Really? Which of the democratic candidates is not pro-choice?
If abortion were illegal, the vast majority of abortions conducted today would not occur. As stated above, no law is 100% effective which is why we have the legal system.
Except that they all explicitly encourage killing babies in the womb. Why would they advocate for something that goes against their customer base (PP)?
That is not what I said was speculative. What I said was speculative was the claim that electing a Democrat is sure to result in more aggressively pro-abortion legislation.LeafByNiggle:
Really? Which of the democratic candidates is not pro-choice?
That too is speculation, and unrealistic speculation at that. Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the states themselves would have to make it illegal. Do you think California or New York are going to do that? And if someone in Montana wants an abortion, how hard is it to travel to such a state? And if all states made it illegal (extremely unlikely) they could still travel to Canada, or resort to chemical abortions that do not require a clinic. However if you convince women that we support their efforts in bringing forth new life 100%, that will bear fruit immediately. When the people are behind such an effort, it will be much easier - and less dramatic - to move to make it illegal finally. At least that is how I see it. I do not insist that others see it exactly as I do. But I do claim that the way I see it is not in conflict with Catholic teaching.
False. They have allowed. They have not encouraged it.
Not true. “Prudential judgment” is not subjectivism or relativism.
Good.
But that isn’t the yardstick, is it? If a certain evil which CAN be combatted outweighs all others, do you really question whether we ought to fight it, even for the sake of combatting lesser eviles. Among other things, one ought also to consider the extreme unlikelihood of the Dem party suddenly developing a genuine concern for the poor or whatever “systemic injustices” are.
I don’t think so, and here is why. If a certain evil - a very serious evil like abortion - CAN be combated to a certain small degree, and a lesser evil (like gross corruption in the executive office) can be combated to a much greater degree, it might be a proportionate reason to chose the battle that seems more likely to be won first, and then turn our attention to the much harder battle of combating abortion.LeafByNiggle:
But that isn’t the yardstick, is it? If a certain evil which CAN be combatted outweighs all others, do you really question whether we ought to fight it, even for the sake of combatting lesser evils.
That of course is debatable - a debate I do not wish to have at this time. Suffice it to say that faithful Catholics can fall on both sides of that debate.
True. There are many issues, abortion is but one.
There is no virtue in allowing evil.
That is not the question. If an issue is of higher importance, but there is little we can do about, then we can legitimately consider other issues.LeafByNiggle:
True. There are many issues, abortion is but one.
But we then have to ask ourselves what we are deciding is of higher importance than this issue.
I didn’t say there was.LeafByNiggle:
There is no virtue in allowing evil.
We can cast our vote for candidates that will work to change the current abortion laws.
Then you may want to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate.
God endows man with free will and allows evils/
Are they offering free health care to everyone regardless of complications and regardless of their means, or are they just refusing pregnant women?
You are certainly entitled to do that.LeafByNiggle:
We can cast our vote for candidates that will work to change the current abortion laws.
Trump is a prime example.
This distinction is made in many places. Here is one from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia:LeafByNiggle:
Then you may want to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate.
You seem to wish everyone to look upon some distinction between allowing and evil and propogation of said evil.
But in fact, these are both evil.
I do not question that he has “opposed” abortion. I only claim that I can doubt that his opposition will result in a sizable reduction in abortions.
This statement was unnecessary. I don’t know anything about you except what you post on these forums. I’ll remove it from my post.
There is no such distinction that you were speaking of there.
The reduction of even a single one saves a life.