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

[mapleoak]

Fallacy of limited alternatives. One can follow Christ and win, but only if one understands how the game is played.

Wrong. One can follow Christ and irregardless of one wins or not, one accepts His Will over our own.

And one is not justified by violating the rules, increasing the evil, and smugly saying, “Well, I voted for Blatzap – who got three other votes, too.”

But can go to bed at night knowing He didn’t vote for ‘Evil can Evil’ who got 3 million other votes, too. Which conforms with the ways of society in general.

 

[mapleoak]

Now with all that being said I weight in with this: Is not the fight of ending abortion weaken when we take a position that there is a settling to accept a position to for the greater good.

Yes you are correct. When this one figures it is okay to compromise for a ‘pro-life’ candidate who supports rape/incest abortions, the next one will figure it is okay to support a ‘pro-life’ candidate who is limited in the scope that he approves of abortions up to 3 weeks. Yet another is deemed ‘pro-life’ because he doesn’t support all abortions but only abortions up the the 2nd trimester. In fact none of these candidates are pro-life. All are pro-abortion.

Such as accepting the rape/incest abortion? Does anyone believe if a ground swell of a tough stance on life with no compromise took hold the tide would turn.

Yes.

The thinking change? It is when in my humble opinion we give room to wiggle wiggle we will.

Give an inch, take a mile.

 

[mapleoak]

I am taking your post from the “Voter’s Guide” thread which has been running simultaneously with this thread and posted it above a quote of yours from this thread.

I posted this as indication that I charitably don’t hold it against anyone who feels they are justified to vote for a pro-abortion candidate whom they call pro-life because they believe they are honestly trying to limit the evil to only cases of rape/incest. I could not justify myself voting in such a way.

I would think that if one honestly believed it acceptable to support a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil in order to limit the evil, they may very well be justified in voting for the candidate who will likely limit the scale or magnitude of the intrinsic evil.

Many posters here have repeatedly tried to justify their refusal to support a consistently pro-life candidate on the basis that they believe he cannont win. That is fine. But I believe you are correct in saying that such a mentality “becomes subjective.”

Yes, when one starts drawing lines, the wind has a way of blowing the line one way or the other.

But the mechanics are not the issue here. What is the issue is that once you say, “I’m not voting for truly pro-life candidate because I believe…”, you give tacit permission to other Catholic voters to make that same statement, even though they may come to a different conclusion.

And then all one can say is “my candidate wants to kill people, but not as many as your candidate does, so my candidate is pro-life and that is who you should vote for too.”

 

[mapleoak]

NO. If the alternative was a person that has stated freely they would support and try to advance abortion rights. I think it then becomes a duty to try our best to choose the lessor of two evils.

It is our duty to try our best and do all we can to prevent the propagation of that evil, but it does not include resorting to using immoral means by choosing evil. Even if it is less evil, it is evil nontheless.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Wrong. One can follow Christ and irregardless of one wins or not, one accepts His Will over our own.

Is unlimited abortion, funded by the taxpayer, His will?

But can go to bed at night knowing He didn’t vote for ‘Evil can Evil’ who got 3 million other votes, too. Which conforms with the ways of society in general.

One can also go to bed at night knowing that good feeling was purchased at the cost of human lives – the lives that might have been saved had a more life-friendly candidate won the election.

 

[mapleoak]

Is unlimited abortion, funded by the taxpayer, His will?

That I cannot answer, as I do not know ultimately why He allows the abortion to continue. I will certainly say that He hears the unborns’ cry for mercy.

One can also go to bed at night knowing that good feeling was purchased at the cost of human lives

If you support a pro-choice candidate, then yes, you have purchased that good feeling at the cost of human lives.

– the lives that might have been saved had a more life-friendly candidate won the election.

The key is life-friendly, indeed. Candidates who want to kill or support killing people are anything but life friendly. I wouldn’t want somebody like that near my children, let alone be president.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That I cannot answer, as I do not know ultimately why He allows the abortion to continue. I will certainly say that He hears the unborns’ cry for mercy.

That’s a cop-out. He expects us to oppose evil – why else would He come to earth, select Apostles, and send them out to the nations?

If you support a pro-choice candidate, then yes, you have purchased that good feeling at the cost of human lives.

Not voting against the pro-choice candidate is the same as supporting him.

The key is life-friendly, indeed. Candidates who want to kill or support killing people are anything but life friendly. I wouldn’t want somebody like that near my children, let alone be president.

Then you cannot “tune in, turn on, and drop out.” You have to accept responsibility for your actions – including failing to prevent the worst anti-lifers from winning elections.

 

[mapleoak]

That’s a cop-out. He expects us to oppose evil – why else would He come to earth, select Apostles, and send them out to the nations?

But He expects us to use moral means to do so.

Not voting against the pro-choice candidate is the same as supporting him.

This defies logic.

Then you cannot “tune in, turn on, and drop out.” You have to accept responsibility for your actions – including failing to prevent the worst anti-lifers from winning elections.

In your last election choices, did you succeed or fail in saving millions of lives? Further did you use moral means? If you were not successful, are you placing the blame on those who did not vote for pro-abortion candidates in line with the teachings of the Church?

 

[vern_humphrey]

But He expects us to use moral means to do so.

That includes making effective use of your ballot.

This defies logic.

Voting for a third party candidate is the same as not voting. Whcih helps the man you** don’t want **to win.

In your last election choices, did you succeed or fail in saving millions of lives? Further did you use moral means? If you were not successful, are you placing the blame on those who did not vote for pro-abortion candidates in line with the teachings of the Church?

I have seen progress – notably in court appointees. Of course, there are many Catholics who either vote pro-abortion, or who drop out – and that makes it tough for me and others who vote pro-life to succeed.

 

[mapleoak]

That includes making effective use of your ballot.

Note that effective means and moral means are not synonymous.

Voting for a third party candidate is the same as not voting. Whcih helps the man you** don’t want **to win.

I will be so bold as to reverse it and say it helps the man you DO want to win. Logically refute that.

I have seen progress – notably in court appointees. Of course, there are many Catholics who either vote pro-abortion, or who drop out – and that makes it tough for me and others who vote pro-life to succeed.

Actually it is fellow Catholics who claim they are voting pro-life when in fact they are voting pro-abortion that makes it tough for me and those others of us who actually DO vote pro-life to succeed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Note that effective means and moral means are not synonymous.

Note when lives are at stake, failure is not moral.

I will be so bold as to reverse it and say it helps the man you DO want to win. Logically refute that.

I refute it by pointing out that neither Ross Perot nor Ralph Nader won.

Actually it is fellow Catholics who claim they are voting pro-life when in fact they are voting pro-abortion that makes it tough for me and those others of us who actually DO vote pro-life to succeed.

If you understand how our system works, you realize that we must work within the system, not abandon the battlefield.

 

[liotino]

I posted this as indication that I charitably don’t hold it against anyone who feels they are justified to vote for a pro-abortion candidate whom they call pro-life because they believe they are honestly trying to limit the evil to only cases of rape/incest. I could not justify myself voting in such a way.

Yes, when one starts drawing lines, the wind has a way of blowing the line one way or the other.

And then all one can say is “my candidate wants to kill people, but not as many as your candidate does, so my candidate is pro-life and that is who you should vote for too.”

Thank you taking the time to respond to what I have written…and not dismiss what I was saying as trivia just because I cannot keep up with the big boys…

 

[mapleoak]

Thank you taking the time to respond to what I have written…and not dismiss what I was saying as trivia just because I cannot keep up with the big boys…

You are quite welcome. Don’t worry about the ‘big boys’ around here. All it is, is just harmless discussion.

 

[bilop]

Note that effective means and moral means are not synonymous.

I will be so bold as to reverse it and say it helps the man you DO want to win. Logically refute that.

Actually it is fellow Catholics who claim they are voting pro-life when in fact they are voting pro-abortion that makes it tough for me and those others of us who actually DO vote pro-life to succeed.

Let’s pose a hypothetical.

We’re in 1932 Germany. There are 3 parties running for election. The Nazis led by Adolph Hitler who promise to exterminate all the Jews. The ultra-nationalists, led by Erich Ludendorff who say, no, it is wrong to kill the Jews, we’ll expell them, compensate them for their property, and they can move to Palestine. The Catholic Party, led by Johan Schmidt who wants to let Jews have full rights and stay.

Polling shows the Nazis at 49% support, the ultra-nationalists at 46% support, and the Catholic Party at 5%.

Don’t you think all those Catholic voters better pull the lever for Herr Ludendorff and save the Jews from extermination?

God Bless

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s pose a hypothetical.

We’re in 1932 Germany. There are 3 parties running for election. The Nazis led by Adolph Hitler who promise to exterminate all the Jews. The ultra-nationalists, led by Erich Ludendorff who say, no, it is wrong to kill the Jews, we’ll expell them, compensate them for their property, and they can move to Palestine. The Catholic Party, led by Johan Schmidt who wants to let Jews have full rights and stay.

Polling shows the Nazis at 49% support, the ultra-nationalists at 46% support, and the Catholic Party at 5%.

Don’t you think all those Catholic voters better pull the lever for Herr Ludendorff and save the Jews from extermination?

God Bless

The “hypothetical” is easy to answer, because it is real, not hypothetical. Had those who opposed the Nazis banded together, they could have prevented Hitler from coming to power.

As bad as the ultra-nationalists were, the Nazis were worse.

 

[mapleoak]

Let’s pose a hypothetical.

We’re in 1932 Germany. There are 3 parties running for election. The Nazis led by Adolph Hitler who promise to exterminate all the Jews. The ultra-nationalists, led by Erich Ludendorff who say, no, it is wrong to kill the Jews, we’ll expell them, compensate them for their property, and they can move to Palestine. The Catholic Party, led by Johan Schmidt who wants to let Jews have full rights and stay.

Polling shows the Nazis at 49% support, the ultra-nationalists at 46% support, and the Catholic Party at 5%.

Don’t you think all those Catholic voters better pull the lever for Herr Ludendorff and save the Jews from extermination?

God Bless

Well in this situation as you described it, since Ludendorff does not support killing the Jews, it would be acceptable to vote for Ludendorff to save the lives of the jews.

In the case of the Poll if we consider abortion using the same example, The pro choice candidate is at 49% support, The limited pro choice candidate is at 46%, and Catholic pro life party is at 5%. I think the Catholic voters comprising their respective portions of the pro choice and limited pro choice parties ought to pull the lever and support the Catholic pro life party raising it from 5% in the polls to a sufficient number.

 

[fix]

Well in this situation as you described it, since Ludendorff does not support killing the Jews, it would be acceptable to vote for Ludendorff to save the lives of the jews.

Before we forget:

I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: “Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator”.5
Evangelium vitae

 

[bilop]

The “hypothetical” is easy to answer, because it is real, not hypothetical. Had those who opposed the Nazis banded together, they could have prevented Hitler from coming to power.

As bad as the ultra-nationalists were, the Nazis were worse.

That’s my point.

God Bless

 

[iamrefreshed]

Trying to win the votes of catholics abstaining or voting unelectables is a wasted effort. They have made themselves impotent. There are really so few of them.

Trying to convince the 50% of catholics who are pro-choice is where the work needs to be done. And that has to start at the pulpit.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Trying to win the votes of catholics abstaining or voting unelectables is a wasted effort. They have made themselves impotent. There are really so few of them.

The term is “political self-emasculation.”

Trying to convince the 50% of catholics who are pro-choice is where the work needs to be done. And that has to start at the pulpit.

There, I agree – if our bishops would lead us, we would end abortion.