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

[KathleenElsie]

And you believe an unviable candidate to be a proper choice?

The only thing that makes him or her unviable (unelectable) might be one vote. That vote could have been yours if you voted your moral beliefs and not your logic. Even the least likely candidate could win if everyone voted pro-life. More then 40% of the population says they are pro-life. 40% would not win in and of itself, but then the other 60% would be split and the 40% would win.

So you see if pro-lifers voted their morals we could win easily.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The only thing that makes him or her unviable (unelectable) might be one vote. That vote could have been yours if you voted your moral beliefs and not your logic. Even the least likely candidate could win if everyone voted pro-life. More then 40% of the population says they are pro-life. 40% would not win in and of itself, but then the other 60% would be split and the 40% would win.

So you see if pro-lifers voted their morals we could win easily.

And if a frog . . .

A third party candidate would be DOA even if he could be elected – he would have no following in Congress. And in the process of voting for the unelectable, we ensure the most ardent pro-abortion candidates win.

 

[KathleenElsie]

And if a frog . . .

A third party candidate would be DOA even if he could be elected – he would have no following in Congress. And in the process of voting for the unelectable, we ensure the most ardent pro-abortion candidates win.

But is this not where we come in. As in “we the people” it should be our responsibility as moral people to elect moral people that would support a truly good choice for president.

Don’t get me wrong. I will be one of those holding her nose when I vote this year. But it is also our duty to get behind the local dog catcher that is pro-life so that when s/he runs for a bigger office we will know where they stand on life issues.

 

[mapleoak]

The only thing that makes him or her unviable (unelectable) might be one vote. That vote could have been yours if you voted your moral beliefs and not your logic. Even the least likely candidate could win if everyone voted pro-life. More then 40% of the population says they are pro-life. 40% would not win in and of itself, but then the other 60% would be split and the 40% would win.

So you see if pro-lifers voted their morals we could win easily.

If 30% of the population were to vote in line with Catholic morality, it only makes sense that candidates would not want to miss out on those votes as a reason for why they lost the election. It would put the pressure on to try to capture those votes.

 

[rlg94086]

If 30% of the population were to vote in line with Catholic morality, it only makes sense that candidates would not want to miss out on those votes as a reason for why they lost the election. It would put the pressure on to try to capture those votes.

Hmm…whose “Catholic morality?” “Progressive” Catholics? “Conservative” Catholics? Do tell, because I would like to see a “Catholic morality” candidate that unites all Catholics (hint: one does not exist).

Okay, back to reality. Sacrificing your vote for the hope that losing will help move one of the major parties in your direction, will put more pro-choice people into positions of power. This is unacceptable IMHO. I want as many pro-life politicians/judges in place, as possible. Support the most pro-life candidate in the major parties (in any race) and urge/cajole/pray for him/her to move even closer to our viewpoints.

 

[mapleoak]

Hmm…whose “Catholic morality?”

The Church’s

“Progressive” Catholics? “Conservative” Catholics? Do tell, because I would like to see a “Catholic morality” candidate that unites all Catholics (hint: one does not exist).

A candidate who does not support intrinsic evil.

Okay, back to reality. Sacrificing your vote for the hope that losing will help move one of the major parties in your direction, will put more pro-choice people into positions of power.

No, it is not sacrificing your vote with such hopes in mind. Rather, it is staying loyal to Church whether the cost is losing ones vote or not. It is not worth rejecting the Church for the earthly goal of “winning”. Evil means (voting for an intrinsic evil) is not acceptable even to hopefully achieve a good end.

This is unacceptable IMHO. I want as many pro-life politicians/judges in place, as possible.

Then vote pro-life, not pro-choice.

Support the most pro-life candidate in the major parties (in any race) and urge/cajole/pray for him/her to move even closer to our viewpoints.

Would be great if this were possible. Since there are no pro-life candidates, it is not possible.

 

[rlg94086]

The Church’s

A candidate who does not support intrinsic evil.

No, it is not sacrificing your vote with such hopes in mind. Rather, it is staying loyal to Church whether the cost is losing ones vote or not. It is not worth rejecting the Church for the earthly goal of “winning”. Evil means (voting for an intrinsic evil) is not acceptable even to hopefully achieve a good end.

Then vote pro-life, not pro-choice.
Would be great if this were possible. Since there are no pro-life candidates, it is not possible.

This smiley is the closest I see for throwing up my hands.

I have resigned myself to the fact that you and SoCalRC will help the most pro-choice candidates get elected in your misapplied zeal. I can’t do anything to change that, except to work my rear off to get as much support for the best pro-life candidate in every race to overcome your negative effects.

The fact that you believe that there is only one “Church” political viewpoint and that there are “no pro-life candidates,” shows almost everyone that you aren’t thinking this through.

 

[mapleoak]

I have resigned myself to the fact that you and SoCalRC will help the most pro-choice candidates get elected in your misapplied zeal.

No, I have specifically stated previously that I do not in any way condemn those who in good conscience feel justified in supporting a lesser evil (if you can call any degree of intrinsic evil “lesser”). By refusing to vote for a pro-choice candidate, I am helping neither the most or the least pro-choice candidate.

I can’t do anything to change that, except to work my rear off to get as much support for the best pro-life candidate in every race to overcome your negative effects.

Everyone should do their best to get as much support for the best pro-life candidates as possible.

The fact that you believe that there is only one “Church” political viewpoint and that there are “no pro-life candidates,” shows almost everyone that you aren’t thinking this through.

How do you come to the determination that someone who supports abortion in certain cases is not pro-choice? Intrinsic evil is not relative. It either is or it isn’t. Because someone else supports intrinsic evil more frequently does not erase the fact that someone supports intrinsic evil. The Church forbids voting for someone who supports abortion. Why belabor the point.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

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

If and only if you define pro-life as “opposed to abortion except…”

 

[rlg94086]

If and only if you define pro-life as “opposed to abortion except…”

There are varying degrees of “pro-life.” Some believe in the rape/incest exceptions. Some believe that embryonic stem cell research is okay. Many believe that IVF is okay. They are wrong, but if we don’t build a coalition with these people, then we marginalize ourselves and achieve nothing. If we fall short in the short term to reach the ultimate goal of having our secular laws match up with our Catholic faith by working with a broader coalition that helps lead to a ban on abortion with the exception of rape/incest, I am okay with that. What I am not okay with is marginalizing ourselves and losing ground to those who want no restrictions on abortion.

BTW…shouldn’t have left you out on the people I have thrown my hands up on …I hope I didn’t hurt your feelings.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

There are varying degrees of “pro-life.” Some believe in the rape/incest exceptions. Some believe that embryonic stem cell research is okay. Many believe that IVF is okay. They are wrong, but if we don’t build a coalition with these people, then we marginalize ourselves and achieve nothing. If we fall short in the short term to reach the ultimate goal of having our secular laws match up with our Catholic faith by working with a broader coalition that helps lead to a ban on abortion with the exception of rape/incest, I am okay with that. What I am not okay with is marginalizing ourselves and losing ground to those who want no restrictions on abortion.

BTW…shouldn’t have left you out on the people I have thrown my hands up on …I hope I didn’t hurt your feelings.

When it comes to human life, I don’t really understand this idea of “varying degrees.” Sounds like a copout and an excuse to marry “pro-life” to other things that are inimical to human life, like Republican ideology (war profits, mammon worship, etc.). Just sayin’

And I’m not pro-choice in any way whatsoever, so don’t even think of going there with me…anyone. :nope:

 

[mapleoak]

There are varying degrees of “pro-life.”

The Church disagrees. Someone who supports abortion supports an intrinsic evil and is pro-abortion, not pro-life.

Some believe in the rape/incest exceptions.

pro-abortion.

Some believe that embryonic stem cell research is okay.

pro-abortion.

Many believe that IVF is okay.

Not necessarily pro-abortion, but most likely, pro-abortion, since the two go hand in hand. They generally support killing the ‘surplus’.

None of these are pro-life. All support intrinsic evil. Intrinsic evil is not relative compared to who supports more of these evils. It is always evil.

They are wrong, but if we don’t build a coalition with these people, then we marginalize ourselves and achieve nothing.

Not being complicit with evil is not, nor ever is, marginalizing oneself.

BTW…shouldn’t have left you out on the people I have thrown my hands up on …I hope I didn’t hurt your feelings.

:crying: Some people just don’t handle disagreement very well. Lets make it personal, eh?

 

[rlg94086]

When it comes to human life, I don’t really understand this idea of “varying degrees.” Sounds like a copout and an excuse to marry “pro-life” to other things that are inimical to human life, like Republican ideology (war profits, mammon worship, etc.). Just sayin’

It is completely licit to decide not to compromise with others. Good luck on putting together a Pro-Life group that is 100% in-line with Catholic teaching - no Abortion, at all; no IVF; no embryonic stem cell research; no euthenasia. I agree with all of those, so I don’t have varying degree of what is pro-life. However, I recognize that others do, and I want to get as much of my goals accomplished as I can.

It sounds like your choice of absolutism on the issue is just an excuse to avoid voting for the more pro-life party. Just sayin’

 

[rlg94086]

:crying: Some people just don’t handle disagreement very well. Lets make it personal, eh?

What is the big deal about me teasing LCMS_No_More about having his feelings hurt because I didn’t include him in my earlier comment?

It wasn’t “personal,” except in a light-hearted manner. I handle disagreement just fine. It would appear that perhaps you don’t though, based on your reaction.

 

[alt101]

i’m not sure if we can post links in these threads, but i have one. i dont understand how after seeing these pics, one could support such a thing as abortion, for any reason.

if you are prolife, i’d suggest not clicking on this link. there are very very graphic images here.

if you are for choice, or not bothered by these pics, then may i suggest electroshock therapy or an exorcism or both…

WARNING, GRAPHIC IMAGES:

100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/

 

[SoCalRC]

This smiley is the closest I see for throwing up my hands.

I have resigned myself to the fact that you and SoCalRC will help the most pro-choice candidates get elected in your misapplied zeal. I can’t do anything to change that, except to work my rear off to get as much support for the best pro-life candidate in every race to overcome your negative effects.

I think you have it backwards, I only vote for candidates who are 100% pro-life with regards to abortion. That is, I do what little I can to get them elected. Why, exactly, is supporting the most pro-life candidate available a negative?

The fact that you believe that there is only one “Church” political viewpoint and that there are “no pro-life candidates,” shows almost everyone that you aren’t thinking this through.

I would be very interested in seeing your answers to the questions that I posed to Ridgerunner above. To the best of my knowledge, there really is only one Church teaching on abortion. It is perhaps as close to an absolute as we can have in the faith.

I, like Mapleoak, have repeatedly stated that I have empathy for Catholics who attempt to vote pragmatically. We are all sinners and we all make compromises in the faith, so who am I to judge?

But you are accusing us of aiding and promoting a grave evil. Given the severity of such an application, it would be interesting to me to understand exactly what you believe Catholic teaching to be.

 

[SoCalRC]

Not being complicit with evil is not, nor ever is, marginalizing oneself.

I think this is a point that cannot get stressed enough. We are called to do what is right, not what is easy or expedient.

Different people will come to different conclussions about what is ‘right’. But if we start the discussion with the presumption that following God is ‘impractical’ in the ‘real’ world, we are already lost.

 

[vz71]

The only thing that makes him or her unviable (unelectable) might be one vote. That vote could have been yours if you voted your moral beliefs and not your logic. Even the least likely candidate could win if everyone voted pro-life. More then 40% of the population says they are pro-life. 40% would not win in and of itself, but then the other 60% would be split and the 40% would win.

So you see if pro-lifers voted their morals we could win easily.

I’m not asking about what could be.
I’m asking if you believe an unviable candidate is a proper choice for your vote.
Please stop dancing around it, and answer.

 

[SoCalRC]

I’m not asking about what could be.
I’m asking if you believe an unviable candidate is a proper choice for your vote.
Please stop dancing around it, and answer.

I thought she did answer it, as has Mapleoak and myself. I do not condemn Catholics who decide that they must vote ‘pragmatically’, but I will not do so with regards to instrinsic evil myself.

Further, in both Rome’s and the USCCB’s documents on voting, I cannot find anything to support a ‘more viable over more moral candidate’ position. I’d be happy to have it pointed out to me:

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

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

 

[vern_humphrey]

But is this not where we come in. As in “we the people” it should be our responsibility as moral people to elect moral people that would support a truly good choice for president.

Don’t get me wrong. I will be one of those holding her nose when I vote this year. But it is also our duty to get behind the local dog catcher that is pro-life so that when s/he runs for a bigger office we will know where they stand on life issues.

There you and I agree. But the reality of the situation is that under our system of government, there can only be two major parties. Only one time in our history has a third party triumphed (the Republicans in 1860), and when that happened, it killed off one of the two major parties (the Whigs) and sparked a civil war.

Our job is to find that pro-lifer who wants to run for dog-catcher, help him, urge him to run for higher offices later on, and support him. To those in either party, I say, purge your party of pro-abortion candidates.