Pro Choice Catholics

[KathleenElsie]

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.

Beware my husband and I were elected to local office that way once.

 

[Philothea53]

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.

Whoa, Nellie! What would you have our present Church leadership tell us to do when faced with two nominal or worse choices at the voting both? To not vote is even worse than voting for the lesser of two evils because by the second option you at least cancel out the vote of someone who votes for the greater of two evils. To not vote at all gives them a win.

The Church does an amazing amount of good with the money donated. If She was to lose Her tax exempt status that would hurt 50% of the people helped. This isn’t an exemption question. This is the very best that can be made of a horrivble situation.

I love the Church. Please don’t malign Her.

 

[KathleenElsie]

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. Most Catholics are of the cafiteria variety. Poorly trained in the faith.
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

Sadly people just don’t care. What is not seen does not exist to most people.

 

[Ender]

Abortion will continue to be legal in the US until Roe v. Wade is overturned. As a practical matter, this can only happen if there are a sufficient number of judges on the Supreme Court who believe that the decision was so wrongly decided that it should not be protected by stare decisis.

The fact that a justice is a Catholic is irrelevant to that decision: a justice must rule based on what the law says, not on what he thinks it should say. It is an injustice to a good judge to imply that he makes decisions based on something other than the law.

There is no possibility of passing a constitutional ammendment to either outlaw abortions or even to return the issue to the states. Such a bill would never get out of the senate; it only takes 40 senators to block the legislation.

Since the president nominates supreme court justices, who then have to be approved by the senate, the only possibility of outlawing abortion is to elect a president and senators willing to nominate and affirm justices who view Roe as bad law.

The problem this presents is that one party is adamant about protecting Roe and a lot of people who oppose abortion simply cannot bring themselves to support the other party which they view as wrong on practically everything else.

Ender

 

[fix]

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.

Stated in that general way I agree with you.

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.

This I disagree with. The civil law should not contradict the natural law.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

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.

Disagree again. So called social justice issues are not equivalent in moral weight and are prudential decisions.

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

I’m sorry, I can really only go by the statistics and research available for me. Even picking and choosing between studies, the smallest I can make the drop in abortion related maternal deaths is still over 10 fold (250 vs. 20 per year). And, among deaths that do still occur, illicit abortions remain over represented.

You cannot mix in all child birth related deaths. That is a complicated subject in itself (and another area where, sadly, we trail most of the industrialized world in social justice).

As far as abortion rates, again, I can only go with the studies available. Studies on illegal abortion always contain a wide margin for error because there is little objective data to count. The studies often rely on anonymous surveys. Now that we have more meaningful data I think we need to accept some of the implications. Social Justice, particularly in the forms specificially noted in the Gospel, have a direct impact on abortion rates.

Does anyone think Christ did not know what he was doing when he spent much of his ministry calling us to service and stating our obligations to the weak?

Best Regards

 

[kickinbeat]

My thought on this subject is very simple, **pro-life/anti death penatly. **

As far as the view point of the people running for president, if your vote is based on only one view point (such as abortion), then you need to think about if you really need to vote.

Because this country is in need of leadership right now, and I’m voting for the person who has everything that a great leader stands for.

One last thing, the president’s view on abortion is mostly meaningless, since (he or she) doesn’t have the power to change the law in (his or her’s) what they think is right or wrong. If that were the case, don’t you think George W. would have already. (overturn Roe vs Wade)

Sorry if I offended anyone, just letting you know how I feel.

Thanks

 

[fix]

As far as the view point of the people running for president, if your vote is based on only one view point (such as abortion), then you need to think about if you really need to vote.

So, if a candidate supports slavery that one issue does not trump all others?

Because this country is in need of leadership right now, and I’m voting for the person who has everything that a great leader stands for.

What does that mean?

One last thing, the president’s view on abortion is mostly meaningless, since (he or she) doesn’t have the power to change the law in (his or her’s) what they think is right or wrong. If that were the case, don’t you think George W. would have already. (overturn Roe vs Wade)

The president appoints judges. Is that not critical?

 

[marci]

One last thing, the president’s view on abortion is mostly meaningless, since (he or she) doesn’t have the power to change the law in (his or her’s) what they think is right or wrong. If that were the case, don’t you think George W. would have already. (overturn Roe vs Wade)

 

[kickinbeat]

( To member fix ) What I meant was that in the next presidental election, I’m voting for change (I have never understood Mr. Bush). My pro-choice and anti-death penatly views will not change.

And the S. Court has five conservatives on the it, so it shouldn’t be hard for them to overturn Roe vs Wade.

I wish that abortion would be banned entirely in this country and all over the world.

Hope that helped, God Bless

 

[Ender]

in the next presidental election, I’m voting for change (I have never understood Mr. Bush).

Well, since Bush isn’t running again I guess we’re all voting for change.

And the S. Court has five conservatives on the it, so it shouldn’t be hard for them to overturn Roe vs Wade.

There are five Catholics (which is not relevant), not five conservatives (which is very relevant), and the question of whether they will overturn Roe is very much in doubt.

I wish that abortion would be banned entirely in this country

Wishing it so won’t make it so and I suspect that at least one more justice will be required to make it happen (Kennedy’s vote to overturn Roe is very questionable). Are you willing to risk losing that vote - and getting another decade or more of legal abortion - so you don’t have to vote for a politician who is right on Roe and wrong on other issues?

Ender

 

[KathleenElsie]

As the President is the one to nominate the people for the supreme Court and they are the ones that will say yes or no to the overturning of R-v-W then the next president can not be pro-choice. All it takes in a simple majority to make or break a law in this country. That simple majority can take 20 or more years to change. So the situation is simple we must have pro-life origionalists on the bench. We can not afford laws to be made on the bench by the bench.

 

[Petergee]

I’m sorry, I can really only go by the statistics and research available for me. Even picking and choosing between studies, the smallest I can make the drop in abortion related maternal deaths is still over 10 fold (250 vs. 20 per year).

I don’t know what statistics you are using, but the drop did NOT occur in the 1970s, but 20-30 years earlier.

And, among deaths that do still occur, illicit abortions remain over represented.

Because illegal abortions are more likely to be reported when something goes “wrong”. And you seem to have overlooked that EVERY abortion involves **at least one **death. The fact that occasionally a mother dies as well is merely an additional evil caused by abortion.

You cannot mix in all child birth related deaths.

I wasn’t. I’ll get you a link tomorrow to a refutation of this “making abortion legal makes it rarer and reduces maternal deaths” slogan that the pro-abortion lobby is still falsely bandying about.

That is a complicated subject in itself (and another area where, sadly, we trail most of the industrialized world in social justice).

As far as abortion rates, again, I can only go with the studies available. Studies on illegal abortion always contain a wide margin for error because there is little objective data to count. The studies often rely on anonymous surveys. Now that we have more meaningful data I think we need to accept some of the implications. Social Justice, particularly in the forms specificially noted in the Gospel, have a direct impact on abortion rates.

No one AFAIK is arguing against improving social conditions to reduce pressures on mothers to abort. The Church and all faithful Catholics call for this as well as calling for abortion to be illegal. But if it’s an unfortunate choice between 2 candidates, 1 who wants to ban abortion but will do nothing to relieve social pressures on mothers, and the other who wants to implement a comprehensive program to relieve social and financial stress on mothers, but wants to make/keep abortion legal; then there is no contest. You must vote for the first candidate. And you’re creating a false dichotomy. Social Justice means, first and foremost, not letting innocent people be killed.

Does anyone think Christ did not know what he was doing when he spent much of his ministry calling us to service and stating our obligations to the weak?

Best Regards

No-one here AFAIK. And *a fortiori *our obligations to render service to the weakest people of all, innocent tiny babies, are the strongest obligations of all.

 

[SoCalRC]

And you seem to have overlooked that EVERY abortion involves **at least one **death. The fact that occasionally a mother dies as well is merely an additional evil caused by abortion.

I’m sorry, now you are just being offensive. Attacking me as some pro-choice nut is baseless and hurtful.

The problem is that you seem to be automatically refuting arguments that I am not making. If, like Barbara Boxer, I had said that ‘5,000 woman will die each year if Roe v. Wade is overturned’, you could, rightfully spout about antibiotics and ‘20 years earlier’. See:

factcheck.org/society/abortion_distortions.html

But I did not say 5,000, I said 250, which comes from the studies, facts, and figures one would use to refute Boxer. My point is that it is counter productive to argue that statistics prove or even say something that they do not. It undermines credibility.

Best Regards

 

[Petergee]

I’m sorry, now you are just being offensive. Attacking me as some pro-choice nut is baseless and hurtful.

The problem is that you seem to be automatically refuting arguments that I am not making. If, like Barbara Boxer, I had said that ‘5,000 woman will die each year if Roe v. Wade is overturned’, you could, rightfully spout about antibiotics and ‘20 years earlier’. See:

factcheck.org/society/abortion_distortions.html

But I did not say 5,000, I said 250, which comes from the studies, facts, and figures one would use to refute Boxer. My point is that it is counter productive to argue that statistics prove or even say something that they do not. It undermines credibility.

Best Regards

I don’t know what you’re going on about. I did not attack you and I certainly didn’t say you were “pro-choice”.

My point was that the pro-abortionists’ claim that making abortion legal would reduce abortion and reduce maternal deaths has been proven to be false. You seem to be saying you agree with me about the former, major point but disagree on the latter, minor point, which I have promised to give you facts and figures on when I can get access to them. I never claimed that these stats prove anything other than what they measure. If you see that as somehow hurtful I’m sorry, but I have no idea why you feel hurt.

 

[kickinbeat]

(To Member Ender)
Your points are very vaild, and I appreciate your straight-forwardness. When I said (hope) I also understand that you need action to get your point across. I guess I’m just an optimist at heart.

 

[Listener]

I have several reasons why I have a problem with “one-issue” voting. The first problem is that half the time you don’t have a clue what the person’s opinion on abortion is. This is especially true for positions such as City Council, etc. In a job such as this, you would probably be hard-pressed to find out how the person voted on abortion issues, since there probably wouldn’t be any abortion issues to vote on at that level.

The second problem is that politicians tend to tell you what they want you to hear. Just because a politician says he/she is “pro-life” doesn’t mean he or she really is pro life.

The third problem is that many times, if you could find out the person’s opinion on abortion, you would find that all of the candidates for a particular position hold a “pro choice” view. If you refuse to vote for any of them, then you may not be taking seriously the section in the Catholic Catecism that tells us we have a moral obligation to vote.

The fourth problem is that there are situations where you are required to vote for a PARTY rather than a candidate. This is true, for example, in the primary elections of the State of Washington. It is not very likely that ALL of the candidates in a particular party will be “pro-life.”

I also believe that there are two issues here. The first issue is whether or not a person believes that abortion is morally wrong. The second issue is how the State should punish a person who has had an abortion. While it is true that believing that abortion is okay is certainly not in line with Catholic beliefs, it is also true that two Catholics could disagree about what the State Government should do to punish a person who has had an abortion. One Catholic might believe you should lock that person up and throw away the key; another Catholic might believe that you should not punish the woman, but you should have a severe penalty for the doctor.

To complicate matters even further, consider the following situation: Let’s say that Roe vs. Wade has been reversed. Now there is the following proposed law on the ballot: “Should abortion be restricted to women who are less than eight weeks’ pregnant”? I submit that some pro life people would vote yes because a “yes” vote would eliminate a vast number of abortions. Some pro life people would vote “no” because they couldn’t vote for any law that allowed abortion in any way shape or form.

This situation is so complex that I believe that it is pretty naive to simply state that a person who votes for a “pro-choice” politician is guilty of a mortal sin. Where would the required “full knowledge” come from?

 

[Petergee]

I have several reasons why I have a problem with “one-issue” voting. The first problem is that half the time you don’t have a clue what the person’s opinion on abortion is. This is especially true for positions such as City Council, etc. In a job such as this, you would probably be hard-pressed to find out how the person voted on abortion issues, since there probably wouldn’t be any abortion issues to vote on at that level.

Obviously we are only talking about elections to positions whichmay require the incumbent to make a decision about the legality of abortion.

The second problem is that politicians tend to tell you what they want you to hear. Just because a politician says he/she is “pro-life” doesn’t mean he or she really is pro life.

The pro-life organisations in your area have probably compiled a list of ratings for each candidate based on how pro-life they apparently are, based on their voting records, recorded statements, and responses to questions.

The third problem is that many times, if you could find out the person’s opinion on abortion, you would find that all of the candidates for a particular position hold a “pro choice” view. If you refuse to vote for any of them, then you may not be taking seriously the section in the Catholic Catecism that tells us we have a moral obligation to vote.

If all candidates have exactly the same position on abortion, then you may decide between them based on their other policies. In some jurisdictions you can “write in” another candidate.

The fourth problem is that there are situations where you are required to vote for a PARTY rather than a candidate. This is true, for example, in the primary elections of the State of Washington. It is not very likely that ALL of the candidates in a particular party will be “pro-life.”

In that case you need to compare each party’s, rather than each individual’s, platform of policies, voting record etc.

I also believe that there are two issues here. The first issue is whether or not a person believes that abortion is morally wrong. The second issue is how the State should punish a person who has had an abortion. While it is true that believing that abortion is okay is certainly not in line with Catholic beliefs, it is also true that two Catholics could disagree about what the State Government should do to punish a person who has had an abortion. One Catholic might believe you should lock that person up and throw away the key; another Catholic might believe that you should not punish the woman, but you should have a severe penalty for the doctor.

Both seem possible moral options to me. However to make/leave abortion legal is not a moral option.

To complicate matters even further, consider the following situation: Let’s say that Roe vs. Wade has been reversed. Now there is the following proposed law on the ballot: “Should abortion be restricted to women who are less than eight weeks’ pregnant”? I submit that some pro life people would vote yes because a “yes” vote would eliminate a vast number of abortions. Some pro life people would vote “no” because they couldn’t vote for any law that allowed abortion in any way shape or form.

The Church has stated clearly a number of times that if it is not immediately possible to ban all abortions, you should vote for the measure that will at least reduce or restrict them. So you must vote “yes” and then if that law is passed, then keep working to have all abortions banned.

This situation is so complex that I believe that it is pretty naive to simply state that a person who votes for a “pro-choice” politician is guilty of a mortal sin. Where would the required “full knowledge” come from?

As I said from studying the candidates’ policies etc and by getting advice from pro-life organisations, your bishops etc.

 

[SoCalRC]

My point was that the pro-abortionists’ claim that making abortion legal would reduce abortion and reduce maternal deaths has been proven to be false.

And my point is that you are citing some statistics that don’t exist and others that undermine your point. Case in point, you are arguing that the widespread use of antibotics is somehow misconstrued, decades later, to falsely claim that abortion related maternal deaths has fallen.

But, using death certificates from the a year just prior to the five-state-shift (precursor to Roe) we get 238 - a number everyone agrees underreports the problem, since certainly some family doctors, etc. helped protect family names, etc… On the flip side, the latest number we have from multiple sources is 17. You are welcome to disagree, but I believe that arguing that 17 is no smaller than 238 simply fuels the secular stereotype about Catholics.

But, even worse, by even broaching maternal death rates in the pre-antiobotic decades you bring some other stats into the argument. In 1945, abortion related maternal deaths appears to have been over 5000. Which, understandably, conveys to secular society that lots of abortions were occuring, despite the absense of Roe v. Wade.

I know you are absolutely certain you are right. But by using statistics a bit recklessly to ‘prove’ something that is demonstrably false you undermine another of your arguments that at least may be true.

Best Regards

 

[Delphinus85]

If you are a Catholic, and I do mean a “Catholic”, I would advise you to be very cautious about picking a candidate based on their stance regarding “choices” or any other moral issue. Just because a candidate says he/she is “pro-choice” or “anti-abortion”…is primarily “baby kissing” and “election rhetoric”. You could be setting yourself up to be “sucker punched”. This has already happened in the past election for POTUS.

Don’t get me wrong. I am “anti-abortion”, but when it comes right down to it…politicians lie through their teeth. What counts is their “voting records”…and frankly given the dismal choices that are offered up to the electorate…we are almost forced to pick the lesser of two evils. Its been this way for ages now.

If you make the mistake of voting based solely on the candidates so called stance on the abortion issue…you may have fallen for a panderer, who is much like a dishonest used car salesman, or a politician in general. And you may not like what you get in the long run.

There are many politicians that will pander to Catholics based on our particular beliefs on issues such as abortion, and will try to get you to vote for them…all the while in another arena they will express disdain and animosity towards Catholics, to include declaring Catholicism to be a cult or false religion.

Should you doubt this… I would be more than happy to provide you with links to this people.

I personally…would rather support the lesser of two evils, than make the mistake of voting for a “shill”. You should vote your conscience, as do I. But be prepared to pay the bill when it comes due.

On the flip side though, could you imagine someone voting for Hitler and saying “yes I disagree with the holocaust, but his economic policies were great, and he wasn’t anti-catholic like his lutheran companion who would do everything to outlaw the mass genocide of a people”