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

[SoCalRC]

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.

The point is that many here are not voting for the most pro life choice available, they are voting for the most pro life choice out of candidates considered viable.

I manage to find candidates who wholly support the Catholic position on abortion, and I do not even have to settle for election cycle converts. The argument most repeated here is that, by not compromising on abortion I am ‘wasting’ my vote.

My answer is two fold, first, rejecting intrinsic evil is never a waste, regardless of the odds. Second, if more people did not compromise, candidates who have positions that are not abominations in the Catholic faith would become more viable - making the whole question of who is ‘wasting’ their vote debatable.

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

The problem is, do you want to use a political definition for pro-choice, or a Catholic one?

From a Catholic perspective, all the remaining major party Presidential candidates are pro-abortion. Denying that is a diservice to the faith and to the cause of elliminating the grave moral disorder of abortion.

 

[neat62]

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 approach is not only licit, but demonstrably superior to others?

I don’t know abot SoCal…but I can tell you that I voted for President Bush twice and he was the President who signed into effect the partial birth abortion ban! Seems to me…he indeed limited an intrinisic evil when the “other” candidates certainly wouldn’t have done so!

 

[rlg94086]

The problem is, do you want to use a political definition for pro-choice, or a Catholic one?

From a Catholic perspective, all the remaining major party Presidential candidates are pro-abortion.

Only to one particular Catholic - SoCalRC. You do not speak for the Catholic Church and are not in a position to declare a candidate as pro-abortion from a “Catholic perspective.” You are defaming one of the major candidates who has a very strong pro-life record. Calling him “pro-abortion” is a gross mischaracterization.

SoCalRC:

Denying that is a diservice to the faith and to the cause of elliminating the grave moral disorder of abortion.

Hardly. I am not doing a disservice to the faith by stating the facts, and voting for the pro-life candidate from a major party does much more towards elliminating the grave moral disorder of abortion than voting for a “perfect” candidate (that doesn’t exist btw) who won’t be elected.

You can choose to vote for anyone you like, but please stop disparaging your fellow Catholics who are doing their best to further pro-life causes.

 

[SoCalRC]

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

It is certainly not my intent to falsely represent anyone’s position. That is why I try to quote.

I cannot help when your own words imply a certain point of view. For example, when you assert that poverty is a situation of laziness and choice, and that material success is a sign of superior virtue, you are seemingly rejecting the most commonly repeated theme in the Synoptic Gospels. In fact, the word Gospel is derived from the Greek for ‘Good News’.

Similiarly, you actively support political activity that has resulting in US government entities, like the justice department, being disproportionately staffed with Evangelical Protestant extremists. This should be of no suprise, since the ‘religious base’ of the GOP is, primarily, extreme Evangelicalism.

If a Catholic, in good faith, wants to apply proportionate reasons in voting, this should be considered and weighed (Religious Freedom is something Rome has identified as non-negotiable in voting). Again, reasoining cannot be “proportionate” if all compromises in “fundamental faith and morals” are not considered.

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

The only things that I can say with confidence is that I do not have to apply a theological exception. No ‘double effect’, no ‘proportional reasons’. Because I am avoiding even “remote” complicency with intrinsic evil, I do not have to worry about a just rationalization for it.

That wholly acting in faith is an act of good is something that I must take as faith. Pope Benedict explained it as an important lesson from St. Paul:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061108_en.html

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

I think you are projecting again. In every one of these threads I have always noted that I am just another sinner. In fact, that has been my recurring theme, that since we all compromise we should have more empathy and tolerance. Identifying ‘real’ Catholics from ‘false’ or ‘couch potato’ ones is your province, not mine.

 

[SoCalRC]

Only to one particular Catholic - SoCalRC. You do not speak for the Catholic Church and are not in a position to declare a candidate as pro-abortion from a “Catholic perspective.”

Interesting, are you suggesting that abortion in the case of rape or incest is a licit Catholic position? EVANGELIUM VITAE, #58 would seem to strenously argue differently, as would the Catechism and various papal statements (ex. Pope Pius Allocution to Midwives in 1951), and even the Pastoral Constitution of the Church.

That is the most restrictive position on abortion among major party presidential candidates. And that candidate publicly supported upholding Roe as recently as 1999.

Why should this be a surprise? It is President Bush’s public position on abortion, and he publicly supporting upholding Roe in 2000.

 

[mapleoak]

My answer is two fold, first, rejecting intrinsic evil is never a waste, regardless of the odds. Second, if more people did not compromise, candidates who have positions that are not abominations in the Catholic faith would become more viable - making the whole question of who is ‘wasting’ their vote debatable.

Now if there were several million so-called ‘wasted’ votes, I am sure politicians would take notice and adjust their ‘tactics’.

 

[mapleoak]

Only to one particular Catholic - SoCalRC. You do not speak for the Catholic Church and are not in a position to declare a candidate as pro-abortion from a “Catholic perspective.” You are defaming one of the major candidates who has a very strong pro-life record. Calling him “pro-abortion” is a gross mischaracterization.

A candidate who supports abortion is “pro-abortion”.

 

[rlg94086]

Interesting, are you suggesting that abortion in the case of rape or incest is a licit Catholic position?

Nope…never have. I am “suggesting” that to say that someone is “pro-abortion” and call it a “Catholic perspective” is defamation of character. It is more accurate to say that he is pro-life, but agrees with exceptions not licit in the Catholic Church.

What you prefer to do is call everyone who does not perfectly align with our Catholic view of the issue as pro-abortion. That is rude. We need to work with these people to move closer to our goal and help move them closer to our position, not become absolutists who completely marginalize ourselves.

Further, you say that those of us that deny your position are doing a “diservice to the faith?” Is that really what you think of us?

 

[rlg94086]

A candidate who supports abortion is “pro-abortion”.

Duh. The candidate in question does not support abortion. He has a very strong pro-life record.

 

[mapleoak]

Duh. The candidate in question does not support abortion. He has a very strong pro-life record.

Consider a person who kills only one person during his whole life. Is he not a murderer?
Someone who supports abortion in only limited circumstances nvertheless supports murder and is pro-abortion.
If the situation were reversed and abortion was illegal and all candidates were against abortion except this same one who supports abortion in limited circumstances, what would you call that candidate? Pro-life?

 

[rlg94086]

Consider a person who kills only one person during his whole life. Is he not a murderer?
Someone who supports abortion in only limited circumstances nvertheless supports murder and is pro-abortion.
If the situation were reversed and abortion was illegal and all candidates were against abortion except this same one who supports abortion in limited circumstances, what would you call that candidate? Pro-life?

Of course not, but that is not the reality today.

Let me ask you a counter hypothetical question. If the major candidate were to oversee a Congress that outlawed abortion for all cases except rape and incest, would you consider that a pro-abortion event? Would things have moved in the direction of our Catholic viewpoint or away from it?

 

[SoCalRC]

Nope…never have. I am “suggesting” that to say that someone is “pro-abortion” and call it a “Catholic perspective” is defamation of character. It is more accurate to say that he is pro-life, but agrees with exceptions not licit in the Catholic Church.

If you support aborting a fetus simply because you are unhappy with the circumstances of its conception, you are “pro abortion”.

See the quotes (E.V. #58, and the Allocution), a ‘little’ murder is still murder and a ‘little’ abortion is still abortion. Both are infallibly absolutes in the Faith.

Having been called “pro abortion” by numerous posters in this forum, I can understand the implications. But there is a distinction. I wholly embrace the Catholic position on abortion, none of the major presidential candidates do.

What you prefer to do is call everyone who does not perfectly align with our Catholic view of the issue as pro-abortion. That is rude.

Intrinsic evil is non negotiable, rather it ruffles your feathers or not. You really should be careful with this line of reasoning. The only argument that we have heard from the college ordinary to permit voting for a candidate like the one you are supporting is “proportionate reasons”.

Proportionate reasons can only be licitly applied if the complicency is remote and undesired. When we start trying to cover up the intrinsic evil (ex. arguing that we not call it what it is), our complicency may no longer be remote.

Similiarly, when we argue that the compromise is nec. and required (ie, ‘desired’), we may no longer be applying proportionate reasons, but adopting a stance of ‘evil means to good ends’, which is not licit.

not become absolutists who completely marginalize ourselves.

We are 25% of the electorate, but neither major party fielded a single candidate who fully embraces our position on a moral principle that you have argued trumps all others in our faith. It seems to me that we are already completely marginalized.

Further, you say that those of us that deny your position are doing a “diservice to the faith?” Is that really what you think of us?

Look closely, I argued that anyone who argues for a weakening of our formal Catholic position on abortion is doing a disservice to the faith.

You have argued that position yourself. Do you now disagree? Do you think that we should reconsider abortion as an infallible absolute?

 

[SoCalRC]

Let me ask you a counter hypothetical question. If the major candidate were to oversee a Congress that outlawed abortion for all cases except rape and incest, would you consider that a pro-abortion event? Would things have moved in the direction of our Catholic viewpoint or away from it?

It depends on the results. If these exceptions made there way into some existing laws, like a revision of existing Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban, the direction would be ‘away’.

But the only litmus tests that really matters are actual abortions and the desire for abortions. As best we can measure, lip service on reproductive issues from national candidates seem to have no measurable impact.

Perhaps by compromising on something we know is absolutely wrong, we are setting a poor example for our society, hence the lack of meaningful results.

 

[liotino]

I don’t know abot SoCal…but I can tell you that I voted for President Bush twice and he was the President who signed into effect the partial birth abortion ban! Seems to me…he indeed limited an intrinisic evil when the “other” candidates certainly wouldn’t have done so![/QU…and then we went to war! The life of the Innocent/Voiceless will never be secured until we understand that Life is from conception to natural death.[period] As long as we are picking who should die and who should live we weaken the fight. We must be firm and united. Anything else will keep this going until the end of time the death of the unborn. Political Candidates if not 100% pro life as stated at the top of this comment we should not compromise DO NOT VOTE…This field of Politicians are a no vote from me…there is no compromise, there is no voting right, there is no flag waving. Later

 

[Ridgerunner]

Kind of hard to keep one’s footing in here with all the red herrings constantly being dragged around.

 

[liotino]

Kind of hard to keep one’s footing in here with all the red herrings constantly being dragged around.

One must understand all is not black and white…Later

 

[rlg94086]

It depends on the results. If these exceptions made there way into some existing laws, like a revision of existing Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban, the direction would be ‘away’.

But the only litmus tests that really matters are actual abortions and the desire for abortions. As best we can measure, lip service on reproductive issues from national candidates seem to have no measurable impact.

Perhaps by compromising on something we know is absolutely wrong, we are setting a poor example for our society, hence the lack of meaningful results.

Are you responding to something else? My hypothetical was **a Congress that outlawed abortion for all cases except rape and incest. **Are you saying that you don’t believe outlawing abortions with the exception of rape and incest will decrease abortions? :whacky:

By your *Alice in Wonderland *logic, a person supporting such legislation is pro-abortion and would be compromising their faith.

Similarly, by your own litmus test, people you support don’t pass. Why? Because, unless they actually get elected, their stances are also lip service, as they have no way of actually accomplishing anything.

I realize I won’t change your flawed reasoning, but I am hoping others whom you are misleading will understand that your absolutism is completely illogical.

 

[SoCalRC]

Kind of hard to keep one’s footing in here with all the red herrings constantly being dragged around.

You mean like the ‘Partial Birth Abortion Ban’? True, it has not stopped a single abortion, but it was never really meant to.

Abortion is not a red herring, it is intrinsically evil and a horrible symptom of a culture of death. Note what Rome has to say about it with regards to voting:

“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 abortion…”

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

The list goes on to list 8 others. I try to hold all as “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”.

I am not insisting that anyone else do likewise, but I am suggesting that if you are going to drop the other 8, at least hold the remaining one without compromise.

I am hearing a lot of people say the ‘Church says of course we should compromise’, but that is actually false. Some members of the college ordinary have said that some apparent compromises may be licit applications of “proportionate reasons”. This is not a conflicting teaching. There is only one teaching, abortion is intrinsically evil. Similiarly, we are not to cooperate with intrinsic evil.

The theological concept of “proportionate reasons” is a lot like an application of “double effect” to justify an abortion. There is not certainty of such an application and the Holy See has not provided specific determination. In that light, what do you suppose it means that Mapleoak and my position of strict and literal application of the original Church teaching is met with so much vehement resistance?

For that matter, why would strict papal obedience ever be an objectional position in a Catholic context? The call to such obedience is Dogmatic.

 

[SoCalRC]

Are you responding to something else? My hypothetical was **a Congress that outlawed abortion for all cases except rape and incest. **Are you saying that you don’t believe outlawing abortions with the exception of rape and incest will decrease abortions? :whacky:

You seem a little confused by your own hypothetical. The Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban contains no exceptions, medical or other wise, so a move towards exceptions of rape and incest would be a move away from Catholic teaching. In practice, the change would be meaningless, since the law does not stop any abortions, but in principle, it would still be a shift in the wrong direction.

You also seem a little confused about US law and governance. Congress passing laws would have no effect because such laws have already been held to be unconstitutional. For such a law to matter, several things would have to occur. First, the Supreme Court would have to reverse Roe and Casey. This would revert the matter to the states. Next, the Supreme Court would have to overturn a lot of legal precedent to take the matter back away from the states and uphold a Federal law.

When all this was done, the question on the actual effectiveness of prohibition in an age where the bulk of procurred abortions could be a pill taken in one’s own home remains to be seen. History and secular research does not look promising.

As long as we continue to compromise on abortion, even step one is probably impossible. We have 5 GOP appointed Catholics on the Supreme Court now, but three (included the latest two) asserted, under oath, that stare decisis was very significant. That is, they have stated that their own views about Roe are irrelevant to rulings on it because of the weight of long standing legal precedent. This also seems to match their actions, at least if Carhart is any indication.

This should not really be a surprise. President Bush personally supported upholding Roe as recently as 2000. Since he made the appointments, it seems understandable that they are very reliable on rulings that match his past actions, like supporting expansion in the use of the death penalty or an expansive interpretation presidential war time powers, but not reliable in issues on which the President himself has not had a long time committment.

By your *Alice in Wonderland *logic, a person supporting such legislation is pro-abortion and would be compromising their faith.

What an odd analogy. I am holding the position that “non negotiable” means, well, “non negotiable”. I am also arguing that the best measure of the effectiveness of an ‘expedient compromise’ is measurable results.

You are arguing that compromise is not compromising and that success is not determined by actual results. Are you sure you are thinking of Alice going into the glass and not the rabbit coming out?