Not Voting Promotes Abortion!

[hasikelee]

jewfaq.org/sex.htm#Abortion
from this link I would think all of Judiasm approves of it…but perhaps Valke2 will enlighten us on this point

Hmm, interesting stuff! I have never purposely gone out and researched the Jewish faith in regards to abortion.

My general belief about it has always been that in Orthodox Jewish law, the pre-born baby was considered human but only given legal personhood status at birth, specifically at crowning.

As such, abortion was considered allowable only in grave situations.

Further, I believed that the Modern Jewish faith manipulated these teachings a bit to allow for contraception and abortion in any case.

But those are my opinions and I haven’t researched them thoroughly. I will be intrigued of any further dialogue. Maybe this is for a new thread?

 

[mary_bobo]

I think that one should one should vote for who they want to vote for. Are you saying people were not getting abortions before Roe v. Wade?

I just read the CAF voters’ guide online. It was very enlightening, did not tell you how to vote, but told serious Catholics what they should know before they vote. Thanks to Gilliam for the link.

 

[tequilamac]

tequilamac: I wish people would stop throwing out inaccurate information like this without any documentation. Yes, you received incorrect info. If you can find a document from the Magisterium that states what you just said, please post it. I know you won’t, because it doesn’t exist, and would be contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium on this issue. (for those of you who skipped ahead without reading the rest of the thread, the issue in question is whether one should vote for the candidate that will do the least harm to the unborn, even when they are not pro-life. the answer of course is yes, because it helps limit the evil that would result should the stronger pro-death candidate win)

Valke2: Of course people got abortions before Roe v. Wade. Do people smoke crack? That’s still illegal! Some people will always do whatever they want to regardless of whether it is legal or not. Just as some will do whatever they want regardless of how sinful it is. That doesn’t mean we should make it legal! Should we also make murdering 6 year olds legal, just because some people will do it anyway? Perhaps rape shouldn’t be outlawed, because crazy evil guys are going to rape regardless of the consequences? The argument you stated has been used by many in the abortion industry to support their position. They claim that abortions will happen anyway, so we need to make them legal so the women won’t be hurt by bad doctors. That argument is ridiculous. Should we legalize suicide as well, so that people will do it in nice clean doctors offices instead of damaging the sidewalk when they jump? How convenient for all of us if the horrible evils of the world can occur behind closed doors at the clinic where we don’t have to be bothered by it. You obviously didn’t think about that argument before you posted it. Please do so. And if you are any form of Christian or believe in God in any way, please pray about this.

Does your above statement apply also to embryonic stem cells? I believe there was some news flap over those involved in embryonic stem cell research would also garner automatic excommunication. Is that also misinformation floating around like abortion?

 

[psteichen]

Does your above statement apply also to embryonic stem cells? I believe there was some news flap over those involved in embryonic stem cell research would also garner automatic excommunication. Is that also misinformation floating around like abortion?

Tequilamac: Perhaps there is some confusion. I believe the Church has stated that materially participating in abortion procedures results in automatic excommunication. But this is a different issue from what we are debating in this thread. I am not sure about participation in embryonic stem cell research, but I would certainly be happy if that statement was made. ESC research is just another reason to kill babies. Whether the child is one day past conception or 20 years, they are still human life, and thus to be protected above all else.

 

[tequilamac]

Tequilamac: Perhaps there is some confusion. I believe the Church has stated that materially participating in abortion procedures results in automatic excommunication. But this is a different issue from what we are debating in this thread. I am not sure about participation in embryonic stem cell research, but I would certainly be happy if that statement was made. ESC research is just another reason to kill babies. Whether the child is one day past conception or 20 years, they are still human life, and thus to be protected above all else.

Okay, so what you are saying is that you do not know what the Vatican has issued recently on these subjects. So you do know, at least on embryonic stem cell research just over the summer and during the Lebanon war which is why you might have missed it: anyone participating in furthering embryonic stem cell research ayone at all, researchers, politicians etc, incur automatic excommunication. All over the news especially in Europe.

 

[Karin]

in regards to the OP’s orginial post and the title thread…** Not Voting Promotes Abortion!..I have to say…nope IGNORANCE** promotes abortion!.

 

[psteichen]

Okay, so what you are saying is that you do not know what the Vatican has issued recently on these subjects. So you do know, at least on embryonic stem cell research just over the summer and during the Lebanon war which is why you might have missed it: anyone participating in furthering embryonic stem cell research ayone at all, researchers, politicians etc, incur automatic excommunication. All over the news especially in Europe.

tequilamac: Apparently I did miss that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I totally agree with the Vatican on this and am glad they made the statement. Do you disagree?

 

[psteichen]

in regards to the OP’s orginial post and the title thread…** Not Voting Promotes Abortion!..I have to say…nope IGNORANCE** promotes abortion!.

I agree, ignorance does promote abortion. In fact Priests for Life wants to cut through this ignorance by posting pictures of aborted babies on its website. I think this is a great way to get people to understand how horrible it is.

As to you saying nope to the thread title: Why do you disagree? Could you lay out some arguments to back up your nope?

 

[tequilamac]

tequilamac: Apparently I did miss that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I totally agree with the Vatican on this and am glad they made the statement. Do you disagree?

No I do not disagree. What I disagree with is the claim that it does not also apply to pro choice legislators and those who support them. In the original documents stating those involved in embryoneic stem cell research and those supporting the research incurred automatic excommunication, it referenced repeatedly that abortion and embryonic stem cell research are in exactly the same category of sin and crime. Over and over it referenced itself to pro choice advocacy, pro choice, politicians, and actual procurements and also referenced repeatedly the death of the fetus or embryo being in the same category as the fetus in abortion. So it was very clear and all over every major news paper that those involved in embryonic stem cell research were auto excommunicated because the crime was exactlyt he same as abortion. And yet, when I ask if those involved in supporting abortion are incurring auto excommunication the answer is no. Why? If I vote for embryonic stem cell research, I may be auto excommunicated, but I am free to vote for a pro choice politician even though the Church claims the resulting crime to be the same. Sorry that makes no sense at all. I will try to find some articles for you on the embryonic stem cell thing and you can see what I mean.
But why, why why? If the crime is exactly the same and involving all parties the same why is the sentence different? What is the mitigating circumstance for abortion that does not occur with embryonic stem cell research?

Here is one link to a british paper at the time. Notice how the Church repeatedly references abortion. lifeinitaly.com/news/news-detailed.asp?newsid=2453
telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/30/wstem30.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/30/ixnews.html

 

[tequilamac]

Here is one of the original articles linking the research to abortion from June 28.
lifeinitaly.com/news/news-detailed.asp?newsid=2453

 

[Karin]

I agree, ignorance does promote abortion. In fact Priests for Life wants to cut through this ignorance by posting pictures of aborted babies on its website. I think this is a great way to get people to understand how horrible it is.

As to you saying nope to the thread title: Why do you disagree? Could you lay out some arguments to back up your nope?

I disagree with the thread title for the reason I gave…it is IGNORANCE not voting that promotes abortions…ignorance about life, what life is, what murder is etc.

 

[psteichen]

No I do not disagree. What I disagree with is the claim that it does not also apply to pro choice legislators and those who support them. In the original documents stating those involved in embryoneic stem cell research and those supporting the research incurred automatic excommunication, it referenced repeatedly that abortion and embryonic stem cell research are in exactly the same category of sin and crime. Over and over it referenced itself to pro choice advocacy, pro choice, politicians, and actual procurements and also referenced repeatedly the death of the fetus or embryo being in the same category as the fetus in abortion. So it was very clear and all over every major news paper that those involved in embryonic stem cell research were auto excommunicated because the crime was exactlyt he same as abortion. And yet, when I ask if those involved in supporting abortion are incurring auto excommunication the answer is no. Why? If I vote for embryonic stem cell research, I may be auto excommunicated, but I am free to vote for a pro choice politician even though the Church claims the resulting crime to be the same. Sorry that makes no sense at all. I will try to find some articles for you on the embryonic stem cell thing and you can see what I mean.
But why, why why? If the crime is exactly the same and involving all parties the same why is the sentence different? What is the mitigating circumstance for abortion that does not occur with embryonic stem cell research?

Here is one link to a british paper at the time. Notice how the Church repeatedly references abortion. lifeinitaly.com/news/news-detailed.asp?newsid=2453
telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/30/wstem30.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/30/ixnews.html

tequilamac: I don’t think we disagree at all. I do believe that abortion and ESC research are equally bad. And I think the Church states the same thing.

But what I am arguing (it is actually the position of the Magisterium and Priests for Life that I am defending) is that voting for a pro-death candidate, when the only other choice is voting for a much stronger and more dangerous pro-death candidate, is actually a good thing because it limits the harm that can be done by the stronger candidate.

Voting in this way is not morally wrong. You are not voting for a pro-abortion candidate. You are voting against a stronger and more dangerous pro-death candidate. By doing this you limit the damage that will be done.

Imagine that you are a Senator. (my apologies to someone else who posted a similar example above) A bill comes before you that bans abortion except in the case of rape. You are the deciding vote. Do you vote against the bill because it is not perfectly Pro-Life, thus dooming millions of additional children to death? Or do you vote for the measure and save all but a few? Of course you would vote for it and save the children. You are not causing the deaths of the few, you are saving the lives of most.

Certainly there are times when it may be impossible to overturn or prevent passage of a law which allows or promotes a moral evil – such as a law allowing the destruction of nascent human life. In such cases, an elected official, whose position in favor of life is known, could seek legitimately to limit the harm done by the law. However, no appeal to policy, procedure, majority will or pluralism ever excuses a public official from defending life to the greatest extent possible. As is true of leaders in all walks of life, no political leader can evade accountability for his or her exercise of power (Evangelium Vitae, 73-4).

As you can see the Magisterium directs an elected official to do all they can to limit the harm done by a law. They do this by voting for bills that are less harmful than the original, even if not perfect. As citizen voters we must do the same when choosing our leaders. If a perfect solution is not available, we must vote for the least harmful option, else we condemn additional children to death.

 

[psteichen]

I disagree with the thread title for the reason I gave…it is IGNORANCE not voting that promotes abortions…ignorance about life, what life is, what murder is etc.

True…
But are you saying ignorance is the only factor in the spread and continuation of abortion? Are you saying voting has no impact whatsoever on continued legal abortion?

 

[Karin]

True…
But are you saying ignorance is the only factor in the spread and continuation of abortion? Are you saying voting has no impact whatsoever on continued legal abortion?

Yes I do think that ignorance is the only factor in the spread and continuation of abortions.
Voting has no impact IMHO unless you dispel (sp?) the ignorance behind abortion…once people are made aware of the WHY behind abortion being murder and can accept and understand it than you can make changes to the law that really will stop legalized murders!

 

[psteichen]

Yes I do think that ignorance is the only factor in the spread and continuation of abortions.
Voting has no impact IMHO unless you dispel (sp?) the ignorance behind abortion…once people are made aware of the WHY behind abortion being murder and can accept and understand it than you can make changes to the law that really will stop legalized murders!

Well Karin, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are wrong. If voting has no affect, then why vote at all, ever? Yet we are on the same page as far as abortion being murder. I think honestly most people do know that an unborn baby is a human life. Unfortunately many are selfish and fight for laws and policies that will benefit them, even at the expense of innocent children. ESC research could benefit their health, abortion makes it easier to disregard chastity without paying consequences. These people try not to think about the reality of abortion. Which is why they get so mad when Pro-Lifers bring up the issue. They don’t want to be reminded of the sinful nature of their actions.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I think that one should one should vote for who they want to vote for. Are you saying people were not getting abortions before Roe v. Wade?

Valke:

Abortions have been performed since before the time of Hippocrates. Why do you thimk the Oath of Hippocrates contains the phrase, “I will perforn no Abortion?” And, Why do you think the Catholic Church has felt the need to condemn Abortion as murder and to prohibit it in all circumstances since the time of the Apostles?

That has been the clear teaching of the undivided Church since the beginning. It’s only the effects of modernism and liberalism tha have caused some in this country and others to equivocate on this Clear teaching fof the Catholic Church.

I know the history of Abortion in america - How the Suffragettes were also prominant in the movement to ban Abortions in the late 19th century, and how prominant figures in the eugenics movement figured prominantly in the early movement to legalize both artificial contraception and Abortion. And, how many states had either legalized Abortion or were considering Legalizing this monstrous evil. we’ve had threads on all of that here on Catholic answers.

And, none of that changes the fact that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision, or that several pro-Abortion commentators have said that it was wrongly decided as it created “Rights” out of thin air and took what, in a Democratic Society arguably should be an issue to be argued at the polls, and took it out of the hands of the people and placed it in the hands of 6 unelected judges (the majority in Roe).

With a moral issue that could tear the country apart and bring judgment on the country as was the case for Slavery, don’t you want a say on the issue? Or, do you really want 6 non-elected (that’s the decision in 1991 that “saved” Roe) judges to give women the right to decide which human beings deserve to the protection of law and which don’t?

And, don’t you think that, if Roe v. Wade were overturned that a lot of states would ban all or most Abortions? And, If we could place the isue before a truly Pro-Life Congress, don’t you think we would have a chance at a Pro-Life Amendment?

And, which concerns you more? The 1,500 to 2,500 legal Abortions which were performed annually in the years before Roe v. Wade? Or, the 1.4 Million legal Abortions that are being performed annually NOW?

Or, do you care about 1.4 million children who have been slaughtered for the last 32 years?

Most of the people here do. That’s why they’re talking about the most effective way to deal with this.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Yes I do think that ignorance is the only factor in the spread and continuation of abortions.
Voting has no impact IMHO unless you dispel (sp?) the ignorance behind abortion…once people are made aware of the WHY behind abortion being murder and can accept and understand it than you can make changes to the law that really will stop legalized murders!

Karin:

Voting has allowed us to keep the Right to walk, pray, protest and talk to people in front of Abortuaries. Ask anyone here. Many were facing arrest during the Clinton Administration because of the Abortion Clinic Protection Act. After it was defeated in Court (NO Thanks to the ACLU), they couldn’t pass it because of the Republican Revolution of 1994.

After that, the Law was replaced with a “Right to Protest Act” along with the "Partial Birth/“Late Term” Abortion Ban that President Bush signed in 2003.

This is one case were education has been greatly facilitated by voting, and there can be no doubt about that. If not for these votes, the people protesting inside Abortion clinics would be guilty of a Federal Offense equivalent to facilitating terrorism, and those Protesting Outside would be guilty of a Federal Offense equivalent to Obstruction of a Federal Officer in the commision of his duties. And, we’d both be in the same Federal Penatentiary.

Thanks to the votes of Republican Congresses, we don’t have to worry about that. The worst we can be charged with is Criminal Tresspass, and that’s only if we harrass the staff or block employees and patrons from entering or leaving the Abortuary.

And, If we could get enough judges to overturn Roe v. Wade, or enough Pro-Life Conresspersons for a Constitutional Amendment, you can bet the law would sure help our program of education.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[mary_bobo]

Valke:

Abortions have been performed since before the time of Hippocrates. Why do you thimk the Oath of Hippocrates contains the phrase, “I will perforn no Abortion?” And, Why do you think the Catholic Church has felt the need to condemn Abortion as murder and to prohibit it in all circumstances since the time of the Apostles?

That has been the clear teaching of the undivided Church since the beginning. It’s only the effects of modernism and liberalism tha have caused some in this country and others to equivocate on this Clear teaching fof the Catholic Church.

I know the history of Abortion in america - How the Suffragettes were also prominant in the movement to ban Abortions in the late 19th century, and how prominant figures in the eugenics movement figured prominantly in the early movement to legalize both artificial contraception and Abortion. And, how many states had either legalized Abortion or were considering Legalizing this monstrous evil. we’ve had threads on all of that here on Catholic answers.

And, none of that changes the fact that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision, or that several pro-Abortion commentators have said that it was wrongly decided as it created “Rights” out of thin air and took what, in a Democratic Society arguably should be an issue to be argued at the polls, and took it out of the hands of the people and placed it in the hands of 6 unelected judges (the majority in Roe).

With a moral issue that could tear the country apart and bring judgment on the country as was the case for Slavery, don’t you want a say on the issue? Or, do you really want 6 non-elected (that’s the decision in 1991 that “saved” Roe) judges to give women the right to decide which human beings deserve to the protection of law and which don’t?

And, don’t you think that, if Roe v. Wade were overturned that a lot of states would ban all or most Abortions? And, If we could place the isue before a truly Pro-Life Congress, don’t you think we would have a chance at a Pro-Life Amendment?

And, which concerns you more? The 1,500 to 2,500 legal Abortions which were performed annually in the years before Roe v. Wade? Or, the 1.4 Million legal Abortions that are being performed annually NOW?

Or, do you care about 1.4 million children who have been slaughtered for the last 32 years?

Most of the people here do. That’s why they’re talking about the most effective way to deal with this.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Beautifully stated and very factual. Too bad more of our posters do not want to see this.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Tequilamac:

I’m sorry that your post + my post was so long that the combined post = 5663 characters, so I’ll reference and link your excellent post:

Re: Not Voting Promotes Abortion! - Post #89
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1591729&postcount=89

Abortion carries a sentence of Automatic Excommunication. If the Bishops in the USA and elsewhere did their duty, politicians and Abortionists would be forbidden access to the Sacraments of the Church. The fact is that they don’t. Karl Keating of Catholic Answers (among others) has discussed the problem:

From Karl Keating’s Letter of July 25, 2006 - BISHOPS WHO BISH

I know several of these bishops personally and the others by reputation. Drake has chosen to profile men who have a track record for mentioning the unmentionables, such as the five non-negotiables. But these bishops go far beyond public policy questions and tackle other topics that many American bishops shy away from, such as contraception, liturgical issues, and–yikes!–confession. They also have had far better success than most bishops in recruiting new priests. (No need to wonder why.)

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_060725.asp

Here is a link to the history of “the Kerry Affair” from the Vatican’s POV:

The Kerry Affair: What Ratzinger Wanted from the American Bishops

ROMA - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was clear with Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, archbishop of Washington and the head of the “domestic policy” commission of the U.S. Catholic bishops´ conference. He was more than clear, he set it down in writing: no eucharistic communion for the politicians who systematically campaign for abortion.

chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7055&eng=y

And Dr. Jeff Mirus at CatholicCulture.org also had some commentary about when the Bishops of the USCCB punted and tried to act as politicians and not as bishops:

News from the U. S. Bishops, Whoever They Are
by Dr. Jeff Mirus, special to CatholicCulture.org
November 18, 2005

*Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington reported that his task force for the study of how to deal with Catholic politicians who reject Church teachings will soon meet with politicians from both major parties to seek their opinions. Of course, if the bishops were laymen, this approach would make perfect sense. Clearly, before deciding what to do about Catholics who reject Church teachings, laymen should consult widely. One might even expect them to consult with their bishops, as this would be the logical path to the right answer. (It goes without saying that the last thing they would expect their bishops to imply is that the litmus test is opposition to capital punishment.)

But wait, these are the bishops. They are obliged by their office to decide what to do about faithless political leaders and to implement a policy for the good of souls without regard for what the politicians on either side may think. They are obliged precisely not to make this question into a political question. This is the kind of pastoral and Church governance issue which bishops have a special charism to handle. In fact, it is the kind of issue on which they should consult with nobody except themselves. Perhaps, as a start to being bishops again, they could decide this question for themselves and instead ask the politicians what we ought to do about capital punishment.*

catholicculture.org/highlights/highlights.cfm?id=87
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_051122.asp

This last one may have been a “Backdoor” commentary from the Vatican. So far, it seems the American bishops haven’t been listening.

You are quite right - The inconsistancy you’ve pointed out has to be resolved, and done so in favor of the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Pray for the bishops of the USCCB who seem to be in dire need of correction and to be brought into submission to His Holiness.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Karin]

Valke:

Abortions have been performed since before the time of Hippocrates. Why do you thimk the Oath of Hippocrates contains the phrase, “I will perforn no Abortion?” And, Why do you think the Catholic Church has felt the need to condemn Abortion as murder and to prohibit it in all circumstances since the time of the Apostles?

That has been the clear teaching of the undivided Church since the beginning. It’s only the effects of modernism and liberalism tha have caused some in this country and others to equivocate on this Clear teaching fof the Catholic Church.

I know the history of Abortion in america - How the Suffragettes were also prominant in the movement to ban Abortions in the late 19th century, and how prominant figures in the eugenics movement figured prominantly in the early movement to legalize both artificial contraception and Abortion. And, how many states had either legalized Abortion or were considering Legalizing this monstrous evil. we’ve had threads on all of that here on Catholic answers.

And, none of that changes the fact that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision, or that several pro-Abortion commentators have said that it was wrongly decided as it created “Rights” out of thin air and took what, in a Democratic Society arguably should be an issue to be argued at the polls, and took it out of the hands of the people and placed it in the hands of 6 unelected judges (the majority in Roe).

With a moral issue that could tear the country apart and bring judgment on the country as was the case for Slavery, don’t you want a say on the issue? Or, do you really want 6 non-elected (that’s the decision in 1991 that “saved” Roe) judges to give women the right to decide which human beings deserve to the protection of law and which don’t?

And, don’t you think that, if Roe v. Wade were overturned that a lot of states would ban all or most Abortions? And, If we could place the isue before a truly Pro-Life Congress, don’t you think we would have a chance at a Pro-Life Amendment?

And, which concerns you more? The 1,500 to 2,500 legal Abortions which were performed annually in the years before Roe v. Wade? Or, the 1.4 Million legal Abortions that are being performed annually NOW?

Or, do you care about 1.4 million children who have been slaughtered for the last 32 years?

Most of the people here do. That’s why they’re talking about the most effective way to deal with this.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Not to add fuel to the fire…but Valke is a Jew Michael and they allow abortions and even recommend them at certain times.
I would think that the LARGE majority of Jews in the USA would hate to see Roe V Wade overturned and would fight for it not to be overturned.