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

[Ridgerunner]

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”.

Did I strike a nerve?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The following was well said by a poster in another thread:

"The Church has made it crystal clear that no issue or combination of issues trumps abotion.

From the USCCB Consciences for Faithful Citizenship:

Section 34:

“A Catholic cannot vote for a canidate who takes a postion in favor in an intrinsic evil such as abortion”

Then Cardinal Ratzinger:

“In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. :

and

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Archbishop Chaput:

Catholics have a duty to work tirelessly for human dignity at every stage of life, and to demand the same of their lawmakers. But some issues are jugular. Some issues take priority. Abortion, immigration law, international trade policy, the death penalty and housing for the poor are all vitally important issues. But no amount of calculating can make them equal in gravity.
The right to life comes first. It precedes and undergirds every other social issue or group of issues. This is why Blessed John XXIII listed it as the first human right in his great encyclical on world peace, Pacem in Terris. And as the U.S. bishops stressed in their 1998 pastoral letter Living the Gospel of Life, the right to life is the foundation of every other right.

Bishop Wenski:

Today, some self-identified Catholic politicians prefer to emulate Pontius Pilate’s “personally opposed but unwilling to impose” stance. Perhaps, they are baiting the Church, daring an “official sanction” making them “bad Catholics”, so as to gain favor among up their secularist, “blue state” constituencies. Such a sanction might turn their lack of coherent Catholic convictions into a badge of courage for people who hold such convictions in contempt.

Rev John Meyers:

Catholics who publicly dissent from the Church’s teaching on the right to life of all unborn children should recognize that they have freely chosen by their own actions to separate themselves from what the Church believes and teaches. They have also separated themselves in a significant way from the Catholic community.

Bishop Carlson:

Opposition to abortion binds every Catholic under pain of mortal sin and admits of no exceptions.

It was for this reason that I stated in October
of 2000 that you cannot vote for a politician who is pro-abortion when you have a choice and remain a Catholic in good standing. For some Catholics this is a hard teaching, but I am simply repeating church teaching: “Human life is sacred because from the beginning it involves the creative action of God (Gospel of Life, par. 53)…the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being (abortion and euthanasia) is always gravely immoral (Gospel of Life, par. 57, 65)…protecting the mother’s health does not justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being (Gospel of Life, par. 58).”

Bishop Burke:

1. Within the considerations for the protection of human life, the protection of the life of the innocent and defenseless, and of the weak and the burdened must have primacy of place. There can never be justification for directly and deliberately taking the life of those who indeed are “the least” (Matthew 25:45). Such an act is always evil in itself, intrinsically evil. Society, rather, is called to treasure its members who are weakest, in the eyes of the world.
2. For that reason, our Holy Father reminds us that “[a]mong all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable” (Evangelium vitae, No. 58a). In treating the evil of procured abortion, our Holy Father concludes:"

 

[mapleoak]

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.

Ovulation does not involve new life. This can be checked out in any decent biology reference. Further check out the difference between pregnancy and ovulation.
Note we do not say that “because a pregnancy is not carried out, it is a wasted potential human life”, rather we say “because a pregnancy is not carried out, human life is destroyed”.

 

[fix]

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

And the quote I gave is in harmony.

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.

Right. That does not mean moral theology suddenly does not apply or is in contradiction to that statement.

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.

No, they are not arguing that. You assert that.

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.

That is why the correct Cardinal was asked how about the situation.

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.

There is no rejection of the natural law or apostolic authority in the quote I posted.

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.

I am not a partisan, but your analysis leaves out his opponent who was and is much more against Church teaching than Bush.

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.

His opponent would have been more pro life?

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.

That is why we talk of limiting 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).

We have a living magisterium to ask for help. Why make yourself the ultimate authority and ultimate interpreter?

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

Do you know what a barracks bag is?

You constantly pretend that the Church requires us to vote for perfect politicians – it does not. So give it a rest.

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.

Waterboarding is a standard training technique – I have been waterboarded in training. I don’t like it, don’t think it should be used on prisoners, but it has only been used on three prisoners.

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.

More of your gibberish, based on your own imagination.

 

[st_lucy]

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.

I don’t understand how you can even use this as an example one is there is a human life there and the other is there never was a human life there.

 

[SoCalRC]

Did I strike a nerve?

Of course. I’ve volunteered for service in war I did not support. I chose to go unarmed, as a combat medic, for my faith and its belief about life. I’ve been active in promoting Catholic pro life causes since long before I could vote. All my siblings have adopted “difficult placements”. My wife and I had planned on doing likewise, but our youngest is severely disabled. But we contribute heavily to pro life ministries throughout our Archiocese.

My faith is a huge part of my own identity. I grew up in a house without indoor plumbing, primarily because my father, a decorated war vet, would not lie about being Catholic. When you question any person’s faith and sincerity, they are naturally going to be offended.

With you, Catholicism, and abortion, the insult is naturally more grave. Consider what you just wrote in another thread:

Abortion is the #1 “legal evil” in the U.S. It admits of no compromise. There is no clearer evil going on. Nothing, not the war, not welfare, not the economy, not anything even comes close in seriousness to one million murdered children per year.

If all Catholics voted against pro-abortion candidates, without exception, it would send a message that no candidate or party could ignore. No party can give up 20% of voters (Catholics) starting out, plus perhaps an equal number of Evangelicals and have any hope of winning.

If that happened, then the bishops could attack “evil #2” and so on down the line. No political party could possibly ignore that.

But, when I had the audacity to assert that Catholics should consider at least holding out for a candidate who:

A) Has not supported upholding Roe within the last election cycle

and

B) Publicly embraces a position on abortion that the Church does not consider intrinsically evil

Oh my goodness! It must be a Democratic plot!!!

Suddenly, the ‘crime’ is not the GOP putting up presidential candidates who have supported upholding Roe and still hold positions we consider evil (3 straight elections now, and 5 of the last 6) but, gasp, actually treating abortion as an evil that “admits of no compromise”.

I know that some of this is just a generational/cultural gap. I grew up in an environment where, well, you did things like volunteer when your nation is at war. Civic values were not partisan, but something we all studied in school and generally held to be common beliefs and principles.

Your world, where we not only put the burden for fighting wars on a tiny minority, but even push the cost onto our descendants, is quite alien to me. Ideas like promoting the use of the paramount civic duty of voting for partisan political purposes are repulsive to me, but seemingly “a great idea!” to millions of Rush L. listeners like yourself.

If one has a world view where abandoning civic duty for partisan gain or politicising, say, the justice department is just politics as usual, it is probably perfectly natural to project an assumption of such behaviors onto others.

In that spirit, I should probably just accept that the values I grew up with, and continue to hold dear, are just as alien to you. And that, in of itself, this disparity is not a reflection of the Christian conscience.

But when I see you howl about the ‘smell’ of ‘partisan trickery’ when I simply propose holding all political parties to a standard you, yourself claim to hold dear. I cannot escape the uncharitable conclussion that you care more about electing Republicans than you do about abortion.

I can’t to help it. When explaining why we had no running water, my father explained that the only values a man can truly claim to hold are the one’s he will stand by when they cost him something. When “no compromise” meets ‘force even the GOP to put up actual pro-life candidates’, your loyalities appear clear.

As noted, such thinking on my part is un-Christian. Just as you are actively questioning my faith, I am now actively questioning yours. Having acknowledged the sin, all I can do now is strive to correct it.

 

[SoCalRC]

I am not a partisan, but your analysis leaves out his opponent who was and is much more against Church teaching than Bush.

His opponent would have been more pro life?

Three candidates on my 2004 ballot had positions on abortion more consistant with Catholic teaching. You keep using the singular, with it apparently a ‘given’ that voting outside the major parties is a ‘waste’.

But where, precisely, is that concept introduced by the Magisterium?

For that matter, where can it be found in political science? If you do not require candidates to reject intrinsic evil on even the single principle that you claim is most important, what possible motivation is there for them to adopt a less evil position over a more populist one?

 

[fix]

Three candidates on my 2004 ballot had positions on abortion more consistant with Catholic teaching. You keep using the singular, with it apparently a ‘given’ that voting outside the major parties is a ‘waste’.

No, I am saying it is licit to limit evil.

But where, precisely, is that concept introduced by the Magisterium?

They do not teach it is a waste. Nor, do they teach it is a compromise or sin to limit evil.

For that matter, where can it be found in political science? If you do not require candidates to reject intrinsic evil on even the single principle that you claim is most important, what possible motivation is there for them to adopt a less evil position over a more populist one?

The work must be done prior to election day.

 

[SoCalRC]

No, I am saying it is licit to limit evil.

Can you provide any tangible evidence that your vote has, in fact, limited evil in any way?

If not, why are you so certain that your application of “proportionate reasons” is not only licit, but demonstrably superior to others?

 

[vern_humphrey]

As noted, such thinking on my part is un-Christian. Just as you are actively questioning my faith, I am now actively questioning yours. Having acknowledged the sin, all I can do now is strive to correct it.

Having admitted that, will you now stop saying false things about my position, and accusing me of taking a Protestant position?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Can you provide any tangible evidence that your vote has, in fact, limited evil in any way?

Can you provide any tangible evidence that your vote has, in fact, limited evil in any way?

If not, why are you so certain that your application of “proportionate reasons” is not only licit, but demonstrably superior to others?

If not, why are you so certain that your approach is not only licit, but demonstrably superior to others?

 

[edwest2]

And what about the father? If it was consensual sex, what is his say? Nothing? Half the genetic material is his.

Forget politics, this is human life. Everyone reading this began life as an embryo. A human (nothing else) embryo.

Money? I have every compassion for someone living in their car. There are churches you can go to. Soup kitchens. You can go to a priest and say, “Hi. I’m living in my car. Can you help?”

God bless,
Ed

 

[fix]

Can you provide any tangible evidence that your vote has, in fact, limited evil in any way?

We have position statements from the candidates and voting records and other history. Do you claim they should be dismissed? Is voting for a non viable candidate helping to stop abortion?

If not, why are you so certain that your application of “proportionate reasons” is not only licit, but demonstrably superior to others?

I stick with the Church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of course. I’ve volunteered for service in war I did not support. I chose to go unarmed, as a combat medic, for my faith and its belief about life. I’ve been active in promoting Catholic pro life causes since long before I could vote. All my siblings have adopted “difficult placements”. My wife and I had planned on doing likewise, but our youngest is severely disabled. But we contribute heavily to pro life ministries throughout our Archiocese.

My faith is a huge part of my own identity. I grew up in a house without indoor plumbing, primarily because my father, a decorated war vet, would not lie about being Catholic. When you question any person’s faith and sincerity, they are naturally going to be offended.

With you, Catholicism, and abortion, the insult is naturally more grave. Consider what you just wrote in another thread:

But, when I had the audacity to assert that Catholics should consider at least holding out for a candidate who:

A) Has not supported upholding Roe within the last election cycle

and

B) Publicly embraces a position on abortion that the Church does not consider intrinsically evil

Oh my goodness! It must be a Democratic plot!!!

Suddenly, the ‘crime’ is not the GOP putting up presidential candidates who have supported upholding Roe and still hold positions we consider evil (3 straight elections now, and 5 of the last 6) but, gasp, actually treating abortion as an evil that “admits of no compromise”.

I know that some of this is just a generational/cultural gap. I grew up in an environment where, well, you did things like volunteer when your nation is at war. Civic values were not partisan, but something we all studied in school and generally held to be common beliefs and principles.

Your world, where we not only put the burden for fighting wars on a tiny minority, but even push the cost onto our descendants, is quite alien to me. Ideas like promoting the use of the paramount civic duty of voting for partisan political purposes are repulsive to me, but seemingly “a great idea!” to millions of Rush L. listeners like yourself.

If one has a world view where abandoning civic duty for partisan gain or politicising, say, the justice department is just politics as usual, it is probably perfectly natural to project an assumption of such behaviors onto others.

In that spirit, I should probably just accept that the values I grew up with, and continue to hold dear, are just as alien to you. And that, in of itself, this disparity is not a reflection of the Christian conscience.

But when I see you howl about the ‘smell’ of ‘partisan trickery’ when I simply propose holding all political parties to a standard you, yourself claim to hold dear. I cannot escape the uncharitable conclussion that you care more about electing Republicans than you do about abortion.

I can’t to help it. When explaining why we had no running water, my father explained that the only values a man can truly claim to hold are the one’s he will stand by when they cost him something. When “no compromise” meets ‘force even the GOP to put up actual pro-life candidates’, your loyalities appear clear.

As noted, such thinking on my part is un-Christian. Just as you are actively questioning my faith, I am now actively questioning yours. Having acknowledged the sin, all I can do now is strive to correct it.

I do not care at all what you think of me. Nor do I care what heroism you think you have shown in your life. Every argument some ever make in here supports the pro-abortion candidates. If that shoe fits, wear it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And I’m not a Republican, and never have been.

 

[mlchance]

I thought this thread was about reasons for supporting abortion. Now it’s just another thread about why the GOP is icky and Catholics shouldn’t vote for Republicans.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mapleoak]

I thought this thread was about reasons for supporting abortion. Now it’s just another thread about why the GOP is icky and Catholics shouldn’t vote for Republicans.

– Mark L. Chance.

Thank you.

Extending the call to all “Pro-choicers” out there to jump in and share their reasons on why they believe it is acceptable to kill other people before they are born and cannot defend themselves. Any and all ideas are welcome, but please refer back to previous discussion in this thread to see if your reason(s) have already been presented and discussed if at all possible. Of course if you feel your position has not been adequately represented, by all means, expound upon it. The more angles that get covered, the better for the ultimate purpose of this thread.

 

[vz71]

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.

The big problem i see with this reasoning is that there is no compromise. SoCalRC keeps claiming there is, but the reality is that in voting for the most pro-life of the choices available, and continuing pro-life work, there has been no compromise.

 

[SoCalRC]

And I’m not a Republican, and never have been.

How peculiar that you then care about GOP political prospects.