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

[vern_humphrey]

But then couldn’t we even take it a step further and look at the polls some more? Supposing for instance the polls say Pro-Abortion Candidate B is leading by a huge margin. Now the argument could be, since neither candidate A nor candidate C has any chance of winning, we should vote for Candidate B. That way we will not fail.

No, we don’t vote for the pro-abortion candidate. We vote for the pro-life candidate who has a chance of winning. Even if he loses, we make sure the margin is close, and we show that you can get votes by being pro-life.

But when you throw down your arms and flee the battlefield, you do two bad things:

First, you ensure the pro-aborrtion candidate wins by a larger margin. Which gives more ammunition to those who say, “Well, the American people want abortion. Did you see how badly Pro-Abortion Candidate B beat Candidate A?”

Secondly, you fall off the political radar. People looking for voters are convinced pro-life is a losing strategy – because pro-lifers won’t stay on the battlefield.

The pro-life side cannot win through political self-castration.

 

[mapleoak]

No, we don’t vote for the pro-abortion candidate. We vote for the pro-life candidate who has a chance of winning. Even if he loses, we make sure the margin is close, and we show that you can get votes by being pro-life.

And if votes are split between a marginal pro-life candidate and a third party truly pro-life candidate, the votes don’t disappear. They still indicate that pro-life votes.

But when you throw down your arms and flee the battlefield, you do two bad things:
First, you ensure the pro-aborrtion candidate wins by a larger margin. Which gives more ammunition to those who say, “Well, the American people want abortion. Did you see how badly Pro-Abortion Candidate B beat Candidate A?”

No, because the pro-life votes are still there. Further it shows that there is demand for a truly pro-life candidate rather than a marginal one.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And if votes are split between a marginal pro-life candidate and a third party truly pro-life candidate, the votes don’t disappear. They still indicate that pro-life votes.

No, they show the the people casting those votes are politically naive. They tell prospective candidates that they cannot count on the pro-life vote.

No, because the pro-life votes are still there. Further it shows that there is demand for a truly pro-life candidate rather than a marginal one.

It that is true, then where is the pro-life candidate? How come we haven’t been able to nominate this mythical perfect candidate?

We have failed to nominate enough pro-life candidates to ensure victory – and we have failed because we are not united. We are fragmented and chasing chimeras.

And those who make the biggest noise about needing perfect candidates are really trying to draw off the pro-life vote, politically castrate the pro-life movement, and ensure the victory of the forces of abortion.

 

[SoCalRC]

I would say that people have a choice of accepting SoCalRC’s narrow interpretation of the Bishop’s document or accepting the Priests for Life understanding of the document.

Boy…that’s a toughy…hmmm…I wonder who has better pro-life *bona fides *SoCalRC or Priests for Life?

If you are going to deride me, could you at least show me where in the Priests for Life document that it indicates that one should pick a candidate on viability versus being the most pro-life?

My interpretation of the Bishops document is actually broader, but using the pre-set conditions in the Priests for Life letter, it seems licit to me.

I just cannot find the part where it supports picking pro-aboriton over pro-life, as Vern is suggesting.

Also, do you think a position supporting abortion for rape and incest is licit under Catholic teaching?

 

[SoCalRC]

It that is true, then where is the pro-life candidate? How come we haven’t been able to nominate this mythical perfect candidate?

Because you are politically naive. Having established that you will be satisfied with lip service on abortion, that is all you get.

That said, part of the problem may be one of pirorities. The GOP field had a pro-life candidate, but he was in line with the Church on a bunch of things you disagree with, like the war and the death penalty. It appears he is poised to make a 3rd party run.

 

[mapleoak]

No, my answer is, given a choice, I pick the most pro life candidate available. That would seem to best answer the bottom line question in the article.

Ah, the old, “Your candidate isn’t perfect, so you have to vote for the party of abortion” scam again.

This is hurting your credibility.

 

[mapleoak]

No, they show the the people casting those votes are politically naive. They tell prospective candidates that they cannot count on the pro-life vote.

Quite the opposite. It shows that people who are truly pro-life can count on the pro-life vote.

It that is true, then where is the pro-life candidate? How come we haven’t been able to nominate this mythical perfect candidate?

He would be there if people didn’t concede their position.

We have failed to nominate enough pro-life candidates to ensure victory – and we have failed because we are not united. We are fragmented and chasing chimeras.

So we should be united and nominate truly pro-life candidates.

And those who make the biggest noise about needing perfect candidates are really trying to draw off the pro-life vote, politically castrate the pro-life movement, and ensure the victory of the forces of abortion.

And those who make false accusations against their fellow pro-lifers are the true hobble on the horse.

 

[gchmax]

Not in those specific words, but one can derive that as one the major flaws in his views by applying logic to what he rationalizes as good by its effects. He also gives his approval wherever he rationalizes that benefit exceeds consequence. Further, he consideres human beings to be apes, and is therefore not to be taken seriously.

Bravo! And, yet, by the demands of scientific rigor, does he ever certainly establish that the benefits of abortion exceed consequence?

When one considers the laws of nature, is it in consonance with such laws that a species destroys the seeds for its survival?

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you are going to deride me, could you at least show me where in the Priests for Life document that it indicates that one should pick a candidate on viability versus being the most pro-life?

My interpretation of the Bishops document is actually broader, but using the pre-set conditions in the Priests for Life letter, it seems licit to me.

I just cannot find the part where it supports picking pro-aboriton over pro-life, as Vern is suggesting.

Also, do you think a position supporting abortion for rape and incest is licit under Catholic teaching?

Your purpose is not to end or reduce abortion. It is to convince voters to either vote for the party of abortion, or failing that, to throw their votes away.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Quite the opposite. It shows that people who are truly pro-life can count on the pro-life vote.

He would be there if people didn’t concede their position.

He will only be there if we put him there. That means we must be united and work hard.

So we should be united and nominate truly pro-life candidates.

Indeed we should – and not chase moonbeams. Join one of the two parties – I don’t care which – and work to get pro-lifers nominated at every level.

And those who make false accusations against their fellow pro-lifers are the true hobble on the horse.

What false accusation have I made? You can look at the elections of '92 and 2000 and see how third parties, while not having a prayer of getting their man elected, syphoned off enough votes to change the outcome.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Because you are politically naive. Having established that you will be satisfied with lip service on abortion, that is all you get.

Whereas you are quite sophisticated and know how to draw votes away from pro-lifers.

That said, part of the problem may be one of pirorities. The GOP field had a pro-life candidate, but he was in line with the Church on a bunch of things you disagree with, like the war and the death penalty. It appears he is poised to make a 3rd party run.

You’re voting for Rudi Guiliani!!??

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Your purpose is not to end or reduce abortion. It is to convince voters to either vote for the party of abortion, or failing that, to throw their votes away.

Oh, the old mind reading ploy. You seem to have forgotten your crystal ball and to don your turban. :whacky:

 

[vern_humphrey]

Oh, the old mind reading ploy. You seem to have forgotten your crystal ball and to don your turban. :whacky:

I borrowed yours.

 

[rlg94086]

If you are going to deride me, could you at least show me where in the Priests for Life document that it indicates that one should pick a candidate on viability versus being the most pro-life?

My interpretation of the Bishops document is actually broader, but using the pre-set conditions in the Priests for Life letter, it seems licit to me.

I just cannot find the part where it supports picking pro-aboriton over pro-life, as Vern is suggesting.

priestsforlife.org/elections/imperfectcand.htm

One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. (You, and many who think like you, could run for office yourself and have the perfect position on abortion, but you don’t have the political base needed to get elected…at least not right now.) So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.

But acknowledging this, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm.
*
*Why?

Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a *good.
*This is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” We may never choose evil.
*
*But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. You oppose the evil of abortion, in every circumstance, no matter what. You know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is OK, you don’t agree.

---

***But by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good.

Some may think it’s not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer – in the case described above – is yes.

Seems pretty clear to me. So, again, whose guidance should Joe Forumlurker take - Priests for Life or SoCalRC? It isn’t derision…it’s common sense.

SoCalRC:

Also, do you think a position supporting abortion for rape and incest is licit under Catholic teaching?

I think I’ve answered this more than once, and the answer is still “no.” How many times do you require an answer?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think I’ve answered this more than once, and the answer is still “no.” How many times do you require an answer?

The longer he keeps it going, the more chances he has to convince people that if a major party doesn’t have a perfect candidate, they should either vote for the pro-choice party or drop out, wander off, and waste their votes.

This works with people who do not understand the American system of government and can be fooled into thinking our system works just like a parilamentary system.

 

[marymol]

Good to see this all important topic being discussed , esp. since our Holy Father also has reminded us of our civic responsibilities.

It was recently that Rev. Fr.Vincent Serpa answered in a question how we need to see things from God’s perspective.

As far as we Christians are concerend , is there anything more important than helping each other to get to heaven !

To even think of the other possibility - of spending years and years …with the worst possible persons we dread to even think of …

As to the fear that the earth would not support too many persons and such - think it is St.Faustina who wrote that we humans were created to take up the places left by the fallen angels !

So, the sooner we help each other to do that , may be it wont take that long for that day when God would fold up this passing universe !

Abortion and its vast consequences for the parents and indirectly for all of society,in the form of illnesses and social problems - heart attacks, eating disorders, obesity , depression, broken families, cancers …as well as the depraved values of living only for this world with no trust in God or love for Him , in wanting to do His will , accepting him as The Author of life - beginnings of hell here itself !

May we be blessed to see the infinite potential of every life , through all eternity, as our Father does and be filled with hope for each of us too !

 

[SoCalRC]

Seems pretty clear to me. So, again, whose guidance should Joe Forumlurker take - Priests for Life or SoCalRC? It isn’t derision…it’s common sense.

One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. (You, and many who think like you, could run for office yourself and have the perfect position on abortion, but you don’t have the political base needed to get elected…at least not right now.) So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.

Let’s go through the quote carefully. It basically says, “you” don’t have a political base ‘yet’. Then it refers to forces beyond your control.

How would one ever build a political base for a non evil position if the assumption is that the electoral process is ‘beyond their control’. Remember, something like the Constitution Party is already on the ballot in 40+ states, that represents a non trivial organization hurdle already.

Also, when comparing credibility, it is dishonest to pit me against the priest. I quote Rome and the USCCB, so if there is a discrepency, that is where it should be addressed.

I think I’ve answered this more than once, and the answer is still “no.” How many times do you require an answer?

I brought it up again because of context. Bamarider and Vern are referring to a candidate as “pro life” (“the pro-life candidate…”). Look carefully at the USCCB’s statement and Ratzinger’s. Once one starts embracing intrinsic evil positions as legitimate, the votes become clearly illicit.

In other words, it is critically important to distinguish unavoidable connection to intrinsic evil from promotion of intrinsic evil.

 

[rlg94086]

I brought it up again because of context. Bamarider and Vern are referring to a candidate as “pro life” (“the pro-life candidate…”). Look carefully at the USCCB’s statement and Ratzinger’s.** Once one starts embracing intrinsic evil positions as legitimate, the votes become clearly illicit.**

In other words, it is critically important to distinguish unavoidable connection to intrinsic evil from promotion of intrinsic evil.

Again, you are misreading the Priests for Life article and the Bishop’s document, and you are misrepresentng my fellow poster’s views. Vern, Guy and I are not “embracing intrinsic evil positions,” and our vote for the Pro-Life (albeit with exceptions) candidate is licit.

The Constitution Party (aka Constipation Party) is on the ballot in 40+ states, but they don’t have “the political base necessary to be elected,” as the Priests for Life example states. This is very clear. Their candidate is virtually unknown, and I don’t see that changing between now and November.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s go through the quote carefully. It basically says, “you” don’t have a political base ‘yet’. Then it refers to forces beyond your control.

No, it doesn’t – the political system is well within our control** if we understand the rules and play by them.** That’s why advising people that they can only vote for the perfect candidate helps the pro-abortion forces.

Also, when comparing credibility, it is dishonest to pit me against the priest. I quote Rome and the USCCB, so if there is a discrepency, that is where it should be addressed.

Dead wrong! You do not have the same status as a priest, so your claim basically means we have to accept your less-than-valid positon or appeal to Rome.

In other words, it is critically important to distinguish unavoidable connection to intrinsic evil from promotion of intrinsic evil.

Yet out of the other side of your mouth you demand we only vote for the perfect candidate – and ignore the fact there is no such candidate.

 

[SoCalRC]

Your purpose is not to end or reduce abortion. It is to convince voters to either vote for the party of abortion, or failing that, to throw their votes away.

All this latest round of baseless attacks has done has made the two questions you would not answer before all the more important.

1. Is the candidate you have just described as “the pro-life candidate” pro-life with regards to abortion, or does he hold a position, as Rlg is honest enough to admit, that is still intrinsically evil?
2. What theological basis is there from excusing yourself from the Catechism and professing undisputed knowledge of the hearts and minds of others?

Question one used to just be embarrassing for you. Having just attacked me for asserting what Rlg and I both agree on, admiting that I was correct would have cost you face. However, it is even more important in light of the arguments you extended to Mapleoak.

All that talk about ‘proving’ something with one’s vote becomes utterly incoherent if the candidate in question is not, in fact, pro-life in the Catholic faith. Being a ‘little’ pro murder is like being a ‘little’ pregnant.

More importantly, if you are compelled to defend an intrinsically evil position as morally just, you are making it impossible for other Catholics to give you the benefit of the doubt about your intentions. Look at Ratzinger’s letter you are so fond of. Look at EVANGELIUM VITAE. Support for the evil cannot be direct, objection to the evil must be well known.

If you want to defend a position as a legitimate application of a theological principle, fine. But once you use the ‘shotgun’ approach and a mantra about political reality, you have left a Catholic conext for discussion.