Pro Choice Catholics

[bilop]

i vote on one issue and one issue only.

the candidate who is pro-life from conception to natural death gets my vote. if there are no pro-life candidates, i write myself in.

You shouldn’t do this if one candidate is substantially better than the other. If both are unalterably pro-abortion on demand, I agree with your approach. But, if one is willing to limit abortion, or appoint judges who will, you should vote for the lesser of two evils. Better to save some babies than none.

God Bless

 

[aristotle]

The difference is that the death penalty is not the taking of an innocent life (murder).

With reference to euthanasia… are old people really all that innocent?

What if we just included a stricter legal system, that involved executions based on illegal drug-use, and defined all pain-killers, for whatever reason, as illegal?

Is this within the rights of the State? Why or why not?

 

[fix]

Now, here is the tricky part. Are the politicians who blocked the changes pro-abortion or pro-life? In other words, is the proper litmus test what they say they about Roe v. Wade, or the actual consequences of their actions in office?

Again, I do not mean this to be a political endorsement for any side or person. I am just making the point that few perfect candidates exist and a Catholic who, for example, felt a great calling with regards to poverty or socio economic exploitation might decide to vote for a different ‘lesser of two evils’ than a fellow Catholic who felt called to God’s work in a different area.

Best Wishes

I will let the moral theologians explain what reasoning is needed to decipher the situation you tell, but it seems you offer a decision between two candidates. One candidate claims to defend life but disregards life when offered money. The other candidate admits he does not care and claims abortion is simply a choice.

One is a hypocrite possibly because they know what is right and what is wrong but acts immorally for cash. The other one seems to be even further down the slope and no longer even sees murder as wrong.

Not a great choice but at least one still wants to hide the sin while the other no longer even bothering to hide it. Then again, both are in need of prayer.

 

[SoCalRC]

SoCalRC, I don’t see your problem. Yes of course we need to judge a politicians actions (how he voted on measures that would reduce or ban abortions) rather than just his words. But if I follow what you’re saying, then a politician who supported laws to prevent forced abortions on Saipan, but supported keeping abortion legal as per Roe v Wade, would reduce the number of abortions. A politician who supported overturning Roe v Wade would reduce the number much more, as the US States and territories would then be free to ban or impose restrictions on abortion, and in seems apparent to me that most if not all of them would do just that. Seems no contest to me. Of course if there is a politician who supported both reforms, s/he would be even better to vote for.

If a person illegally and repeatedly profits from a grievous form of abortion while telling you they treasure life, how can you possibly believe them? In other words, how can you ever be sure that he/she is not just exploiting your beliefs for personal power? I don’t mean that in a disrespectful way, I am just asking.

My point is basically RobHom’s. Saying you are pro life is easy, but being pro-life is a different story.

I think another question raised is, does an end justify a means? In the case of abortion, I think our faith says no. For example, multiple popes have instructed us that, while saving the life of a mother is worthy and understandable goal, it does not justify abortion.

Similiarly, abortions have declined fairly steadily since Roe v. Wade in the US. Recently we have seen increases in some states, but that seems to be tied to serious socio economic pressures. Even after the first five year period of static/declining wages since 1945, the national trend seems downward.

Most researchers attribute this to contraception availability and effectiveness. But would it be right for the Church to embrace contraception, a long standing grave moral teaching, to lower abortions?

Just as the Church cannot use illicit means to achieve ‘good’ results, I cannot see myself supporting an evil and dishonest person for public service just because they say what I want to hear on one issue.

Again, no disrespect intended, I am just explaining my own feelings.

Best Regards

 

[SoCalRC]

The other candidate admits he does not care and claims abortion is simply a choice.

Is that the claim? How about the politician who believes that prohibition is a failure. And that some form of legalization at least dramatically elliminates the number of teenagers who die from their mistakes, affords an opportunity for counciling, and gives a mechanism to connect those seeking abortions to pro-life alternatives like adoption?

I am not arguing this point of view directly for myself, but I must acknowledge that there is some statistical evidence to support it. I also must admit that I have reached the conclussion that addressing this issue solely, or even primarily, through secular law is a path that will almost certainly fail.

Look at our biggest ‘triumph’ since Roe v. Wade. A ‘partial birth abortion ban’ that bans nothing. The majority opinion from the US Supreme Court, signed by 3 self identified Catholics, argues that the ban will not stop abortions, it even includes a blueprint for avoiding the law. The concurring opinion, signed by 2 self identified Catholics, agrees with the the majority as a matter of law, but then suggests that they would have not upheld the law if the Commerce Clause (!!) of the Constitution had been raised. It really makes me question if some of our allies in this fight are more interesting in pursuing and maintaining power than actual social change.

On the flip side, look at the soaring abortion rates in US military families. The problem is that secular society is placing staggering burdens on them at the same time it slashes support. Should they sin? Obviously not. But are not the rest of us also sinning? We are exploiting them for our own common good. If the tremendous pressure we create leads them to sin, I believe we are at least partially to blame.

Best Wishes

 

[Jack_Fisher]

…
Simply put: The Supreme Court cannot overturn and earlier decision made by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court decisions are final. Thats why they call it the Supreme Court. If the present Supreme Court was to overturn any decision previously made by a previously sitting Supreme Court, I believe it would trigger a very serious constitutional crisis, and could lead to legal mayhem in this country…

that is completely untrue. the best example that comes to mind is Plessy v. Ferguson wihch upheld the constitutionality of segregation under the “separate but equal” notion. Plessy was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education which held “separate but equal is inherently unequal”. a few more minutes of searching would turn up scores more cases overturned.

and a supreme court decision can be “overturned” by an act of congress, or a constititional amendment.

 

[fix]

Is that the claim? How about the politician who believes that prohibition is a failure. And that some form of legalization at least dramatically elliminates the number of teenagers who die from their mistakes, affords an opportunity for counciling, and gives a mechanism to connect those seeking abortions to pro-life alternatives like adoption?

Still gravely immoral.

I am not arguing this point of view directly for myself, but I must acknowledge that there is some statistical evidence to support it. I also must admit that I have reached the conclussion that addressing this issue solely, or even primarily, through secular law is a path that will almost certainly fail.

Changing the law is necessary, but not sufficient.

Look at our biggest ‘triumph’ since Roe v. Wade. A ‘partial birth abortion ban’ that bans nothing. The majority opinion from the US Supreme Court, signed by 3 self identified Catholics, argues that the ban will not stop abortions, it even includes a blueprint for avoiding the law. The concurring opinion, signed by 2 self identified Catholics, agrees with the the majority as a matter of law, but then suggests that they would have not upheld the law if the Commerce Clause (!!) of the Constitution had been raised. It really makes me question if some of our allies in this fight are more interesting in pursuing and maintaining power than actual social change.

I am not a republican or democrat. I agree we cannot place our faith in men.

On the flip side, look at the soaring abortion rates in US military families. The problem is that secular society is placing staggering burdens on them at the same time it slashes support. Should they sin? Obviously not. But are not the rest of us also sinning? We are exploiting them for our own common good. If the tremendous pressure we create leads them to sin, I believe we are at least partially to blame.

I would not buy that. I accept societal influences play a role.

 

[bilop]

With reference to euthanasia… are old people really all that innocent?

What if we just included a stricter legal system, that involved executions based on illegal drug-use, and defined all pain-killers, for whatever reason, as illegal?

Is this within the rights of the State? Why or why not?

Are you serious? Most old people are innocent of any crime that would call for the death penalty.

That would be a very odd government.

God Bless

 

[SoCalRC]

The difference is that the death penalty is not the taking of an innocent life (murder).

Actually, we have, at least 100 times since the begining of the 20th century. We have an individual on death row now who is almost certainly innocent (the eye witnesses have all recanted and admitted that they were pressured and coached) and the appeal was not heard by the court because of a Federal law ‘streamlining’ appeals (I guess we now value speed to execution over justice).

It is easy to fall into the trap of moral relativism and say things like ‘what is 100 against 1000000?’ But I believe this misses the point. If we are the last western nation to resort to capitol punishment and the only western nation to use rendition and torture, why are we surprised that we live in a culture of death as far as the womb is concerned.

If abortion is everything why does the Pope ever speak about anything else? Why spend part of Easter calling an end for the senseless war and destruction in Iraq? Why call wealthy nations to task for benefitting from slave labor in the developing world?

It seems to me that the Pope is correct. We need to try to follow Christ in every aspect of our lives, not just one narrow area.

Best Regards

 

[SoCalRC]

Still gravely immoral.

Actually, I am not sure of that. Both in a decree and in a doctrinal note Rome has asserted that it is not a sin for a Catholic politician to vote for some form of legalized abortion if the alternatives are graver.

It seems that it can only be deemed as gravely immoral if we intrinsically link secular law to God’s law. We seem to be warned against doing this in the Gospels, and the hypothetical politician is attempting to pursue God’s law on multiple fronts. That is, the politician who promotes social justice will be reducing abortions and following Christ’s teachings regarding service and the poor.

On the other hand politician who votes ‘correctly’ on abortion but against social justice in all other matters appears to thwart Christ’s teachings while accomplishing little in the way of actually stopping abortions. In fact, the social policies may increase abortions.

Best Regards

 

[cascherman]

This is a very very simple argument in my opinion.

5th commandment: Thou shalt not kill.

OKAY, case closed. How can we actually be arguing that ‘so-and-so’ is a Catholic or not a Catholic when ‘so-and-so’ knowingly and willingly supports murder.

These ‘catholics’ have protested one of the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Decalogue which makes them a protestant by meaning, and worse by action.

I know that I sin, but do I support sinning? No, I loathe it. I am not saying anyone who sins is a protestant (not to be associated by doctrine with our protestant friends). Anyone who stands up for the sins they commit is the antithesis of what Christ has taught us to be.

Pretty simple to me. IMO.

 

[SoCalRC]

This is a very very simple argument in my opinion.

5th commandment: Thou shalt not kill.

OKAY, case closed. How can we actually be arguing that ‘so-and-so’ is a Catholic or not a Catholic when ‘so-and-so’ knowingly and willingly supports murder.

But I suspect you don’t really see it that simply at all. If it is ‘simple’ we could say, ‘Thou shalt not kill’, the war in Iraq is killing a lot of innocent people, can’t support a politician who supports war…

Or, since dumping toxic chemicals causes spontaneous abortions, ‘simple’, ‘Thou shalt not kill’, so don’t vote for politicians who support big business interests…

It is only ‘simple’ if we not only give abortion very special status, but also accept only one causal factor (secular law). As soon as we acknowledge that killing unborn children in any manner other than a legal abortion is evil and cannot be ignored, things look pretty complicated to me.

But that is just my opinion.

Best Regards

 

[Petergee]

So how do we really know who’se policies will increase abortions and who’se will not?

Maybe the person who is nominally pro-abortion (claims to be so, and votes for abortion rights) actually holds a different view that I believe will be more effective in limiting and eliminating abortions, ultimately.

That was the bill of goods they tried to sell us 40 years ago, but it’s hogwash: “Isn’t it horrible that all these illegal abortions are happening! If we make it legal that will actually **reduce **the number of abortions!” The statistics since in every single country which has legalised abortion show that this claim is spectacularly false and disingenuous. Whenever it is legalised, the abortion rate skyrockets.

 

[SoCalRC]

That was the bill of goods they tried to sell us 40 years ago, but it’s hogwash: “Isn’t it horrible that all these illegal abortions are happening! If we make it legal that will actually **reduce **the number of abortions!” The statistics since in every single country which has legalised abortion show that this claim is spectacularly false and disingenuous. Whenever it is legalised, the abortion rate skyrockets.

Well, ‘skyrocket’ is a bit missleading. We don’t generally know how many illegal abortions occure because, well, they are illegal -hence underground. Using the US as an example, legal abortion numbers did ‘skyrocket’ after Roe v. Wade, but abortion related deaths for mothers immediately dropped about 15 fold.

More interesting, they held steady in constant numbers for a number of years (which suggests a minor drop in the overall abortion rate, since population was growing), then started to appreciably drop - something that they have continued to do for the last 30 years. Rate of decline seems to somewhat follow prosperity, but the overall trend remains down. For example, in the last six years, which included the first five year run of stagnant/negative wages since 1945, we have seen numbers rise in a couple of states, but the national rate continues to decline.

Personally, I think it has nothing to do with legalization and everything to do with contraception (another grave moral sin) and an aging population, but that is hard to prove. In the mean time, with the numbers seemingly supporting the original ‘bill of goods’, it is hard to argue the matter with someone on any grounds other than faith.

Best Regards

 

[Petergee]

Well, ‘skyrocket’ is a bit missleading. We don’t generally know how many illegal abortions occure because, well, they are illegal -hence underground. Using the US as an example, legal abortion numbers did ‘skyrocket’ after Roe v. Wade, but abortion related deaths for mothers immediately dropped about 15 fold.

No they didn’t. That claim has been comprehensively refuted. The abortion rate WAS a lot lower when it was illegal, although it did increase slightly in the 1960s. But the drop in maternal deaths occurred in the 1940s with the use of antibiotics and other medical advances. The maternal death rate in the 1950s and 60s was about the same as the rate in the 70s and 80s.

Personally, I think it has nothing to do with legalization and everything to do with contraception (another grave moral sin) and an aging population, but that is hard to prove. In the mean time, with the numbers seemingly supporting the original ‘bill of goods’, it is hard to argue the matter with someone on any grounds other than faith.

Best Regards

It’s hard, but we have to do it. Babies are dying by the millions** now**. We won’t be able to convert all or even most of the pro-abortion people to the true faith in time to save most of them. We must primarily argue with non-Catholics and especially with atheists and agnostics on the grounds of pure natural reason with no mention of God.

 

[RobHom]

This is a very very simple argument in my opinion.

5th commandment: Thou shalt not kill.

OKAY, case closed. How can we actually be arguing that ‘so-and-so’ is a Catholic or not a Catholic when ‘so-and-so’ knowingly and willingly supports murder.

If you declare the case closed on that basis, you are then making the statement that each and every man or woman who put on the uniform and went to war to defend their nation, either voluntarily or at the behest of the nation, and while in combat, or during support functions killed or assisted directly or indirectly in the deaths of members of the enemy…is in fact a “murderer”.

This is hardly the case. And insofar as the sentence of capital punishment is concerned… it, the act of terminating the existence of a being that has gone to great lengths to kill others criminally, and who has also been adjudged guilty and sentenced to death according to the laws of the land…even the Catholic Church states that this is right and proper. Destroying a murderer who has been judged by a jury of his or her peers…is not murder. It is removing a murdering predator from society.

Before you respond…ask yourself this: Would you be willing to assume all financial and civil liability for someone like “Bundy”?
Would you be responsible for him if he had survived, escaped and killed more innocent people? I think not.

Pretty simple to me. IMO.

Sorry, but it is never that “simple”.

 

[RobHom]

that is completely untrue. the best example that comes to mind is Plessy v. Ferguson wihch upheld the constitutionality of segregation under the “separate but equal” notion. Plessy was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education which held “separate but equal is inherently unequal”. a few more minutes of searching would turn up scores more cases overturned.

Not to argue, but stating that two cases are equivalent, is a tad bit specious…and in order to say that it reversed itself, all points in the two cases would have to be substantially alike, otherwise under points of law, the cases would be totally different.

and a supreme court decision can be “overturned” by an act of congress, or a constititional amendment.

Then, that begs the all important question: WHY HAS THERE NOT BEEN AN ACT OF CONGRESS, OR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT???

Is it that so many politicians who pander to christians for their votes…are not what they profess to be…?? Why have not Christians in this country banded together to gather the signatures necessary to push forth a Constitutional Amendment?

And one other poster who was not an American, made mention of some of the decisions made in earlier times regarding Negroes, or present day African-Americans. The Supreme Court did not reverse itself. Its decisions were based upon issues germain to the times, and considering that “slavery” was at the time legal in many states…and slaves were property…for instance the Dred Scott decision en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott The essential issue was not solved by a decision on the part of the Supreme Court, but by the 13th and 14th Amendment to our Constitution: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Personally, I have never read of a case where a standing Supreme Court “overturned” a complete decision made by a previously standing Supreme Court.

 

[PLAL]

I think there are several problems…

1. I think many people are married to being a “Republican” or a “Democrat” instead of putting their Catholicism first.
2. I think many people believe they have to vote for a certain candidate to keep their government jobs or to support their unions. They place the life of themselves and family over the lives of over 45,000,000 unborn babies who have been killed in the womb.
3. Some Catholics don’t believe abortion can be overturned so they don’t consider this a voting issue (anotherwords the devil has them in their pocket). Luckily this never happened back in the day with Slavery.
4. Remember most Catholics don’t attend Mass on a weekly basis. Therefore they don’t hear the “Truth”. Their lack of moral values are therefore formed by the secular society. Also, remember when you say the “Our Father” the prayer states to receive your Daily Bread, not Weekly Bread. So we should attempt to go to Mass every day.
5. Most Catholic’s go to communion even with serious sin. Over 90% of Catholics contracept and most everyone I see in church goes to communion. How could this be happening if many are not in full “communion” of the Church? Our generation is one of the worst catechized generations in the history of the Church. Things are now starting to change.
6. We need our Priests to speak out more on the hot button issues.

If Catholics just voted for the “Pro-Life” candidates only in one national election, Abortion would be gone right away.

If your not active in Pro-Life Activism, then your already half dead!

PLAL

 

[Steve40]

Why do many Catholics, Catholics who are spiritual and not just nominal Catholics, willing to back candidates who are pro abortion? For Catholics, this is a central issue but some people can rationalize. What has happened?

Because our present Church leadership says it is OK to vote for the lesser of evil. They say go ahead compromise with evil make a deal wiith the devil and we do. I think they are dead wrong and need to say don’t vote for evil.

They prefer the tax exemption of not being a prophet, or not for profit. Instead of saying don’t vote for that stinking baby killer.

But then again we vote where our hearts are and God has given us the leadership that we deserve. Our wishy washy leadership is God’s judgement upon us. They call it being pastoral. I call it the wrath of God upon a sinful generation.

 

[marci]

Regardless of what the church has neglected to officially said about the state of one’s soul if they vote for a pro-abortion candidate, I believe common sense tells us that it is a sin. In my opinion, if I vote for a candidate who, by his vote, contributes to keeping abortion legal in this country, I am assisting in that evil. By my vote, I (we) determine whether a pro-abortion candidate gets elected. Thereby effecting the continuation of abortion laws, which inturn provides the means for a doctor to perform an abortion, and which allows a woman to recieve an abortion. All of this is dependant upon us. Without our vote for abortion, a doctor cannot legally perform one.

If every catholic in this country voted pro-life, abortion would be illegal. Start with the basics and then we can move on to other issues.

As far as social justice, we should all do what we can to fulfill our obligation to our fellow man, but life trumps everything. When we are given a choice, we must choose life. I believe it was Pope Pius (I could be wrong) who wrote about liberation theology, and how many good intentioned catholics were being led astray. I think that a hint of this could be in play when catholics allow the social issues to override abortion.