On political considerations of decisions concerning abortion

[setarcos]

First of all, the system is legitimate. It’s the basis of our governance.

And being pro-life is not a religious stance: it’s a human stance. Voting to require that people go to Mass on Sundays would be a religious stance; voting against the killing of unborn human babies would be a stance in favor of preseving human life. Is it a religious stance to forbid the murder of those already born? No. Is it a religious stance to forbid rape, or fraud, or drunk driving? No.

All these things you mention are matters of moral law.
Nature couldn’t care one wit if one woman should decide to kill her offspring while another would never think of doing such a thing. Does natural law give rise to moral law? If not, from where does this moral law come from that gives rise to this human stance you speak of? Are you appealing to a universally accepted agreement of the “wrongness” of these acts which cumulatively gives rise to this human stance? Certainly you are aware that one “mans” murder is another man’s justified sacrifice, or one mans rape is another’s legal booty from winning the battle, etc… These things stem from the baser laws, the natural laws. The laws which arise in absence of the inclinations towards higher moral laws. Think of the psychopath or the primitive tribesman.
If this “human stance” be divorced from religion are you not suggesting we may divorce morality from God’s creating spirit and divine governance?

May you be pleasing to God in all you do
God save me from the ravenous darkness which seeks to deny me your divine light

 

[setarcos]

This duty comes from God via the Great Commandment, love God and neighbor. Why? To grow in holiness.

YES! I absolutely agree! Now, why would you consider this merely a “human stance” and not a religious one?

 

[setarcos]

False dichotomy.

You may find it more productive to change personal convictions because you are more comfortable or able to do so, but others may have the necessary skills to work in the legal system to rectify errors and false notions that have taken hold there.

Why can’t WE do both?

I don’t see how refusing to participate in the “process” makes US less hypocritical or legitmate. The process was supposed to be about truth, justice and liberty – it no longer is. Seeking to fix the broken system is not hypocritical.

I do not believe this is a false dichotomy because my concerns are not with the number of options available but with the only options described and the consequences and motivations for doing them. Namely voting for legal abortion or voting against legal abortion, or any other moral laws. Incidentally, I have addressed why I don’t believe we can do both from a religious stance in my posts, another reason I do not believe this is a false dichotomy, should you wish to address my arguments. My whole argument is about why we can’t do both if we approach this from a religious standpoint, which is the only legitimate standpoint you can approach it from if you believe in the God of Jesus Christ.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

A religion is a set of beliefs. Islam is a religion. Judaism is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Within Christianity, there is Catholicism and the many Protestant sects. Some people say they feel a strong connection to God but belong to no particular religious sect. Still, they love their fellow humans. Therefore, it can be either a religious duty or a human duty. I can be done out of obedience to the precepts of one’s religion or out of love for one’s fellow humans or both. It can be a religious duty and a human duty.

 

[shockerfan]

A question has arisen in my mind concerning the implications of voting for or against political leaders based upon their views on abortion.
It being one thing to protest against a position based on one’s personal convictions it is quite another thing to involve oneself in a system of formal voting in order to invoke an adherence to an agreed upon rule or law whether one agrees with it or not. Whereas In the former implicit beliefs play a role and in the latter explicit acceptance.
By agreeing to involve oneself in such a system we lend a certain credibility to whichever law or viewpoint won the most votes. It being generally accepted that whichever legitimately made law would be adhered to by both those for and against.
If the convictions against such a law were strong enough that though the law be legitimized through popular vote we find ourselves breaking the law rather than following it we have in a sense made our act legitimately criminal as apposed to morally innocent based upon our convictions.
Would it not be better to legitimize our position by refusing to involve ourselves in such a process in the first place rather than place ourselves in a hypocritical position by accepting said process and result only if it’s results are favorable to our convictions?
One should ask oneself if they would adhere to the law if it became legitimate. If not, why would one involve oneself in a process whereby said law is legitimized? Wouldn’t our efforts be better spent in trying to change the personal convictions of those who proposed such a law?

I don’t know if this answers all of your questions, but in 2008, the bishops of Dallas and Ft. Worth issued a joint statement on voting considerations regarding abortion. Here is the link:

prolifedallas.org/voting

 

[davidv]

YES! I absolutely agree! Now, why would you consider this merely a “human stance” and not a religious one?

What if I say neither? The truth is, independent of what categories humans put it in.

 

[setarcos]

What if I say neither? The truth is, independent of what categories humans put it in.

Truth is a category unto itself. The question is, from where do you believe truth comes from, God or man?

 

[setarcos]

A religion is a set of beliefs. Islam is a religion. Judaism is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Within Christianity, there is Catholicism and the many Protestant sects. Some people say they feel a strong connection to God but belong to no particular religious sect. Still, they love their fellow humans. Therefore, it can be either a religious duty or a human duty. I can be done out of obedience to the precepts of one’s religion or out of love for one’s fellow humans or both. It can be a religious duty and a human duty.

As I have said, either you believe God exists or you don’t, setting aside agnosticism for now.
Either you believe in Catholicism or you don’t. If your a believer then by definition this is mutually exclusive of all other religious and non religious viewpoints. This would be your world view. If you believe Jesus Christ is the way, the truth , and the life then of necessity all other positions are in error and irrelevant to your actions. All others by definition live within it.

That being said you must agree that our sense of morality comes from the will of God. Even though others may not believe in God and strictly approach these things from a sense of “human duty” for the love of mankind, they would be deluded in not believing the sense of morality which gave rise to their action did not come from God.

Do you not believe morality comes from the will of God?
There is no such thing as “human duty” in matters of morality apart from Gods will.
As I’ve said, nature could care less. Natural law does not give rise to moral law.
I have also posited that approaching these issues by voting will not achieve the desired results from a moral standpoint.

Would you have our God be a God of confusion and deception?
Are you not aware that God’s commandments are for us to apply to ourselves and not for ourselves to apply them to others? You cannot vote another into salvation and you cannot vote a determined woman, who believes she is doing no wrong, into saving her child.
Are we not deceiving those who, by our participation in voting, believe we are declaring our belief in the rule of law which brings morality to a vote, even though this law be intrinsically evil? Remember the commandment; Thou shall not bare false witness against thy neighbor.
If we bare false witness of ourselves, what then should we expect of our neighbor?

Is it your belief that the only way to save an unborn from abortion is by vote? By voting, do you feel contentment by having fulfilled some sense of duty which you can see no other way of fulfilling?
God save me from believing I know, when I don’t.