de Paul organization from all the Catholic parishes, and various minority help organizations, DOES help pregnant women with all of their needs.

There is a home in our city for young teen mothers to live while they are waiting to give birth, and they receive education and training so that they have the potential to make good choices after they have had their baby.

And there are several Head Start programs in the city so that poor women can place their small toddlers and small children in a place where they can get a good pre-school education before starting school (although we still have a dreadful outcome from our public schools, a shameful outcome–essentially the students are not learning anything according to the abysmal standardized test scores).

In addition, there are plenty (a few thousand) of good-paying jobs in our community, mainly skilled trades–and our local community college has stepped up and has a training program for students who want to become certified in one of the skilled trades.

Willing_Spirit, if our city, with all its flaws, has excellent programs like this, mostly privately run and not receiving any government funding, then I’m guessing that many many other cities and towns in the U.S. have the same kind of safety net and humanitarian help programs for those women who find themselves in a crisis pregnancy.

It really doesn’t matter if the POTUS and the Federal Government allocate a giant portion of our taxes to create more programs (probably with a huge administration cost). The BEST programs to help people are the programs created by their own people close to their homes in their own cities and towns!

 

[Peeps]

One more thought about programs to help women during crisis pregnancies–

–the privately-run programs and centers in our city that actually get down in the trenches and provide real help (not just a check) to pregnant women and their children and families are staffed with REPUBLICANS, not Democrats.

The Democrats are more interested in advocating for abortion and “women’s rights” and conducting marches and demonstrations, and accusing our President and other Republicans of being “rich fat cats” who ignore the poor and disenfranchised.

They don’t support the Rescue Mission or the Pregnancy Life Care Center, or other faith-based programs because they disapprove of the Catholic Church and other Christian churches that still teach chastity and marriage and children (in that order). They scoff at religion, and praise Hollywood moguls who want massive government programs to help the poor. That way, they don’t have to get personally involved, just write out the tax check once a year.

I know a lot of these women because I volunteer for several organizations (mainly music and arts) where many of them hang out. I am not impressed with the “compassion” of Democrats/liberals. I’m sure there are some nice ones somewhere. But meanwhile, those Republican women are out there doing the good works.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

How can any Catholic vote for a ProChoice candidate when a ProLife candidate is running?

People (not just Catholics) will probably give lots of consideration to their own struggles and the struggles of their loved ones. Ex: someone with a mother that has cancer might be looking out for a candidate that has certain healthcare stances. Someone worried about their job might find a candidate that is against outsourcing to be their person. It may be a matter of trying to make decisions that one thinks helps themself and their loved ones.

 

[fide]

Anytime I read someone saying “(this person or these people) did this because (insert speculated, assumed reason).” We do not know why anyone does anything. Many people seem clueless about their own personal motives! Many are drawn to (alleged) motives for themselves and their allies, motives which are noble and altruistic - but to their enemies, to motives which are evil. As the saints say, almost in unison, “Know thyself!” The first requirement of authentic wisdom, and knowledge of God, is accurate knowledge of oneself.

Don’t presume to know why and how that CCC paragraph explicitly left out the word “murder” in a paragraph much about murden, when it included “abortion” in the paragraph.

I strongly suggest you read this CCC teaching carefully:
2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 # 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.
2323 Because it should be treated as a person from conception, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed like every other human being.

Abortion becomes acceptable to victims of deceit, when they put the “embryo” - the very small human person - in a box labelled “non-human things”.
– This is the way the Nazis justified their Death Camps": Jews were made “non-persons”, non-human, less-than-human, expendable in their minds. And Germany was at that time a Christian Nation!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Church teaches us to vote for the most pro-life candidate.

That’s not what the Church teaches.

 

[TMC]

Given that neither Roberts nor Alito had ever expressed any view on the subject just how were they supposed to join a judgment written expressly to “reiterate” a particular view they had not themselves expressed? There may possibly be an argument somewhere that makes a case that Republican court nominees will never overturn Roe, but this isn’t it.

You either have no idea how this works, or you are now being completely disingenuous. If Roberts and Alito wanted to join that opinion they could have asked him to change a couple of words so that sentence would make sense. There is no rule or principle that would have prevented Roberts and Alito from joining that opinion, or otherwise taking the position that Roe should be overturned. They have not done so. I am not saying they can’t do so in the future, but it is simply a fact that they have declined to do so in the past.

 

[MamaJewel]

Thanks for the quote which was made by one of the atomic scientists when he witnessed the testing of the atomic bomb in 1945.

You’re welcome.

I resurrected my teen-self who thought of that quote when the Warnock Committee further rationalized support for 14 Day Rule limitation on embryonic research in medicine.
It was 1984 or 1985, a big, brave new world where oppressive authoritarian regimes were going to destroy us through scientific advancement.
People had a lot on their minds: human rights, nukes, space, overpopulation, contraception, IVF, abortion, AIDS, cancer, total eradication of small pox, racism, poverty, big government, big business, man’s inhumanity to man, communism, democracy, etc…

As a teen, I pontificated that humanity is screwed because if society had no issue with aborting a fetus, which had the human right to care and protection under the declaration of children’s rights per the UN, then few people would have an issue with scientific manipulation, like cloning, of the human embryo to form a new super-human race or even a new species of animal.

Abortion and cloning/embryonic research went hand in hand from the perspective of my youthful mind. The disregard of the human fetus, which was much more advanced in development compared to an early human embryo = a total lack of adult consideration for the earliest stages of human existence. It left scientists to monitor themselves, and to make the personal decision to behave ethically.

My teen-age rationale believed that unlike Oppenheimer’s Manhattan Project, where the impact of a nuke is a tangible, formidable exterior force throughout nature, the experimentation and manipulation of the human embryo was an intangible, formidable interior force on humanity proper, because one tiny glitch could unleash a monster that destroyed the human population from within every human being. As humans, we wouldn’t know what hit us because we would be fundamentally changed from within our own bodies and thus, no longer be the species of Homo Sapiens.

The horror, the horror.

I believe the quote is originally from a Hindu religious text, though I don’t know the exact context.

It is from Hinduism, chapter 11 verse 32 of the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is encouraging the Prince Arjuna to fight.