Pro-Choice folks, what are your reasons for supporting abortion?

[vz71]

The point is that many here are not voting for the most pro life choice available, they are voting for the most pro life choice out of candidates considered viable.

And you believe an unviable candidate to be a proper choice?

 

[rlg94086]

You seem a little confused by your own hypothetical. The Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban contains no exceptions, medical or other wise, so a move towards exceptions of rape and incest would be a move away from Catholic teaching. In practice, the change would be meaningless, since the law does not stop any abortions, but in principle, it would still be a shift in the wrong direction.

I didn’t bother reading the rest of your post, since you didn’t read mine. I never said anything about “partial birth” abortion. I was talking about an abortion ban. If you are going to misrepresent my posts, why should I read your responses?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t know abot SoCal…but I can tell you that I voted for President Bush twice and he was the President who signed into effect the partial birth abortion ban! Seems to me…he indeed limited an intrinisic evil when the “other” candidates certainly wouldn’t have done so!

Bingo!

Let’s re-hash the partial birth abortion ban. It passed during the Clinton administration, when both houses were Republican. But the President (Clinton) vetoed it.

In the first congress of the Bush Administration, it passed the House and went to the Senate, where 60 (out of 100) Senators signed on as co-sponsors. But it never got to a vote!! The Senate had a Democrat majority, and the senior Democrats controlled the committees, so they kept it bottled up.

In the second congress of the Bush Administration, with Republican majorities in both House and Senate, it easily passed both houses, and Bush signed it into law.

When it was challenged in court, the Supreme Court upheld it – with the key vote being a Justice (Roberts) nominated by Bush and confirmed by the Senate.

Now let those who take the “Republicans are icky” line tell us what they did with their votes.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is certainly not my intent to falsely represent anyone’s position. That is why I try to quote.

See below

I think you are projecting again. In every one of these threads I have always noted that I am just another sinner. In fact, that has been my recurring theme, that since we all compromise we should have more empathy and tolerance. Identifying ‘real’ Catholics from ‘false’ or ‘couch potato’ ones is your province, not mine.

When did I use the phrase ‘real’ Catholics? This is an invention of yours, pretending that I opposed ‘real’ Catholics to couch potato Catholics.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Abortion is not a red herring, it is intrinsically evil and a horrible symptom of a culture of death. Note what Rome has to say about it with regards to voting:

I never said abortion is a “red herring”. The “red herrings” are all the tangential arguments that are actually just political party positions about other things, and all of the “only perfection will do me” arguments. Obviously, NARAL, which calls the Repub presidential candidate radically “anti-abortion” and fears that people will not see him in that light, has assessed the candidates. Sometimes it’s good to pay attention to how the overt enemy sees things, because they tend to say things straight out.

However, perhaps I was incorrect in thinking all the tangential arguments to be “red herrings”. Maybe they only seemed so in the immediate context. The actual topic is “Pro-Choice folks, what are your reasons for supporting abortion?” I think we have actually seen a number of responses, e.g., “I oppose everything the Republican party says, does or thinks”,“There are all these other “life” issues I like better” and the like. I guess, after all, those really were answers to the question posed. They just weren’t prefaced by “My reasons are…”.

 

[mapleoak]

When it comes to murder (an intrinsic evil) there is absolutely no reason to not expect a candidate for office to be perfect in that regard.

 

[YADA]

Bingo!

Let’s re-hash the partial birth abortion ban. It passed during the Clinton administration, when both houses were Republican. But the President (Clinton) vetoed it.

In the first congress of the Bush Administration, it passed the House and went to the Senate, where 60 (out of 100) Senators signed on as co-sponsors. But it never got to a vote!! The Senate had a Democrat majority, and the senior Democrats controlled the committees, so they kept it bottled up.

In the second congress of the Bush Administration, with Republican majorities in both House and Senate, it easily passed both houses, and Bush signed it into law.

When it was challenged in court, the Supreme Court upheld it – with the key vote being a Justice (Roberts) nominated by Bush and confirmed by the Senate.

Now let those who take the “Republicans are icky” line tell us what they did with their votes.

What Vern said …

 

[mapleoak]

The actual topic is “Pro-Choice folks, what are your reasons for supporting abortion?” I think we have actually seen a number of responses, e.g., “I oppose everything the Republican party says, does or thinks”,“There are all these other “life” issues I like better” and the like. I guess, after all, those really were answers to the question posed. They just weren’t prefaced by “My reasons are…”.

I think you may be right, and something I hadn’t noticed until you pointed it out. There appears to be a large preponderance of pro-choice folks whose reasons for supporting abortion (whether they agree with abortion or not) are simply their loyal political affiliations.

 

[Princess_Anna]

I would just like tom say to all those pro-choice people that if the woman does not want the child then she should not have sex in the first place!

 

[AgnosTheist]

I would just like tom say to all those pro-choice people that if the woman does not want the child then she should not have sex in the first place!

what about those who are raped?

 

[rlg94086]

what about those who are raped?

You are in favor of banning abortion with a rape exception? Great! Please work with others to help get that done. It doesn’t match our theology, but I for one will accept such a compromised law.

 

[mapleoak]

what about those who are raped?

Don’t feed the

th82.photobucket.com/albums/j250/purplebabydragon_1409/th_troll.jpg

 

[liotino]

what about those who are raped?

It is a horrible evil rape and I speak from the place of being a victim of rape. I had a beautiful baby girl and later on she gave me my heart beat a grandson. I write this from a place of healing but it was a long haul. Being married I chose not to have a DNA done on my daughter to see whose child she was I left that to God. Rape CANNOT be an excuse to end a life. It makes no sense to me to kill the victim of an evil it solves what? Then too what is the difference from someone using a defense of evils done to them to take a life it does not wash. Killing is just that killing we cannot split hairs it is either wrong or right. What is weakening the pro life movement is our picking this life over that life/this circumstance over that circumstance. Life and death is solely up to the Creator. We are fools to think otherwise. Thou shall not Kill has no buts in it. It is too simple for the mind of man to grasp…Later

 

[AgnosTheist]

I had a beautiful baby girl and later on she gave me my heart beat a grandson.

You were raped by a handsome guy (hence: beautiful baby) and you chose to keep his baby. Good for you.

But other victims out there could not bear the rapist’s unwanted child growing inside of them.

 

[SoCalRC]

I think you may be right, and something I hadn’t noticed until you pointed it out. There appears to be a large preponderance of pro-choice folks whose reasons for supporting abortion (whether they agree with abortion or not) are simply their loyal political affiliations.

I’m not sure I follow this one. Responses seem to fall into three catagories: Voting openly ‘pro choice’ for “proportionate reasons”, voting less (but still) ‘pro choice’ for “proportionate reasons”, and voting strictly pro-life because “proportionate reasons” to do otherwise are not found to be compelling or complicency with intrinsic evil is not felt to be “remote”.

I am in the last group. For me, the “proportionate reasons” arguments are not compelling when balancing tangible results against what the Church refers to as “the essence of the moral law”. Ridgerunner appears to believe that such a position is indirect and deceptive partisanship.

My impression, particular with some arguments striking me as circular or even contradictory, is that political loyalty is more likely to be a factor for the first two groups. Since, unlike strict literalism, they have to make relative assessments. To me, such assessments would afford greater opportunity for other bias to creep in.

Are you expressing still another opinion on the role of partisanship?

 

[liotino]

You were raped by a handsome guy (hence: beautiful baby) and you chose to keep his baby. Good for you.

But other victims out there could not bear the rapist’s unwanted child growing inside of them.

You are arrogant to say I must have been rape by a handsome man. Beauty is not alway physical or don’t you know that. As far as your concluding thought that an innocent victim the baby should die what is the difference in saying kill the other victim the women rape. This is your best thoughts keep them to yourself…Later

 

[He_Man]

I was hoping for a response that addressed my points, not more of the same old sentimental religious based rhetoric. I’m disappointed.

Emervents

Then why waste your time and ours on this website? it’s a RELIGIOUS WEBSITE.

Think before you post.

 

[liotino]

Then why waste your time and ours on this website? it’s a RELIGIOUS WEBSITE.

Think before you post.

We seem to be having day I am the post before yours…later

 

[mapleoak]

I’m not sure I follow this one. Responses seem to fall into three catagories: Voting openly ‘pro choice’ for “proportionate reasons”, voting less (but still) ‘pro choice’ for “proportionate reasons”, and voting strictly pro-life because “proportionate reasons” to do otherwise are not found to be compelling or complicency with intrinsic evil is not felt to be “remote”.

There does seem to be a fourth group of those who feel justified in voting fully pro-choice due to the absense of a suitable pro-life candidate or a candidate who is not 100% pro-life. They reason that there is somehow no moral difference between a fully pro-choice candidate and a candidate who is only partially pro-choice, and therefore have the go-ahead to vote fully pro-choice if it means remaining loyal to their particular party.

I am in the last group.

I am in the THIRD group as well, though I do not condemn the motives of those who choose to belong to the second group. I only personally cannot find where the Church allows one to partially support an intrinsic evil and so that puts me in the third group.

For me, the “proportionate reasons” arguments are not compelling when balancing tangible results against what the Church refers to as “the essence of the moral law”. Ridgerunner appears to believe that such a position is indirect and deceptive partisanship.

This is a perculiar position to assert that a party would have a bunch of gremlins walking around trying to get people who would otherwise vote against them to incite them to not vote at all so as to cancel out their own votes.

My impression, particular with some arguments striking me as circular or even contradictory, is that political loyalty is more likely to be a factor for the first two groups. Since, unlike strict literalism, they have to make relative assessments. To me, such assessments would afford greater opportunity for other bias to creep in.

But to some, they are personally indifferent to abortion, but since they are voting for a pro-choice candidate, they have to somehow try and rationalize its acceptance.

Are you expressing still another opinion on the role of partisanship?

Quite possibly. I certainly won’t say it isn’t complicated.

 

[mapleoak]

Let me ask you a counter hypothetical question. If the major candidate were to oversee a Congress that outlawed abortion for all cases except rape and incest, would you consider that a pro-abortion event? Would things have moved in the direction of our Catholic viewpoint or away from it?

Apologies for not responding to this sooner.
I would certainly say that if the norm went from abortion on demand to abortion only in cases of rape and incest, ‘things’ would have moved in the direction of our Catholic viewpoint. This does not mean it is acceptable as a Catholic to support a law which allows for abortion under any circumstance.