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

[SoCalRC]

Not being pro-choice myself (I’m with an earlier poster in my understanding that we are not to support intrinsic evil), I’ve been watching this thread waiting for the most obvious reason to be cited:

“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” -Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, from Nota Bene, June 2004

In 2000, any US Catholic who voted for one of the major two party presidential candidates was, in a strict Catholic sense, voting for a pro-choice candidate.

Consider, now President Bush has supported abortion in the cases of rape and incest since he entered politics. As we see in EVANGELIUM VITAE (#58), this is still an abomination. One cannot be truly ‘pro life’ and support just a ‘little’ murder each day.

Also, on the campaign trail in 2000, Bush stated that Roe should not be overturned and that there was room for disagreement on the issue. And, as gov. of Texas, Bush did make at least two pro-abortion judicial appointments.

In 2004, the situation remained equally clear. Bush had publicly compromised on stem cell research (Federally funding it) and was openly supportive of IVF. Similiarly, he had signed legislation making it easier to remove hydration and nutrition on the basis of a patient’s ability to pay - something we, in principle, consider direct euthanasia.

Presumably, many Catholics who voted for Bush did not do so because they disagree with the Church with regards to right to life, but because they were applying the principle explained by Cardinal Ratzinger. Likewise, many Catholics who voted against Bush may not have done so because of a rejection of Church doctrine, but because of Bush’s uncompelling record on Catholic pro-life teachings. Again, regardless of what he said nationally, he has a history of pro abortion judicial appointments and was personally involved in death penalty expansion as gov. of Texas. The local Catechism in the US holds that the expanded use of the death penalty is a causal factor in our culture of death.

Catholics in the US will have a similiar dilemna this year. There is no major party candidate for President who has not openly endorsed upholding Roe as recently as 1999. I suspect that a significant number will, again, attempt to apply “proportionate reasons”, then spend a lot of time quibbling about who is, in fact, the least ‘pro choice’ in their application.

Personally, I find it interesting that, now as Pope, Benedict has not reiterated the same reasoning. Instead, in writings like SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS, he refers to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith Doctrinal Note in 2002, which made no reference to proportionate reasons with regards to “fundemental morals” but, instead, appeared to argue on a much narrower range of licit applications for the principle of “limiting the harm”:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (see #4)

I also cannot personally envision how anyone could apply proportional reasons without grave misgivings and doubt. Again, referring to Evangelium Vitae #58, where the Pope quotes a prophet in the context of abortion:

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Is 5:20)

 

[fix]

Benedict has not reiterated the same reasoning.

Are you saying the Cardinal got it wrong?

Instead, in writings like SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS, he refers to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith Doctrinal Note in 2002, which made no reference to proportionate reasons with regards to “fundemental morals” but, instead, appeared to argue on a much narrower range of licit applications for the principle of “limiting the harm”:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (see #4)

That does not contradict the moral reasoning used in the letter.

I also cannot personally envision how anyone could apply proportional reasons without grave misgivings and doubt. Again, referring to Evangelium Vitae #58, where the Pope quotes a prophet in the context of abortion:

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Is 5:20)

The was candidiate opposing Bush more pro life?

 

[Spirithound]

I also cannot personally envision how anyone could apply proportional reasons without grave misgivings and doubt.

I would agree with you. I think it was a little bit of legalism though, that he said that. I think it’s pretty clear in various Catholic voters’ guides and such, that if there are any proportional reasons for voting for a pro-choice politician, it’s either that there is no pro-life candidate, or the alternative espouses a much worse doctrine, like forced abortions. Although, note how the second scenario falls under the first one…

Anyways, in the linguistic world, we might call this a vacuous rule: if proportional reasons exist, vote for the pro-choicer. No proportional reasons exist, therefore, vote pro-life.

 

[liotino]

I’m sorry but I have many problems with abortion and cannot make my mind up on the matter. I do believe it’s wrong yes, but the thing that makes it problematic for me is that if you make abortion illegal, then that means you end up forcing women to give birth. And to me, that is equally as deplorable.

There is nothing deplorable about forcing a women to give birth. You can never trade off the right of the Voiceless to life base on sympathy of a mother taking the life of the child. Why is it we trade off the life of the Voiceless for any reason. It is God and God alone who makes this decision. We keep the Voiceless always in peril when we weaken their right by having a gray area to them having life. Their is no gray area and there never should be. The womb is the protected place for the Voiceless [unborn] and to think we can do anything else but fight for this protected place is and will always be fundamentally wrong and a grave sin. I do not understand the trade off theory. I do not understand the “but” theory.

 

[SoCalRC]

Are you saying the Cardinal got it wrong?

Actually, the full meaning of the Nota Bene is hard to determine, since then Cardinal Ratzinger declined to release his entire writings and his spokesman indicated that the partial release was potentially misleading.

But, from a Catholic, dogmatic, perspective, the Doctrinal Note, being Papally approved, and SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS, which was made by Pope Benedict, are more authoritative anyway.

That does not contradict the moral reasoning used in the letter.

Actually, there is a seeming contradiction. However, the presumption would be that Papal authority is correct and the seeming contradiction is the result of incorrect understanding. The letter, after all, was addressed to a bishop, on a different subject. The Doctrinal Note and the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation are both addressed to the lay faithful and more directly on the subjects.

The was candidiate opposing Bush more pro life?

A wholly subjective question. Bush had direct involvement in a practice that the Church considers a causal factor in our culture of death. And, of course, both his stated position on abortion and his history on the subject were/are at odds with Catholic teaching.

In hindsight, with the US at odds on issues like torture and preventive war, and no tangible evidence of meaningful progress on abortion, some Catholics might argue ‘absolutely’. But I do not see it as at all clear cut. You see, I find the argument of “proportional reasons” suspect, period. Not just in particular applications.

Your position is a little different. You are both applying the principle yourself, and arguing that your application is licit while others are not.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If we are making change, three quarters, two dimes and a nickle make a dollar. Money is fungible, and one dollar is equal to another.

But the waterboarding of three men (as much as I oppose it) and a war that overthrew a dictator who used gas against his own people, and which has drawn our deadliest enemies into battle and beaten them badly do not trump abortion on demand.

Life issues are not fungible.

 

[SoCalRC]

Life issues are not fungible.

But you are the one advocating voting for a politician who espouses licit uses of abortion and the upholding of Roe. That is, you are arguing to compromise, then arguing it is a non compromisable issue.

Waterboarding is also misleading. We now know that there are torture related deaths, with autopsy reports identifying the manner of death ‘homicide’. When you torture someone to death, it is murder, and murder, like abortion, is infallibly held to be a grave moral disorder.

If one is going to apply the concept of proportionate reasons, then accepting the depth and extent of the intrinsic evils being compromised on would appear to be a must for licit applications. Otherwise, there is not even the illusion of ‘proportionate’ decision making.

 

[mapleoak]

Not being pro-choice myself (I’m with an earlier poster in my understanding that we are not to support intrinsic evil)

Actually, I hold that view myself. I cannot come to grasp the notion of supporting an intrinsic evil in any capacity, even if it is a choice between a more limited application of an intrinsic evil.

In 2000, any US Catholic who voted for one of the major two party presidential candidates was, in a strict Catholic sense, voting for a pro-choice candidate.

Likewise, this time around.

 

[fix]

What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong. Then we must consider the scope of the evil of abortion today in our country. America suffers 1.3 million abortions each year–a tragedy of epic proportions. Moreover, many supporters of abortion propose making the situation even worse by creating a publicly funded industry in which tens of thousands of human lives are produced each year for the purpose of being “sacrificed” in biomedical research.

Thus for a Catholic citizen to vote for a candidate who supports abortion and embryo-destructive research, one of the following circumstances would have to obtain: either (a) both candidates would have to be in favor of embryo killing on roughly an equal scale or (b) the candidate with the superior position on abortion and embryo-destructive research would have to be a supporter of objective evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond that of 1.3 million yearly abortions plus the killing that would take place if public funds were made available for embryo-destructive research…

ARCHBISHOP JOHN J. MYERS

One good explanation. The point being moral theological terms such as forms of material cooperation with evil and proportionate reasons are used by the then Cardinal in a specific way. That understanding is not contrary to the papal documents in question. Any seemimg contradiction would be from our limited understanding, not the Cardinal’s explanation.

 

[SoCalRC]

One good explanation. The point being moral theological terms such as forms of material cooperation with evil and proportionate reasons are used by the then Cardinal in a specific way. That understanding is not contrary to the papal documents in question. Any seemimg contradiction would be from our limited understanding, not the Cardinal’s explanation.

You seem to have it backwards. Cardinals must be in sync with Rome to carry the authority of the Church. Not vice versa.

The seeming contradiction is clear, in 2002, Under Pope John Paul II, the Church asserted that certain fundamental moral principles are non negotiable in voting.

In 2007, Pope Benedict reaffirmed this, specifically citing the Doctrinal Note, and connecting the “non negotiable” moral principles to worthiness to receive Holy Communion.

Both Cardinals, on the surface, appear to be arguing that compromise on a non negotiable is permitted. That would be a contradiction, and possibly not licit.

However, the Cardinals arguments appear to be more subtle, they are apparently arguing that because our vote is indirect from the actions of politicians, any complicency with intrinsic evil is “remote”. Since our involvement is distant, the principle of “proportionate reasons” can be applied. The concept is not difficult, but licit applications are anything but simple.

It is important to understand that “proportionate reasons” can not be used to justify the rejection of “lex naturae” (natural law). Similiarly, it can not be used to thwart apostolic authority. For Catholics, the first is a rejection of God, the second a rejection of the Church’s Holy nature.

This makes Archbishop Myer’s simple example harder in actual practice. Take voting for President Bush. Bush stated in 2000 that he did not believe that Roe should be overturned. And, in Texas, he had made pro-abortion judicial appointments. And, of course, Bush’s stated position on abortion is still at odds with Catholic teaching.

So, in 2000, it would seem a little odd to make a comparison of 1 million lives, since Bush had stated he did not intend to address abortion on demand, and had a stated personal position supporting some abortions. Any progress on the abortion front in response to a Bush vote would have been highly speculative. On the flip side, Bush’s record on other issues, like the expansion of the death penalty, was pretty clear.

The subsequent years have not made the ‘million+ lives’ argument any stronger. Abortions have declined nationally under Bush, but at a slower rate than his predecessor, and the trend has actually reversed direction - after decades of reduction, and started to actually increase in some states. Bush appointed a chief justice to the Supreme Court who stated that Roe was settled law which he saw no reason to readdress, and neither of his appointments joined Scalia and Thomas in condemning Roe in Carhart.

But, both justices did recently support the expansion of the death penalty. This leaves us with a situation where the lives ‘saved’ is highly speculative and possibly even dependant on future events. But the lives lost, in war, poverty, the death penalty, etc. are readily measured.

This is why I find applications of this principle so suspect. Consider the upcoming presidental election. Every candidate still in the race from either major party, publicly supported upholding Roe as of 1999 (possibly as late as 2003, but let’s stick to clear, undisputed public statements). Likewise, no major party candidate publicly supports a Catholic position on abortion. That is, all support a position on abortion that we consider intrinsically evil.

I am sure that I will hear two different arguments from Catholics who choose from among these candidates. Some will argue that one position is just because it is less evil (call it the ‘900,000 babies’ argument). Others will argue that there is no difference, that the less evil position is just a recent shift, made for self serving political reasons (call it the 0 babies vs. real war casualties argument).

Frankly, I find neither compelling. Both arguments appear to be based on a foundation of devaluing human life. That is, presenting the right to life as a zero sum game. This does not mean that I reject the principle of “proportionate reasons” (though I can find no directive from Rome specifically supporting it), I just have a difficult time seeing any application being licit when ‘political viability’ is factored in (notice that neither Cardinal introduced such a concept).

 

[icecubeted]

I am a lurker and seldom respond to internet chats, because I feel that it is a cardboard medium and true change can only be done face to face as we see each others expressions and passion. I was a pro-choice for most of my adult life until I was faced with making that decision about my child that was conceived out of wedlock. I used to send monthly donations to PP and would vehemently argue with each individuals right to make their own choice on ALL matters of morals. When my girlfriend told me that she was pregnant, I used the old stand by, what are YOU going to do about it? I was hoping that she would choose the easy way out and save me the hassle of dealing with an unexpected birth in a very tumultuous time in my life. I was not committed to this woman in my heart and was using her as my sperm receptacle. She had more gonads than me and bluntly stated that she was NOT going to abort and she was NOT going to sue me for any kind of support, so stop worrying. But she said, I am not going to destroy a human life for your convenience and you WILL be a father. As it turned out, it was one of the lowest points of my life and after seeing that little bundle of joy many months later, I felt terrified that I almost destroyed that little girl for my convenience. We managed to make a relationship work, and she started to convince me that we needed to make some decisions about life and if we needed religion in our life. I begrudgingly went with her to church and after many years of trying to conceive again, we learned that we were sterile. I was going to throw away the only thing that I had done right in my life up to that point. I started to enjoy church and the moral certitudes that came with the church. As I studied more, and then encountered the living Christ in a Cursillo weekend, my life did a complete flip-flop. I have lived all the excuses and blind rationalizations that make up the empty pro-life choice. I had lived 40 years in the darkness of booze, drugs, sex and an adulterous marriage. I believed the false mantras of PP and the selfish motivations that played throughout my entire life. It is only after I discovered the complete hollowness and lies of the PP and their dogmas to be the nacisstic chants of self pleasures, after my conversion, that I found the truth. I encounter these soulless lies in my daily conversations with pro-choice people. I have made some inroads with some and have been a godfather 5 times over in the last couple of years. So let’s keep debating and discussing, but the only one who is going to do the real changing is the Holy Spirit. God Bless the Catholic church, without its teachings, I would be lost, without its leaders, I would be soulless. Thank you for listening or reading my rant. Thank you all you lovers of life for standing for truth against the lies of PP and to all those who believe that they are the ultimate judge…you time will come, believe me or not, ridicule the fools who believe, but judgement will be sure.

 

[qubica]

I am a lurker and seldom respond to internet chats.

Stop lurking! That was magnificent! We need your perspective, and your thoughtful words. God bless you for being open to life, and God bless your little girl. And God put that fantastic woman in your life for a reason.

I am going to dedicate a rosary tonight for your family. Way to be a man.

pax domini
qubica

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sure does seem to me there are lots of attempts to convince Catholics not to vote Republican going on in here. Click on any thread in which abortion is a topic and you’ll find Republican bashing by the same people, over and over and over again.

Maybe it’s really prolifers wanting to educate fellow Catholics that the Republican party and the Catholic Church are not co-extensive entities; something I think most Catholics know anyway. In fact, I don’t think I have ever known a Republican Catholic who thought that.

But maybe they’re DNC operatives whose function it is to get people to vote for pro-abortion candidates by creating confusion, or get them to waste their votes on third party candidates. Sometimes that’s the aroma one smells. I expect if I ran the DNC, I would be sending people to do that. Politicians do far stranger things, and I feel reasonably confident we’ll see a lot more of that before this election cycle is over.

 

[SoCalRC]

But maybe they’re DNC operatives whose function it is to get people to vote for pro-abortion candidates by creating confusion, or get them to waste their votes on third party candidates. Sometimes that’s the aroma one smells. I expect if I ran the DNC, I would be sending people to do that. Politicians do far stranger things, and I feel reasonably confident we’ll see a lot more of that before this election cycle is over.

What an amazing operation! How do you suppose that ‘they’ got the Vatican to cooperate (Doctrinal Notes, Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortations, Statements from Cardinals explaining that Proportionate Reasons might be applied…)?

More importantly, how did they get the GOP to cooperate! After all, not fielding any presidential candidates who publicly take the Catholic position on abortion - or, for that matter, who have even consistantly supported overturning Roe in the past, certainly helps in the ‘deception’!

My honest advice - if “fully vote the Faith following Rome as closely as possible” really ‘smells’ of political intrigue to you, perhaps you might want to seriously consider the possibility that you are serving two masters. If an honest self asessment determines that the answer is ‘yes,’ I’d further advise looking at what the Gospel tells us about determining which master we “love best”.

 

[SoCalRC]

In hindsight, my last post was less than charitable. Certainly, the irony was not used with pure Christian intent.

However, the closing paragraph was sincere and, I think, still a legitimate response. Think about it this way, if messages like “trust in God”, “don’t compromise on intrinsic evil”, and “look to Rome” are perceived as threats, what does that say about the role of Catholicism in the threatened person’s world view?

 

[icecubeted]

I am going to dedicate a rosary tonight for your family. Way to be a man.

pax domini
qubica

 

[icecubeted]

I am nothing, but you have made me something. Your praying the rosary for me, has brought tears to my eyes. I once read a book “Pierced by a sword” that talked about men that prayed rosaries together as I started this journey, and I thought. Is there really men that pray rosaries together? Anyone who would pray a rosary for me, is THE man, and has honored me so very much. I am a redeemed POS that has seen the light and fallen heads over heels in love with the church. God has used me to bring souls to HIS truth, and I am finally complete, but I will NEVER back down on the truth of the Church. I now have friends that pray the rosary with me, I now have friends that love the church. I have friends that were not Catholic a year ago…God is good! In the days that are coming, the darkness will seem to be overwhelming and all-encompassing, but the light is always the brightest in a dark tunnel. Thank you my friend for your words!

 

[rlg94086]

I am nothing, but you have made me something. Your praying the rosary for me, has brought tears to my eyes. I once read a book “Pierced by a sword” that talked about men that prayed rosaries together as I started this journey, and I thought. Is there really men that pray rosaries together? Anyone who would pray a rosary for me, is THE man, and has honored me so very much. I am a redeemed POS that has seen the light and fallen heads over heels in love with the church. God has used me to bring souls to HIS truth, and I am finally complete, but I will NEVER back down on the truth of the Church. I now have friends that pray the rosary with me, I now have friends that love the church. I have friends that were not Catholic a year ago…God is good! In the days that are coming, the darkness will seem to be overwhelming and all-encompassing, but the light is always the brightest in a dark tunnel. Thank you my friend for your words!

Although my current Council does not do it, my previous Knights of Columbus Council prayed the rosary before every meeting. The sight/experience of 20+ men on their knees praying to Our Mother together is really something the first time.

 

[Avery]

How many Albert Einstein’s, Stephen Hawking’s, Louis Pasteur’s, and Martin Luther Kings have we aborted?

I do not think this is a valid argument against abortion. Saying that because a pregnancy is not carried out, it is a wasted potential human life is like saying that every time a woman ovulates and does not become pregnant, it is a wasted human life.

 

[rlg94086]

I do not think this is a valid argument against abortion. Saying that because a pregnancy is not carried out, it is a wasted potential human life is like saying that every time a woman ovulates and does not become pregnant, it is a wasted human life.

Not at all…an ovum is not an unborn child, so it is not the same.