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

[SoCalRC]

It would be helpful if you were more honest about this, rather then trying to paint your viewpoint as morally superior.

I have repeatedly noted that my position is not automatically or inherently superior. That we should not be quick to judge others decisions is something I have stated at least 15 times in this thread alone. You seem to be confusing me with yourself and Vern, who seem to be asserting that you are on the one true path to Catholic correctness and anyone who is either more permissive on abortion or less (such as Mapleoak and myself) is a force for evil.

You are making a practical judgment, and sacrificing some of the non-negotiables to do it.

I am making a practical judgement that is in keeping with the absolute certainty of my own moral conscience. I cannot endorse a war I believe to be unjust, torture which is dogmatically condemned (Pastoral Constitution of the Church), and the expansion of euthanasia, gay marriage, and the death penalty - all for the sake of a recent convert to abortion prohibition who still insists that the right to kill some children must be protected.

But I am at a loss as to which non-negotiables you are certain I am compromising. Am I supposed to accept the viability of your method of compromise as an act of faith? That is, in the absence of any tangible results on pro-life issues?

That would seem to be a call to idolatry. Especially since you seem to view my current act of faith regarding the power of God as ‘impractical’ in your ‘reality’.

 

[SoCalRC]

I’m looking – but there’s nothing to see.

So, a Senator can get elected, and even a President. But it’s rare, so it doesn’t count…

A more logical argument would be that it is rare because people put their loyalty to the current dominent political parties ahead of their moral values.

Also, it is funny how I’m a “stalking horse” when you cannot even be pressured into making a judgement about rather or not the position on aboriton your politically support is licit in the Catholic faith or not. Usually the person with something to conceal is the one whose motives are suspect…

 

[Des]

In your system, coalition governments are possible. In our system, they are not. Therefore in your system, smaller parties can have an impact all our of proportion to their numbers. That is not the case in our system.

So you guys’ choices are limited to 2 or 3?

 

[rlg94086]

I have repeatedly noted that my position is not automatically or inherently superior. That we should not be quick to judge others decisions is something I have stated at least 15 times in this thread alone. You seem to be confusing me with yourself and Vern, who seem to be asserting that you are on the one true path to Catholic correctness and anyone who is either more permissive on abortion or less (such as Mapleoak and myself) is a force for evil.

Yes, you do say that…right before you accuse one of us, as you just accused me in the last post, of choosing our party over our faith. Of course, you do it in the form of an assumptive question, rather than direct accusation. Again, this matches your style of not directly supporting the Democrats, but rather supporting them indirectly and then denigrating those who choose not to.

 

[mapleoak]

Imagine the out cry. You wouldn’t have many going for such a person and back up their position by a weak argument saying ‘but nobody is perfect’. Yes that is weak.

Isn’t it very disturbing how someone who supports murder of the most innocent among us, even if ‘only’ several thousand of them, can be brushed off as ‘less than perfect’.

I’m not an American but I’d cut my own two hands off before I’d vote any of the candidates there since they make it clear they are pro abortion. I’ve always voted my conscience and here in Canada, it’s the smaller Christan parties that get my vote since they are against abortion period. If there is one party out there that is against, that is what I’ll always go for. If every party is for abortion, then I’d have no choice but to go with the one with the lesser evil in the long run.

And many times the moral choice is not the popular choice or the winning choice, but the right choice.

 

[mapleoak]

We wouldn’t vote for such a candidate, and that’s the point.

Except if they condone the murder of select members of a group of individuals, then many here will support them, since at least they don’t condone the murder of the whole group.

But the other point is, if one candidate will do something to reduce the number of abortions, and his opponent will increase them, we are bound to vote for the former.

No, we are not bound to vote for the former, and we have the Catholic Church to back us up. The Church fully supports refusing to vote for both the former and the latter.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So, a Senator can get elected, and even a President. But it’s rare, so it doesn’t count…

I gather you thought you had a point there, but somehow you lost it.

A more logical argument would be that it is rare because people put their loyalty to the current dominent political parties ahead of their moral values.

Riiiiiight. The same moral values that allow you to accuse others of being Protestant and smearing them with incest?

Also, it is funny how I’m a “stalking horse” when you cannot even be pressured into making a judgement about rather or not the position on aboriton your politically support is licit in the Catholic faith or not.

Quote the contrary, I make that judgement every time I vote. It is not illicit to vote for a pro-life candidate, even if he is not perfect.

Usually the person with something to conceal is the one whose motives are suspect…

That would be you – with you constant nasty accusations, your pretense the Catholic Church only allows us to vote for perfect candidates, and so on.

Now, you might merely be mislead – but I don’t think so. I think you are a stalking horse for the party of abortion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Except if they condone the murder of select members of a group of individuals, then many here will support them, since at least they don’t condone the murder of the whole group.

No, we are not bound to vote for the former, and we have the Catholic Church to back us up. The Church fully supports refusing to vote for both the former and the latter.

Then when the candidate who supports more abortion wins, and the one who wants less abortion loses, what do you say?

 

[rlg94086]

Then when the candidate who supports more abortion wins, and the one who wants less abortion loses, what do you say?

Well, if you are SoCalRC, you say - Yea! Exactly what I hoped would happen! Because…"**that party is reasonably aligned with the Church on a number of pro-life issues, as well as other issues that the Church has declared to be ‘non negotiable’. That isn’t enough for me to vote for them in good conscience, but it is certainly not an obvious step in the wrong moral direction." **

 

[mapleoak]

The point was to hammer-hammer-hammer the enemy. To make gains wherever we could, and finaly overwhelm him.

But how is hammering the enemy by supporting a murder approving candidate better than by supporting a wholly pro-life candidate? The votes don’t disappear and if the intent is to make a point, it still gets made, if it now doesn’t matter whether the candidate actually wins or not.

 

[SoCalRC]

Abortion is the #1 evil. A vote for pro-abortion candidates is a vote for that evil. As the bishops said, all other positions held by such candidates must remain suspect.

Then why are you supporting a candidate whose position is intrinsically evil under Catholic teaching?

You seem to be getting confused about which side you are arguing. I, and a few others, are arguing that abortion should not be compromised in voting. You, and others, have been arguing that it must be compromised. Not doing so is actually promoting evil.

Although Rome always refers to these as “non negotiable” moral principles, the Bishops do acknowledge the idea of compromise voting. However, they reject your elevation of abortion to exclussionary status:

1. Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity:

1. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.

1. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed.

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

In this, the Bishops are backed up by Rome:

In this context “limiting the harm”], it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning…

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Some things simply cannot be validly sacrificed for the sake of “limiting the harm”.

How odd that you first cite something at odds with your own position, then twist another teaching.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So you guys’ choices are limited to 2 or 3?

Pretty much, that’s right. Two, really. Minority parties in the U.S. are miniscule. The only bearing they ever have on outcomes is that, depending on which of the two major parties they might siphon support from, they can be instrumental in causing the other to win.They are not capable of a positive effect, only a negative one.

That’s why some of the posters on here discourage others from voting for minority parties that might seem more prolife than either of the major parties. Doing so only aids the pro-abortion party and cannot help the more prolife major party candidate or cause.

It might be added that’s also why supporters of the abortion party encourage prolifers to support minority parties.

 

[mapleoak]

Well, if you are SoCalRC, you say - Yea! Exactly what I hoped would happen! Because…"**that party is reasonably aligned with the Church on a number of pro-life issues, as well as other issues that the Church has declared to be ‘non negotiable’. That isn’t enough for me to vote for them in good conscience, but it is certainly not an obvious step in the wrong moral direction." **

When those put their trust in God’s mercy that when the moral way is adhered to in the face of the contradiction of the world, it will not go unnoticed. Some things are indeed out of our hands and we should not have so much pride as to think that we can solve them if only we would approve of just a little bit of the evil to get what we want.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The first part of my previous post must not have been legible. So I’ll repeat it.

The following is from the USCCB’s document “Living the Gospel of Life”.

"But being ‘right’ in such matters [racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care] can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But how is hammering the enemy by supporting a murder approving candidate better than by supporting a wholly pro-life candidate?

First of all, you don’t have a perfect candidate.

The votes don’t disappear

Yes, they do – when the election is over, and the pro-abortion candidate has won, the votes are all gone.

and if the intent is to make a point, it still gets made, if it now doesn’t matter whether the candidate actually wins or not.

The intent is to save human lives!

Can you imagine looking at a pile of aborted children, and saying, “Well, I made my point – so what if the pile would be smaller if I had voted differently?”

 

[rlg94086]

When those put their trust in God’s mercy that when the moral way is adhered to in the face of the contradiction of the world, it will not go unnoticed. Some things are indeed out of our hands and we should not have so much pride as to think that we can solve them if only we would approve of just a little bit of the evil to get what we want.

Hi mapleoak,

What does that have to do with my “hazarded guess” based on SoCalRC’s words (bolded and quoted) that he would be excited about a Democratic Party victory?

 

[SoCalRC]

Well, if you are SoCalRC, you say - Yea! Exactly what I hoped would happen! Because

So when you stand in judgement and the hundreds of thousands of dead because of Iraq, including pregnant women gunned down for sport by US paid Pinochet thugs are facing you, will your defense be ‘Yes, I supported that, but look at how I voted on abortion! Sure, it didn’t actually stop any abortions, and well, yeah, technically I voted in favor of some abortions but…’



How fortunate that your political truth and your spiritual truth are so perfectly aligned…

 

[vern_humphrey]

The first part of my previous post must not have been legible. So I’ll repeat it.

The following is from the USCCB’s document “Living the Gospel of Life”.

"But being ‘right’ in such matters [racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care] can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.

Whoa!

Does Socal know about this? He should run right over and set the Bishops straight!!

 

[Leeta]

Ditto to YADA.

Also, legal abortions are nothing more than back alley abortions as far as the mother’s safety goes. Infection control, proper disposal of the baby and the blood, etc, having a doctor do the abortion are routinely ignored in favor of expediting the killing of as many babies and of maiming as many mothers as possible. It’s all about money, you know, not about helping mothers in a crisis pregnancy.
You are obviously not a woman, if you believe that every woman is able to keep track of her menstrual period to the day. It is rare for woman to know how to, considering that most do not take Natural Family Planning Classes. Physicians give women dangerous drugs rather than explain how to keep track of the cycle. Also, when a mother practices ecological breastfeeding, periods are absent for a couple of years oftentimes.
A woman’s menstrual cycle is highly individual and often of irregular length, so that keeping track of it is not always easy and it is such an unpleasant experience that women want to forget it, like a bad dream. I, for one, had long cycles, up to 40 or 45 days. It was hardly ever the same length. One cycle it could be 30, the next 40, the next 38, the next 45, the next 31. So women can easily be pregnant and just think their period is late. Many factors, such as diet and exercise go into it. You really show how little you know about women and their biology!!!
Being pro-choice is being pro-abortion because you support the abortion choice. So you are pro-abortion.

Your attitude is so chauvinistic towards women. You are implying that mothers are defective and weak. After all, you seem to think that giving birth is somehow something extraordinary for women. Our bodies were designed to nurture children and to give birth! It is healthful for a woman to do so. Babies are not a disease and our fertility is healthful and a part of us. Women are so strong, that even in dire circumstances, they can give birth and triumph over them.
Abortion is not healthful, it is a violent ending of the natural process of pregnancy for the mother.It brings such sorrow to her, when she realizes how she has been lied to and exploited. Breast cancer is also on the rise as a result of the many abortions and Pill use…
Go to <abortionNrg> if you really believe in abortion! Tell me what you think.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So when you stand in judgement and the hundreds of thousands of dead because of Iraq, including pregnant women gunned down for sport by US paid Pinochet thugs are facing you, will your defense be ‘Yes, I supported that, but look at how I voted on abortion! Sure, it didn’t actually stop any abortions, and well, yeah, technically I voted in favor of some abortions but…’



How fortunate that your political truth and your spiritual truth are so perfectly aligned…

Ah, now it all comes out. Just as I thought – your aim is to dissuade people from voting for the Republican Party. And if that furthers the pro-aboriton cause, it’s a price you are willing to pay.