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

  • Thread starter Thread starter mapleoak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rlg94086 said:
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.
Click to expand...
BTW…if this is the candidate you are supporting, I’m surprised:
promised, that if elected he would work to protect the lives of the unborn, abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve, support home schooling, and** “eviscerate”** vast numbers of unconstitutional federal programs like the Department of Energy (“we have more than enough oil in Alaska”) and Social Security (“which is nothing more than socialism”). Baldwin promised to get “the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.”, to abolish the department of Homeland Security and to end foreign aid.
Click to expand...
I realize all of those highlighted items are fine with regards to the non-negotiables, but do you support these things?
 
SoCalRC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the multiple replies. I zipped right over this part of your post and noticed it when Vern commented.

There is nothing “dishonest” with me comparing your view to that of Priests for Life. Both of your understandings of Rome and the USCCB may very well be licit. I am asking which advice is a more logical choice for someone to follow - anonymous poster SoCalRC on the CA Forum who presents an understanding that defies common sense (IMO) or Priests for Life. an officially approved association of Catholic Clergy and UN NGO whose understanding supports the Pro-Life cause and makes complete sense?
 
SoCalRC said:
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?
Click to expand...
Smokescreen!!

The candidate does not “rub off” on me. I am concerned with my actions – that is what God will hold me accountable for.

And my act is to choose the candidate who has the best chance of reducing abortion.

Your act is to try to drive Catholics out of the arena and syphon off votes from candidates who might have a chance to reduce abortion, or to give cover to those who want to vote for pro-abortion candidates.
SoCalRC said:
  1. What theological basis is there from excusing yourself from the Catechism and professing undisputed knowledge of the hearts and minds of others?
Click to expand...
What theological basis is there for **you **claiming to know the Catechism better then eveyone else – including ordained priests – and professing undisputed knowledge of the hearts and minds of others?
SoCalRC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your aim is either to make excuses for people inclined to vote for pro-abortion candidates, or to syphon off votes from pro-life candidates.
SoCalRC said:
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.
Click to expand...
And syphoning off votes from pro-life candidate is being pro-murder.
SoCalRC said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
SoCalRC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Then you should stop supporting evil, and trying to undermine the pro-life Catholics.
SoCalRC said:
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.
Click to expand...
As opposed to pretending to know God’s mind, and twisting Catholic doctrine to claim we must vote for that non-existant “perfect” candidate?
 
vern_humphrey said:
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.
Click to expand...
The accusations I am referring to are where you claim SoCalRC is advocating voting for a pro-choice candidate. I have not seen anywhere him make that statement. In fact he has on many occasions stated clearly the opposite. That is what I am mean by pro-life people attacking their own with false representations.
 
And my act is to choose the candidate who has the best chance of reducing abortion.
Click to expand...
This is the same as saying that it is okay to choose or support evil if it has a chance of reducing evil.
Your aim is either to make excuses for people inclined to vote for pro-abortion candidates, or to syphon off votes from pro-life candidates.
Click to expand...
No, he is being reassuring those who are compelled to not support evil and are inclined to vote for candidates who do not support intrinsic evils contrary to the Catholic Church that this is a completely legitimate and moral choice to make.
And syphoning off votes from pro-life candidate is being pro-murder.
Click to expand...
To say that ever choosing the morally sound choice is pro-murder is contrary to the teachings of the Church. Quite the opposite in that one puts their trust in God’s Will rather than that of man.
 
mapleoak said:
The accusations I am referring to are where you claim SoCalRC is advocating voting for a pro-choice candidate. I have not seen anywhere him make that statement. In fact he has on many occasions stated clearly the opposite. That is what I am mean by pro-life people attacking their own with false representations.
Click to expand...
Now let me explain what I mean.

I see someone (Socal) accuse others of being “Protestant” at heart, of “compromising with evil” and sending private mail accusing one southern poster of having incest in his family.

I do not see that poster pushing a different party, or advocating anything positive. And do you know why?

Because as I said, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. If he said something reasonable like, “What do you think of the XXX Party’s chances,” he would be hoist on his own petard. Because the XXX Party’s candidate is not perfect, either.

He may be good, but he ain’t perfect.

He is a spoiler, pure and simple.
 
I’ve been advised by those smarter than me, that voting for the most pro life candidate is not only acceptable but good.

Why do you have a problem with that? Nobody else in the Church hiearchy does.

Did somebody mention disbanding the IRS?? Sign me up!

Then Rig (Robert) asked-
There is nothing “dishonest” with me comparing your view to that of Priests for Life. Both of your understandings of Rome and the USCCB may very well be licit. I am asking which advice is a more logical choice for someone to follow - anonymous poster SoCalRC on the CA Forum who presents an understanding that defies common sense (IMO) or Priests for Life. an officially approved association of Catholic Clergy and UN NGO whose understanding supports the Pro-Life cause and makes complete sense?
Today 6:15 pm
Click to expand...
I don’t think I need to add anymore to this comment/question.
 
mapleoak said:
No, he is being reassuring those who are compelled to not support evil and are inclined to vote for candidates who do not support intrinsic evils contrary to the Catholic Church that this is a completely legitimate and moral choice to make.
Click to expand...
He is also reassuring those in the Pro-Choice community who are praying (well…at least hoping…I shouldn’t falsely accuse them of being prayerful) that Pro-Life voters will follow your advice and help to get the Pro-Choice candidate elected.

Personally, I can’t support any effort that will help elect the worst candidate. It would be contrary to my Pro-Life beliefs to help elect someone who wants to move even further in the direction of death.
 
mapleoak said:
This is the same as saying that it is okay to choose or support evil if it has a chance of reducing evil.
Click to expand...
I see you’ve fallen into Socal’s trap – you have come to believe it is “evil” to vote for anyone other than the perfect candidate.

Now, under that logic, you cannot vote – because there is no such thing as a **perfect **candidate.

Don’t tell me you are going to vote for Joe Bltzfg. However good Joe is, he ain’t perfect.
mapleoak said:
No, he is being reassuring those who are compelled to not support evil and are inclined to vote for candidates who do not support intrinsic evils contrary to the Catholic Church that this is a completely legitimate and moral choice to make.a
Click to expand...
No – he isn’t supporting any position at all, other than "you can only vote for the perfect candidate.
mapleoak said:
To say that ever choosing the morally sound choice is pro-murder is contrary to the teachings of the Church. Quite the opposite in that one puts their trust in God’s Will rather than that of man.
Click to expand...
Then you can’t vote at all, can you? Because there is no perfect candidate.

Do you really believe the Church teaches we can’t vote?

Now, I can respect you if you really believe a third party candidate has a chance of winning, and voting for him will advance the pro-choice cause.

But when you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of “supporting evil” . . . well:rolleyes:
 
mapleoak said:
Ouch. Missed that one completely
:rotfl:
I don’t even want to know what kind of candidate they have. 😃
Click to expand...
Don’t knock 'em. With XXX Party candidates, what you see is what you get.

(Think on that a while.)😉
 
mapleoak said:
I know the feeling well. One poster in particular (not fix) on a parallel thread has said that since I don’t support either of the major party candidates and vote strictly pro-life, that I am sleeping in the same bed as the pro-choice folks.

Not only is it uncharitable, as anyone who follows my posts knows well my position on abortion and the plight of the unborn, but it is hurtful as well as wrong.
Click to expand...
Sadly he has a point. Every vote that goes to the 3rd party is a vote lost to the better of the choices. So if we do vote third party we need to understand the the winner could be the worst of the choices.:eek:
 
KathleenElsie said:
Sadly he has a point. Every vote that goes to the 3rd party is a vote lost to the better of the choices. So if we do vote third party we need to understand the the winner could be the worst of the choices.:eek:
Click to expand...
Who will not vote for the lesser of two evils automatically votes for the greater of those two evils. And all the arguing in the world won’t make that untrue.
 
KathleenElsie said:
Sadly he has a point. Every vote that goes to the 3rd party is a vote lost to the better of the choices. So if we do vote third party we need to understand the the winner could be the worst of the choices.:eek:
Click to expand...
Before condemning Mapleoak’s choices as counter productive, perhaps we should take stock of what the alternative is. For three straight presidential elections the GOP has run canidates who have a) politically supported upholding Roe and b) continue to hold intrinsically evil positions on abortion.

As a consequence, how many aborted babies have been saved by those votes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top