Pro Choice Catholics

[pyropam]

Pro Choice Catholics??? Same as “Pro Murder Catholics” I guess.

Impossible… you are either CATHOLIC or you are PRO MURDER, one or the other… never both.

 

[Newbie2]

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?

Well, depending on the race you may have to decide between two “pro-choice” candidates, a term which is disingenuous and should be banned.

Also, the person may not be able to influence public policy on abortion…so their viewpoint is mute…unless they then run later on for a office where they can have such influence.

I guess the rationalization comes when the candidate is “pro-social” agenda oriented, and this overshadows the “pro-abortion” stance. I dunno. Our own governor (MIchigan) claims to be “Personally against abortion” but ran and supports a “pro-choice” stance. Part of her campaign was about her Catholic “values”. Yeah, right.

Part of the “Well, abortion is legal so as governor I have to support it” BS.

Go figure.

I sure didn’t vote for her.

 

[aristotle]

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

That would now. Maybe more crimes should call for the death penalty.

 

[aristotle]

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.

Maybe just because the correct social system has not been set in place. If I believe that, and can argue it, would it not be the best thing for me, being pro-life, to vote for a candidate that supports such a system, even if that candidate is nominally pro-choice?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Maybe just because the correct social system has not been set in place. If I believe that, and can argue it, would it not be the best thing for me, being pro-life, to vote for a candidate that supports such a system, even if that candidate is nominally pro-choice?

No, it isn’t.

First of all, you are supporting abortion by the vote itself.

Secondly, you are placing something (“social systems”) above human life.

And third, you have not looked deeply into the social damage that has been done by such systems – “I admit water is running into the boat ever faster through the holes we drilled, but if we drill **bigger **holes in the bottom, it should start to run out.”

 

[aristotle]

First of all, you are supporting abortion by the vote itself.

How is supporting someone who is nominally pro-choice supporting abortion?

I would vote for a Christian (and have), even though I am not one. That does not mean I am voting for Christianity. I just think the Christian’s policies are the best that will get us away from such superstition, and toward better economy, policy, and education.

Secondly, you are placing something (“social systems”) above human life.

How so? I would support a system only as a means to save lives.

And third, you have not looked deeply into the social damage that has been done by such systems – “I admit water is running into the boat ever faster through the holes we drilled, but if we drill **bigger **holes in the bottom, it should start to run out.”

I am not suggesting holes at all. What I would suggest hasn’t been tried, in my knowledge, in the United States, or anywhere, to full effect.

By the way, with the (very clever) ship analogy, even if I were in favor of drilling holes into the ship to keep it afloat, if I truly thought that such an action would help keep the ship afloat, by another method (those holes would be used to anchor to some sail mechanism, to create drift, by which time the water coming into the ship would be irrelevant), I would still be, in good conscience, supporting staying afloat. I would simply be mistaken.

I do not think I am mistaken. And even if I am, the boat’s already sunk.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How is supporting someone who is nominally pro-choice supporting abortion?

Because “pro-choice” is “pro-abortion.” To say it is not is being intellectuially dishonest.

I would vote for a Christian (and have), even though I am not one. That does not mean I am voting for Christianity. I just think the Christian’s policies are the best that will get us away from such superstition, and toward better economy, policy, and education.

Would you vote for a Nazi, knowing he would support killing the 6,000,000 Jews who live in this country?

Then why vote for a politician whom you know will support killing the unborm? The death toll from abortion in this country alone since Roe v. Wade is four times the death toll in the Holocaust.

How so? I would support a system only as a means to save lives.

’
What “system” is that? If it’s just more of the same, it’s simply drilling larger holes in the boat.

I am not suggesting holes at all. What I would suggest hasn’t been tried, in my knowledge, in the United States, or anywhere, to full effect.

Then what is it you are suggesting? Spell it out for us.

By the way, with the (very clever) ship analogy, even if I were in favor of drilling holes into the ship to keep it afloat, if I truly thought that such an action would help keep the ship afloat, by another method (those holes would be used to anchor to some sail mechanism, to create drift, by which time the water coming into the ship would be irrelevant), I would still be, in good conscience, supporting staying afloat. I would simply be mistaken.

Yes, but mistaken or directly evil, what do you think the **other **people on the ship – who know the adverse effects of drilling those holes – should do?

I do not think I am mistaken. And even if I am, the boat’s already sunk.

Actually, there are about 300 million people in this country still alive.

 

[aristotle]

Because “pro-choice” is “pro-abortion.” To say it is not is being intellectuially dishonest.

Though I disagree with this, I will concede to it for the time being. I will reword: “How is supporting someone who is nominally pro-abortion supporting abortion?”

Would you vote for a Nazi, knowing he would support killing the 6,000,000 Jews who live in this country?

I would vote for a Nazi who would put into place a system that would have the effect of saving the lives of many Jews, over a non-Nazi, who is against killing Jews, supporting a system that will result in the death of even more Jews.

Then why vote for a politician whom you know will support killing the unborm?

I don’t. I don’t think pro-abortion politicians always favor policies that will increase killing of the unborn. They may favor policies that favor saving the lives of the unborn. I am concerned with the effect.

The death toll from abortion in this country alone since Roe v. Wade is four times the death toll in the Holocaust.

A valid comparison to the Nazis, I agree. Or to incompetent communists who ended up killing good portions of their workforce through an inefficient economic system.

Roe v. Wade is not good. But I think a better health-care system coupled with our nation’s capital, and a systematized and well-advertised state adoption program would be more effective in reducing abortions.

But just in case you were thinking of arguing the system proposed, I’m not going to play that game. Maybe the system doesn’t work, but if I believe it is the best way to get rid of abortions, after looking into it properly, it is what I should do, as a good pro-life American.

Yes, but mistaken or directly evil, what do you think the **other **people on the ship – who know the adverse effects of drilling those holes – should do?

In this case, the people who are against the drilling holes should do whatever they can to stop the person.

I suggest that, if you believe I am drilling holes, you vote to stop me, and try to persuade me against drilling holes.

But as I believe now that what I am doing is the best thing for the unborn children, I will do my best to persuade you, and to continue to drill my holes.

Actually, there are about 300 million people in this country still alive.

Very true. You don’t need a boat in order to float.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Though I disagree with this, I will concede to it for the time being. I will reword: “How is supporting someone who is nominally pro-abortion supporting abortion?”

How is supporting a Nazi supporting Nazism?

I would vote for a Nazi who would put into place a system that would have the effect of saving the lives of many Jews, over a non-Nazi, who is against killing Jews, supporting a system that will result in the death of even more Jews.

Does the phrase, “Contradiction in terms” mean anything?

Read Mein Kampf and tell me how there can be “a Nazi who would put into place a system that would have the effect of saving the lives of many Jews”

I don’t. I don’t think pro-abortion politicians always favor policies that will increase killing of the unborn. They may favor policies that favor saving the lives of the unborn. I am concerned with the effect.

So give us an example of a pro-abortion politician and his policy that will favor saving the lives of the unborn.

A valid comparison to the Nazis, I agree. Or to incompetent communists who ended up killing good portions of their workforce through an inefficient economic system.

Roe v. Wade is not good. But I think a better health-care system coupled with our nation’s capital, and a systematized and well-advertised state adoption program would be more effective in reducing abortions.

How would better health-care result in reduced abortions – especially since all proposals supported by pro-abortion politicians include taxpayer-financed abortion?

And while I agree we can do better in facilitatiing adoption, most pro-abortion politicans back the very obstacles that make adoption so hard – such as forbidding parents of one race to adopt a child of another race.

But just in case you were thinking of arguing the system proposed, I’m not going to play that game. Maybe the system doesn’t work, but if I believe it is the best way to get rid of abortions, after looking into it properly, it is what I should do, as a good pro-life American.

Just how many holes do you plan to drill in the bottom of the boat?

 

[aristotle]

How is supporting a Nazi supporting Nazism?

If the Nazi is a Nazi with efficient policies. I would rather have an inefficient Nazi than an efficient Stalinist.

Does the phrase, “Contradiction in terms” mean anything?

Yes, I think it has meaning. What’s more, I think I understand it’s meaning. Why do you mention it?

By the way, I have read Mein Kamph. I would still vote for a nominal Nazi if I thought that he would, by his policy, save more lives than the other guy.

So give us an example of a pro-abortion politician and his policy that will favor saving the lives of the unborn.

I would, but it is against the rules of this forum to name candidates for President. Message/e-mail me, and we can discuss this aspect further.

How would better health-care result in reduced abortions – especially since all proposals supported by pro-abortion politicians include taxpayer-financed abortion?

Because, if there were enough other informed options, via healthcare (first step), and if the person using these options is also informed about the nature of the fetus (second step), then there need be no more abortions, legal or illegal, except to save the life of the mother (which is intrensically more important than the life of a baby).

And while I agree we can do better in facilitatiing adoption, most pro-abortion politicans back the very obstacles that make adoption so hard – such as forbidding parents of one race to adopt a child of another race.

Actually, the support for same-sex adoption is backed by many pro-abortionists. I think it would be a wonderful step forward.

Just how many holes do you plan to drill in the bottom of the boat?

As many as it takes. crazy far-off grin

 

[vern_humphrey]

If the Nazi is a Nazi with efficient policies. I would rather have an inefficient Nazi than an efficient Stalinist.

An “efficient” Nazi would have killed all the Jews (and all the Catholics, too.)

Yes, I think it has meaning. What’s more, I think I understand it’s meaning. Why do you mention it?

Because a Nazi “who saves Jews” is a contradiction in terms. Read Mein Kampf.

By the way, I have read Mein Kamph. I would still vote for a nominal Nazi if I thought that he would, by his policy, save more lives than the other guy.

And if you could believe that, you could believe anything.

I would, but it is against the rules of this forum to name candidates for President. Message/e-mail me, and we can discuss this aspect further.

If we will debate publicly, we must spell out the policy publicly. You don’t have to give us his name, just his proposal.

Because, if there were enough other informed options, via healthcare (first step), and if the person using these options is also informed about the nature of the fetus (second step), then there need be no more abortions, legal or illegal, except to save the life of the mother (which is intrensically more important than the life of a baby).

So how come we can’t get a law passed saying a woman must be shown a 4D sonogram of her baby before aborting it? It isn’t pro-life politicians who oppose that!!

How come we can’t get parental notification when a minor is aborted? You know that an underage girl who is pregnant has far more problems than the simple fact of her pregnancy – and the people who are charged by law and nature with helping her are her parents. Why not inform them?

Actually, the support for same-sex adoption is backed by many pro-abortionists. I think it would be a wonderful step forward.

And cross-race adoption?

As many as it takes. crazy far-off grin

I’m glad it was you who used the world “crazy” here.

 

[Lorrie]

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.

 

[aristotle]

An “efficient” Nazi would have killed all the Jews (and all the Catholics, too.)

Which is why I said I would want an inefficient one, which is really not a Nazi at all (even though he calls himself one). Just like inefficient pro-abortionists are really not pro-abortion. And they may help prevent abortions better than inefficient pro-lifers (which is to say most of them).

Because a Nazi “who saves Jews” is a contradiction in terms. Read Mein Kampf.

Not if he’s more incompetant than the next guy.

If we will debate publicly, we must spell out the policy publicly. You don’t have to give us his name, just his proposal.

Or her’s. Public health care is really the only important first step.

So how come we can’t get a law passed saying a woman must be shown a 4D sonogram of her baby before aborting it?

Would it really prevent as many abortions as a better health-care system along with a better education system, supported by the full United States economic power?

And cross-race adoption?

All for it. But I am more for universal health-care. I see it as the only possible effective first step toward limiting abortions. I think everything else will ultimately fail, short of capital punishment for committing abortions, which I see as worse than the abortions themselves (the children are worth less than their parents).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Which is why I said I would want an inefficient one, which is really not a Nazi at all (even though he calls himself one). Just like inefficient pro-abortionists are really not pro-abortion. And they may help prevent abortions better than inefficient pro-lifers (which is to say most of them).

Congratulations. You’ve gotten yourself thoroughly confused.

Not if he’s more incompetant than the next guy.

Do you understand how our government works? The majority party controls the committees – where the work is done. Even an inefficient Nazi counts toward a Nazi majority – just as an inefficient pro-abortionist counts toward a pro-abortion majority.

Or her’s. Public health care is really the only important first step.

What are you trying to say? If you have a program, spell it out!

Would it really prevent as many abortions as a better health-care system along with a better education system, supported by the full United States economic power?

“Better” health care is not guarenteed – but more spending is. Certainly more spending has not brought about better education.

All for it. But I am more for universal health-care. I see it as the only possible effective first step toward limiting abortions. I think everything else will ultimately fail, short of capital punishment for committing abortions, which I see as worse than the abortions themselves (the children are worth less than their parents).

Ah, so you’re a stalking horse for socialized medicine?

Tell me this – Canadian doctors now flock to the US, where many of them treat their fellow Canadians. Canadians with money and serious health problems who cannot wait for the government waiting list come to the US and pay with their own money.

Where will we go when we have “universal health care?”

 

[johnlal]

Why do many Catholics, Catholics who are spiritual and not just nominal Catholics, willing to back candidates who are pro abortion?

When you focus on one or two issues in a presidential election, you may run the risk of voting for a candidate who pays lip service to respect for life issues, but then presides over immoral war, torture, murder and rape, and class warfare.

The “God Guns and Gays” voters don’t usually make good picks.

 

[vern_humphrey]

When you focus on one or two issues in a presidential election, you may run the risk of voting for a candidate who pays lip service to respect for life issues, but then presides over immoral war, torture, murder and rape, and class warfare.

The “God Guns and Gays” voters don’t usually make good picks.

As Cardinal Ratzinger said, it is permissible to differ with the Holy Father on matters of war and the death penalty, but not on abortion.

And you should cast your vote on the candidate’s record, not his words. Nor should you presume that a candidate who is pro-life is automatically for all those other things you list.

 

[aristotle]

Do you understand how our government works? The majority party controls the committees – where the work is done. Even an inefficient Nazi counts toward a Nazi majority – just as an inefficient pro-abortionist counts toward a pro-abortion majority.

But if his/her policies end up reducing the number of abortions, I will vote for him/her.

What are you trying to say? If you have a program, spell it out!

Already have, for the most part. Again, loose summary. For more detail, I would need to devote a post to it. I support a universal healthcare, adoption to any stable couple (even multi-racial, open-relationship, unmarried, or same-sex), both supported by our robust American economy, coupled with a strong education system (made strong by introducing corporal punishment, and making education voluntary). This will have one of two effects: either it will lower abortions right away, because most people will be better educated, and will know that their children will be supported by the US system. Or those who choose to be uneducated will still seek out abortions while they are legal (the better education and more available adoption will probably lead to making abortion illegal, eventually) will eliminate themselves from the gene pool.

Ah, so you’re a stalking horse for socialized medicine?

“Stalking horse”?

Tell me this – Canadian doctors now flock to the US, where many of them treat their fellow Canadians. Canadians with money and serious health problems who cannot wait for the government waiting list come to the US and pay with their own money.

Where will we go when we have “universal health care?”

Irrelevant. Canadians did it wrong. If you want to know how, please PM me, or start another topic on health care.

As for voting the way I do, as I believe the system proposed is best (and as I will not debate the system here, I invite you to PM me with a different thread where said system should be debated), I will vote for nominally pro-abortion candidates that support the position.

I think it’s the reasonable thing for a pro-life voter to do.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But if his/her policies end up reducing the number of abortions, I will vote for him/her.

Let me explain the concept of “tense” in English. You have to vote before “his policies” end up accomplishing anything.

In other words, you pays your money and takes your choice.

Already have, for the most part. Again, loose summary. For more detail, I would need to devote a post to it. I support a universal healthcare, adoption to any stable couple (even multi-racial, open-relationship, unmarried, or same-sex), both supported by our robust American economy, coupled with a strong education system (made strong by introducing corporal punishment, and making education voluntary). This will have one of two effects: either it will lower abortions right away, because most people will be better educated, and will know that their children will be supported by the US system. Or those who choose to be uneducated will still seek out abortions while they are legal (the better education and more available adoption will probably lead to making abortion illegal, eventually) will eliminate themselves from the gene pool.

First of all, adoption and abortion are not closely related. People don’t have abortions because they can’t find adoptive parents – in fact, if they even looked, they could find three takers for each child --** if **they looked.

Next, people have been promising to improve the American education system since I was in school – and I graduated 50 years ago, and nothing much has been accomplished.

Finally, you’re talking about a system that would freeze out the poor – those whose children most need education are the very ones who would not care if their children went to school

Irrelevant. Canadians did it wrong. If you want to know how, please PM me, or start another topic on health care.

The health care system promoted during the Clinton Administration was modeled on the Canadian system. Guess who is the front runner for the Democratic nomination in '08?

As for voting the way I do, as I believe the system proposed is best (and as I will not debate the system here, I invite you to PM me with a different thread where said system should be debated), I will vote for nominally pro-abortion candidates that support the position.

I think it’s the reasonable thing for a pro-life voter to do.

Unfortunately, not in **this **world.

 

[Amolibri]

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

EXCELLENT points!!!
If it’s really as simple as “thou shalt not kill”…then how is the death penalty EVER justified? Killing by the state is “simply” killing, no???

 

[johnlal]

As Cardinal Ratzinger said, it is permissible to differ with the Holy Father on matters of war and the death penalty, but not on abortion.

Well, we might have war and torture under this administration, but at least abortion is illegal. Wait a minute. No it’s not!