How many Catholics would vote for full legal implementation of Church teaching on abortion?

[CathBoy1]

I disagree. If raped and impregnated, I have rights, and I have choices.

Well everyone has rights and choices, weather they have been raped and impregnated or not.

But you do not have the right to murder anybody, you can make that choice, but you don’t have a right to do it, nobody does.

Incidentally I know of such a case when somebody was raped and impregnated, take a look:

Martin Sheen reveals wife was conceived in rape, talks about ‘strong’ anti-abortion views - LifeSite

In a recent interview Martin Sheen reveals the startlingly personal reasons for his ‘strong’ anti-abortion stance.

www.google.com

From the above article:
However, Byrne asked about Janet, “was she not born because of a rape?” Sheen responded that his wife would rather that he not speak about it, but does admit that she was conceived in rape. Byrne followed up, suggesting that “if there had been an abortion she would not exist.”

Sheen relates further that even after birth Janet’s mother contemplated “dumping her in the Ohio River.” She was raised by aunts till she was six, after which her mother, with a new husband, “came to collect her,” he said.“

Also while on the topic of abortion, this video is amazing:

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I’m really asking if, as Catholics, (who generally support more restrictive abortion laws) Catholics here would go ‘all the way’ and legislate if they could for full implementation in law, of the Catholic position.

Why wouldn’t they?

 

[CathBoy1]

Why wouldn’t they?

You’d be quite surprised by how many people claim to be Christian, let alone Catholic, that support abortion.

In my personal opinion if one is being honest with oneself, they cannot support abortion and still call themselves Christian.

 

[FiveLinden]

Why wouldn’t they?

Because in general, Catholic politicians in western countries never propose laws that ‘go all the way’ in implementing the Catholic position. The support exceptions to get restrictions through. What I am asking is, if given the option, Catholics would support the imposition of Catholic beliefs, through law, on the whole population.

 

[Jbrady]

What I am asking is, if given the option, Catholics would support the imposition of Catholic beliefs, through law, on the whole population.

Not this Catholic. For exactly the same reason I would oppose a law imposing Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Mormon or Moonie beliefs on the whole population.

As for outlawing abortion, I am against it because I think it is a failed strategy that has done nothing, and can do nothing, to reduce the number or abortions. Just like prohibition and anti-drug laws. They are just ideological claptrap with no basis in reality.

There are more effective empirically tested strategies based on reducing the need for abortions that work far, far better. Unfortunately, the Prolife movement generally strongly opposes them. Go figure.

 

[CathBoy1]

As for outlawing abortion, I am against it because I think it is a failed strategy that has done nothing, and can do nothing, to reduce the number or abortions. Just like prohibition and anti-drug laws. They are just ideological claptrap with no basis in reality.

By your logic why should we have laws against rape, murder, prostitution etc.?
These laws don’t stop people from raping, murdering, prostituting etc. Let’s not go down this path.

As for abortion, at the end of the day you can slap a silk suit on a chimp and call him a person, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s still just a monkey, same rules apply, one can say their just aborting a fetus (or a bunch of cells or whichever term you like), but what their really doing is murdering a baby.

 

[Jbrady]

By your logic why should we have laws against rape, murder, prostitution etc.?

No, that’s not “by my logic”. That’s a classic strawman. Not worthy of a response.

As for the rest of your post, it’s a non sequitur.

 

[CathBoy1]

No, that’s not “by my logic”. That’s a classic strawman. Not worthy of a response.

How is it not your logic? I’m quite sure your response is the strawman in this situation.

Just like prohibition and anti-drug laws. They are just ideological claptrap with no basis in reality.

Do you deny implying anti-drug laws and prohibition laws are useless, because that sure seems to be what your saying.
And if they are useless, by that logic, so to are any laws that are frequently broken (murder, rape etc.).

Furthermore do you deny that abortion is the murder of a baby?

If so please explain to me how it isn’t murder of a baby?

If not, please explain to me your position, because I don’t see any circumstance in which it is ok to purposely murder the innocent.

As for the rest of your post, it’s a non sequitur.

It’s an analogy.

 

[Jbrady]

Your logical skills need a great deal of improvement. How did you ever come to the conclusion that I support abortion? I don’t, and that was very clear in my post.

By the way, the ABSOLUTE LEAST effective strategy for eliminating abortion is to go around calling everyone you disagree with a “baby killer”. Guaranteed to make an enemy of your cause out of anybody.

 

[CathBoy1]

How did you ever come to the conclusion that I support abortion? I don’t, and that was very clear in my post.

As for outlawing abortion, I am against it because I think it is a failed strategy that has done nothing, and can do nothing, to reduce the number or abortions.

I personally think it could’ve been made clearer, and weather anti-abortion laws work or not doesn’t matter, what matters is that they’re in place to defend the defenseless.

By the way, the ABSOLUTE LEAST effective strategy for eliminating abortion is to go around calling everyone you disagree with a “baby killer”. Guaranteed to make an enemy of your cause out of anybody.

I never once called anyone a “baby killer” nor would I (I’m the “hate the sin, love the sinner” type), I did however say that abortion is the murder of a baby, and I would challenge anyone to prove to me otherwise, now if people dislike or even hate me for labeling abortion as murder, well that’s they’re problem not mine.

 

[Jbrady]

and weather anti-abortion laws work or not doesn’t matter

In the real world, that’s the only thing that matters. And they are not protecting anything.

I did however say that abortion is the murder of a baby, and I would challenge anyone to prove to me otherwise, now if people dislike or even hate me for labeling abortion as murder, well that’s they’re problem not mine.

Really, such rhetoric is a turn-off, even to potentially allies. And yes, it is your problem, because rather than gaining support for your cause, your gaining opposition. You’re shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[sudy]

The way you’ve posed the question is flawed as it can’t be supposed that only Catholics would get to vote on an issue that affects the whole country, or it would set up a dangerous precedent.
In my country most people are barely religious, let alone Catholic. If you’re asking whether I’d vote to abolish abortion, along with everyone else getting a vote on it, I’d definitely vote yes. I can’t suppose that the motion would be carried though, tbh, and I’m not sure that we have the right to domineer over others in any case, but rather to lead by example. It would encourage hostility towards the Church, anyway… if it was an enforced policy after people have had this ‘freedom.’ scoff
How do you suppose you would you feel if it was a reversed situation? Another religion… perhaps even the Satanist viewpoint? After all, they’re classed as a religion, too, now.

 

[CathBoy1]

In the real world, that’s the only thing that matters. And they are not protecting anything.

Really, this again? By this same logic why don’t you go ask the countless amount of people murdered in the USA, if laws against murder protected them?
Because “in the real world” about 46 people are murdered every single day.
Yet we both agree that there should be laws against murder, so that the victims of murder can receive justice.
Same applies for abortion, if strict abortion laws saved only 1%, they are still worth having, for saving that 1% and for the possibility of justice for the innocent victims of abortion.

Really, such rhetoric is a turn-off, even to potentially allies. And yes, it is your problem, because rather than gaining support for your cause, your gaining opposition. You’re shooting yourself in the foot.

If calling abortion, murder is a turn off, that’s a good thing, abortion should turn people off, it should downright disgust people, and if these so called “potential allies” don’t join the pro-life cause because they can’t call a spade a spade, well they’re not really allies now are they?
I would say it can even be destructive to align oneself with those who are lukewarm.

The way you’ve posed the question is flawed as it can’t be supposed that only Catholics would get to vote on an issue that affects the whole country, or it would set up a dangerous precedent.
In my country most people are barely religious, let alone Catholic. If you’re asking whether I’d vote to abolish abortion, along with everyone else getting a vote on it, I’d definitely vote yes. I can’t suppose that the motion would be carried though, tbh, and I’m not sure that we have the right to domineer over others in any case, but rather to lead by example. It would encourage hostility towards the Church, anyway… if it was an enforced policy after people have had this ‘freedom.’ scoff

I must say that I absolutely agree, I would have to vote to abolish abortion, we cannot, nor should we impose our beliefs on others.

 

[Jbrady]

By this same logic

No. Not “by that same logic”. No sequitur and strawman again.

I would say it can even be destructive to align oneself with those who are lukewarm.

Political science 101 fail. That is precisely why the prolife movement hasn’t accomplished anything in 47 years, They are more interested in ideology than results.

Signing off now. Mr. Pillow summons.

 

[CathBoy1]

No. Not “by that same logic”. No sequitur and strawman again.

And Kevin Bacon wasn’t in footloose, go on and deflect all you want, you won’t even defend your position.

CathBoy1:

and weather anti-abortion laws work or not doesn’t matter

In the real world, that’s the only thing that matters. And they are not protecting anything

Let me ask you this, even if strict anti-abortion laws didn’t protect anyone (I’m not taking that position, but it seems that you are) do the innocent victims harmed by abortion not deserve justice?

Political science 101 fail. That is precisely why the prolife movement hasn’t accomplished anything in 47 years, They are more interested in ideology than results.

You can call the pro-life movement a failure all you want, the fact of the matter is, on this issue it’s all in, not lukewarm, and I have seen actual lives saved by pro-life demonstrators, I wouldn’t call that a failure.

 

[FiveLinden]

The way you’ve posed the question is flawed as it can’t be supposed that only Catholics would get to vote on an issue that affects the whole country, or it would set up a dangerous precedent.

I was assuming everyone would get a vote.

 

[silentwitness]

“The teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion will be implemented in law. Those abortions proscribed by Catholic teaching shall be outlawed”.

This would be the quickest way for ‘certain people’ in the church to out themselves in an open take over attempt to speed up the de-Christianing changes including teachings on abortion.

In any wording of the vote, the phrase ‘Catholic teaching’ has to be absent otherwise the powers that be would move Heaven and Hell (excuse the pun) to change that teaching.

 

[Dobby]

LifeSiteNews is NOT a credible news source so I’ll pass on the article. I love Martin Sheen.

I do have the RIGHT to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Women have that RIGHT. You and Martin Sheen may not like us exercising our rights, but respectfully, it is not your right to make that choice for others.

 

[CathBoy1]

LifeSiteNews is NOT a credible news source so I’ll pass on the article. I love Martin Sheen.

I do understand some dislike LifeSiteNews, however Martin Sheen has talked about it several times in the past, just google Martin Sheen‘s wife was product of rape.

Also did you watch the YouTube movie? I sincerely hope you did.

I do have the RIGHT to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

I’m sorry, on this we will disagree completely, you may choose to “terminate an unwanted pregnancy”, the same as one may choose to “terminate one’s spouse” because, said spouse is now “unwanted” or inconvenient, however one doesn’t and never will have a right to “terminate an unwanted pregnancy” just as one will never have the right to “terminate one’s unwanted spouse”.

Women have that RIGHT.

Idk about your (or anyone in particular that may be reading this), past or present situation, but I can say for 100% fact, with all charity, that it is objectively and mortally wrong for a woman or a man to “terminate” the defenseless no matter the circumstance.

but respectfully, it is not your right to make that choice for others.

Nor is it yours, it is only God’s right to determine who lives and who dies, not mine, not yours and not anybody else’s.

 

[Dovekin]

The question you are asked to agree or disagree on is: “The teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion will be implemented in law. Those abortions proscribed by Catholic teaching shall be outlawed”.

Doesn’t it matter what “outlawed” means? When poaching was outlawed, there were penalties imposed on people or hey were pushed outside the law like Robin Hood. What penalties will accompany procuring abortion? Will it just be shunning? Or will it fracture society by creating a hidden underclass? Imprisonment or capital punishment? What are we talking about?

This unspecified condition is why I think most people do not support the pro-life position. It is too vague, just platitudes about murder and nothing about the role of government.

Take your hypothetical a little farther
The teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion will be implemented in law. Those abortions proscribed by Catholic teaching shall be outlawed. Will that mean:
A. Life imprisonment for the mother.
B. Life imprisonment for the doctor.
C. Imposition of exorbitant fines on the mother.
D. Imposition of $10 fines on the mother.
E. No punishment for anyone.

More choices could be imagined. Is there a choice anyone would support? What difference does the law make if there are no significant sanctions?