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

[bilop]

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.

So, if Hitler wants to kill all 1 million German Jews, and Ludendorf says, no, we’ll only kill the Jews who are also active Communists, maybe 1,000 total, and no other party has any chance of winning, your not going to cast your vote in a way most likely to stop Hitler?

That’s what we’ve got in this country.

One party (A) says it is a RIGHT to kill 1,000,000 American babies every year, and will do everything possible to support it.

The other party (B) wants to ban VIRTUALLY ALL abortions (exceptions for maybe 1,000 per year) b/c the exceptions are needed to build a winning political coalition.

No other party has a chance of winning even one House seat.

My conscience says I must do everything I can to defeat Party A, which means voting for B.

Just like if I was in Germany in 1932, I’d have to do everytthing possible to stop Hitler, even if it meant voting for a very poor candidate, with wacky views.

You’re saying, out of purity of ideals, let the extra 990,000 babies or 990,000 Jews die until I can find a perfect candidate who can WIN.

You do realize that WWII and the Holocaust happened b/c the Catholics, Liberals and Conservatives couldn’t unite to defeat Hitler? The Nazis only got ~35% of the vote.

God Bless

 

[SoCalRC]

My conscience says I must do everything I can to defeat Party A, which means voting for B.

How many abortions did voting for, say, George W. Bush, who politically supported upholding Roe in the 2000 primary race and states a personal view of abortions for rape, incest, and maternal health actually stop?

I keep hearing 1,000,000, but the last time I checked, those children were still dying.

If we bother to be brutally honest, we can see that the only differences between John Kerry’s position on abortion in 2004 and George Bush’s position in 2000, is that Kerry stated that he would like to see society do everything in its power to elliminate all abortions but he could not force his position on an American people who are divided on the issue. And, unlike Bush, he did not give last minute lip service on overturning Roe.

All Catholics must follow the absolute certainty of their moral conscience. But if one is advocating pragmatism over rigid adherence to morality, isn’t it at least reasonable to take a good hard look at the actual results? After all, isn’t the point of being pragmatic to actually accomplish something?

In simply voting for instrinsic evil we are weakening our moral authority. If we cannot even point to clear and tangible results for our pragmatism, we also weaken our moral credibility.

 

[bilop]

How many abortions did voting for, say, George W. Bush, who politically supported upholding Roe in the 2000 primary race and states a personal view of abortions for rape, incest, and maternal health actually stop?

I keep hearing 1,000,000, but the last time I checked, those children were still dying.

If we bother to be brutally honest, we can see that the only differences between John Kerry’s position on abortion in 2004 and George Bush’s position in 2000, is that Kerry stated that he would like to see society do everything in its power to elliminate all abortions but he could not force his position on an American people who are divided on the issue. And, unlike Bush, he did not give last minute lip service on overturning Roe.

All Catholics must follow the absolute certainty of their moral conscience. But if one is advocating pragmatism over rigid adherence to morality, isn’t it at least reasonable to take a good hard look at the actual results? After all, isn’t the point of being pragmatic to actually accomplish something?

In simply voting for instrinsic evil we are weakening our moral authority. If we cannot even point to clear and tangible results for our pragmatism, we also weaken our moral credibility.

Voting for George Bush got us 2 Supreme Court Justices closer to overturning Roe v. Wade. Until that happens, nothing else can really be done.

We also got the partial birth ban, which probably prevents very few abortions, but is very good as a symbolic move towards life, and turns the conversation in the right direction. What abortion actually is.

We are 1-2 SC justices away from an overturn. The next President will appoint those Justices.

It’s pretty clear for those who wish to see.

God Bless

 

[SoCalRC]

Voting for George Bush got us 2 Supreme Court Justices closer to overturning Roe v. Wade. Until that happens, nothing else can really be done.

We also got the partial birth ban, which probably prevents very few abortions, but is very good as a symbolic move towards life, and turns the conversation in the right direction. What abortion actually is.

We are 1-2 SC justices away from an overturn. The next President will appoint those Justices.

It’s pretty clear for those who wish to see.

God Bless

Why, exactly, can we say with certainty that we are two justices closer to anything?

We have 5 Catholic GOP nominated judges on the court now. We had GOP nominated majorities on the court when Roe and Casey were decided.

The partial birth abortion ban supposedly targetted 2000 abortions a year (mostly second trimester, medically motivated). The Supreme Court argued that it was legal, not because more constraints than those provided by Casey were permissible, but because the law would not stop any abortions. That is, it argued that the law was compliant with Casey and Roe.

Roberts and Alito joined the courts opinion. That is, they applied Roe and Casey as law without comment. Scalia and Thomas provided a concurring opinion. They state that they specifically did so to clarify that they were applying the precedent of Roe and Casey, but wanted to make it clear that they did not agree with Court’s position on the constitutionalilty of those laws. So, when the dust settled, Roberts and Alito joined the court in laying even more legal precedent for upholding Casey and Roe.

Even Scalia and Thomas seemed to indicate that they would not have upheld the ban if the commerce clause of the constitution had been raised as a question!

Think about it, the court could have held that the law was valid because society had more rights in constraining abortion. Instead, it simply argued that the law merely limited a procedure with no medical necessity, hence not stopping any abortions. One more example of the court upholding Roe and Casey.

Also, Alito and Roberts had no problem joining the court in expanding the use of the death penalty to non-homicide crimes. Expanded use of the death penalty is listed in the local Catechism as a causal factor in our culture of death.

 

[mapleoak]

My conscience says I must do everything I can to defeat Party A, which means voting for B.

Let me ask you how many unborn were slaughtered last year? Would you like to know why? It is because of willy nilly people in office who are pro-life in name only and have deceived folks into voting for them. They do absolutely nothing to help the unborn because, personally they have no interest in it and could care less. The only help they afford to the unborn is whenever they find something of strategic importance to further deceive voters into supporting them.

 

[mapleoak]

Before we forget:

Thank you for correcting me.

 

[frankadams]

So, if Hitler wants to kill all 1 million German Jews, and Ludendorf says, no, we’ll only kill the Jews who are also active Communists, maybe 1,000 total, and no other party has any chance of winning, your not going to cast your vote in a way most likely to stop Hitler?

That’s what we’ve got in this country.

One party (A) says it is a RIGHT to kill 1,000,000 American babies every year, and will do everything possible to support it.

The other party (B) wants to ban VIRTUALLY ALL abortions (exceptions for maybe 1,000 per year) b/c the exceptions are needed to build a winning political coalition.

No other party has a chance of winning even one House seat.

My conscience says I must do everything I can to defeat Party A, which means voting for B.

Just like if I was in Germany in 1932, I’d have to do everytthing possible to stop Hitler, even if it meant voting for a very poor candidate, with wacky views.

You’re saying, out of purity of ideals, let the extra 990,000 babies or 990,000 Jews die until I can find a perfect candidate who can WIN.

You do realize that WWII and the Holocaust happened b/c the Catholics, Liberals and Conservatives couldn’t unite to defeat Hitler? The Nazis only got ~35% of the vote.

God Bless

Kindly stop living in this fantasy world in which your “pro-life” candidate eliminates abortion. You oversimpliflications would be laughable if they didn’t deal with the unabated slaughter of our young.

-The “pro-life” party gave us 6 of the 9 justices that gave us Roe in 1973.

-The “pro-life” party gave us 8 of the 9 justices that upheld Roe in 1992. Eight out of nine!

-The “pro-life” has held the presidency for 24 of the 36 years since Roe.

Some of us consider actual results when engaging in what the bishops call “careful deliberation.”

But results don’t matter in your mind. Instead, you come here and blame Catholics who voted differently for complicity in their slaughter. You even heap your scorn upon Catholics who stuck with the Catholic teaching to not vote for “a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil” and voted for a truly pro-life candidate.

Who else will you demonize? How about the early Christians who refused to violently resist Rome? They clearly didn’t “do everything possible” to save their fellow Christians. If they only had your written abuse against their “purity of ideals” to guide them, they might have acted otherwise.

 

[SoCalRC]

Thank you for correcting me.

Actually, I think that your assertion is still correct. The Pastoral Constitution of the Church does identify deportation as an attack on the inalienable rights of the human person. This is reaffirmed in EVANGELIUM VITAE.

However, although it is dogmatic, it could still be a licit application of proportionate reasons. Deportation is evil, but less evil than direct attacks on human life. Also, unlike murder, deportation is not held to be infallibly evil in all cases.

It is actually a peculiar point for Fix to have made. If we look at CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, we can see that the “right to life” that Pope John Paul II instructs the lay faithful to honor is very, very broad:

"In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of the rights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: <<All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>" - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, #38 (emphasis missing from original)

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html

This would seem contrary to the position that the right is best served by first collapsing it to abortion only, then compromising on even that.

 

[mapleoak]

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

Morality is not determined by success or failure.

 

[mapleoak]

Actually, I think that your assertion is still correct. The Pastoral Constitution of the Church does identify deportation as an attack on the inalienable rights of the human person. This is reaffirmed in EVANGELIUM VITAE.

I was interested to see if Fix was trying to refute himself. He must either believe deportation and murder to be equal affronts to the dignity of human life, or he is trying to make up his mind about what the proper application of proportionality is.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Why, exactly, can we say with certainty that we are two justices closer to anything?

And how does that justify voting for candidates who openly state they are for taxpayer-funded abortion?

 

[fix]

Actually, I think that your assertion is still correct. The Pastoral Constitution of the Church does identify deportation as an attack on the inalienable rights of the human person. This is reaffirmed in EVANGELIUM VITAE.

However, although it is dogmatic, it could still be a licit application of proportionate reasons.

It does not have to dogmatic to be true or binding.

Deportation is evil, but less evil than direct attacks on human life. Also, unlike murder, deportation is not held to be infallibly evil in all cases.

It is evil in the case we speak of. Now, why is it licit to “support” a grave evil of deportation over murder? Are you arguing that only something defined as intrinsically evil binds under pain of mortal sin? Supporting deportation as you, and others, claim would be sinful by your own argument. You endorse that vote, right?

It is actually a peculiar point for Fix to have made. If we look at CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, we can see that the “right to life” that Pope John Paul II instructs the lay faithful to honor is very, very broad:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html

This would seem contrary to the position that the right is best served by first collapsing it to abortion only, then compromising on even that.

It would seem you claim we may support some serious evil? Is this your position now?

 

[bilop]

Kindly stop living in this fantasy world in which your “pro-life” candidate eliminates abortion. You oversimpliflications would be laughable if they didn’t deal with the unabated slaughter of our young.

-The “pro-life” party gave us 6 of the 9 justices that gave us Roe in 1973.

-The “pro-life” party gave us 8 of the 9 justices that upheld Roe in 1992. Eight out of nine!

-The “pro-life” has held the presidency for 24 of the 36 years since Roe.

Some of us consider actual results when engaging in what the bishops call “careful deliberation.”

But results don’t matter in your mind. Instead, you come here and blame Catholics who voted differently for complicity in their slaughter. You even heap your scorn upon Catholics who stuck with the Catholic teaching to not vote for “a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil” and voted for a truly pro-life candidate.

Who else will you demonize? How about the early Christians who refused to violently resist Rome? They clearly didn’t “do everything possible” to save their fellow Christians. If they only had your written abuse against their “purity of ideals” to guide them, they might have acted otherwise.

I demonize no one.

I’ll simply state again, if every Catholic voted for the most pro-life major candidate in every election, abortion would end within 10 years.

How does the failures of pro-life politicians ever justify voting for OPENLY PRO-ABORTION candidates?

God Bless

 

[fix]

I was interested to see if Fix was trying to refute himself. He must either believe deportation and murder to be equal affronts to the dignity of human life, or he is trying to make up his mind about what the proper application of proportionality is.

Do you now accept that moral reasoning allows for remote material cooperation with evil under certain circumstances?

 

[mapleoak]

Do you now accept that moral reasoning allows for remote material cooperation with evil under certain circumstances?

You have already set me straight and I thanked you for correcting me. Are you now taking back what you posted in #333 cause you didn’t mean it when you posted it?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let me ask you how many unborn were slaughtered last year? Would you like to know why? It is because of willy nilly people in office who are pro-life in name only and have deceived folks into voting for them. They do absolutely nothing to help the unborn because, personally they have no interest in it and could care less. The only help they afford to the unborn is whenever they find something of strategic importance to further deceive voters into supporting them.

The problem is that there are 535 members of the House and Senate. Many of those 535 are devoted to advancing abortion, and to blocking every attempt to even reduce it slightly.

And many of those pro-abotion politicians were elected with large Catholic voting blocks.

Now, voting for a third party candidate will leave those 535 members of the House and Senate still in power.

Drawing to an inside straight – voting for a third party candidate for President – won’t accomplish a thing. Only by hard slogging, slowly replacing the pro-abortion supporters among those 535 members of the House and Senate and having a pro-life majority party President, can we accomplish our goal.

 

[liotino]

Actually, I think that your assertion is still correct. The Pastoral Constitution of the Church does identify deportation as an attack on the inalienable rights of the human person. This is reaffirmed in EVANGELIUM VITAE.

However, although it is dogmatic, it could still be a licit application of proportionate reasons. Deportation is evil, but less evil than direct attacks on human life. Also, unlike murder, deportation is not held to be infallibly evil in all cases.

It is actually a peculiar point for Fix to have made. If we look at CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, we can see that the “right to life” that Pope John Paul II instructs the lay faithful to honor is very, very broad:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html

This would seem contrary to the position that the right is best served by first collapsing it to abortion only, then compromising on even that.

The reason the fight against abortion fails because it is standing alone. There is too much wiggle room about life being from conception to natural death on all life issues…later

 

[mapleoak]

Drawing to an inside straight – voting for a third party candidate for President – won’t accomplish a thing. Only by hard slogging, slowly replacing the pro-abortion supporters among those 535 members of the House and Senate and having a pro-life majority party President, can we accomplish our goal.

This should happen regardless of who the president is. We indeed need to work on the house and senate. Who did I once hear say that if both the house and senate were pro-life, the sitting president would be irrelevant?

 

[vern_humphrey]

This should happen regardless of who the president is. We indeed need to work on the house and senate. Who did I once hear say that if both the house and senate were pro-life, the sitting president would be irrelevant?

Because the President plays no (official) role in a Constitutional Amemdment.

But we cannot achieve anything outside the system. Let those who identify with one of the major parties work to purge their respective parties of pro-abortion candidates. Let the rest of us reward them by voting for the most pro-life candidate of the major parties.

 

[rlg94086]

This should happen regardless of who the president is. We indeed need to work on the house and senate. Who did I once hear say that if both the house and senate were pro-life, the sitting president would be irrelevant?

Yes, but it is not an either-or scenario (i.e. either ‘work on the house and senate’ or the presidency). There are several ways to work on our pro-life goals legislatively:

1. Better Supreme Court and federal justices who could potentially overturn Roe v Wade, or at least uphold abortion restriction laws passed in the states. This requires a pro-life, or at least pro-strict-constructionist president and enough senators who will approve his nominations.
2. Constitutional Amendments or abortion laws in the states…once item #1 is accomplished. This requires pro-life majorities in the state legislatures and pro-life governors.
3. Constitutional Amendment, for which the president is irrelevant, but we need a supermajority of pro-life congressman and 75% of the states.

We need to work on all of those, not just the presidency or just the US Congress. The easiest way to do that is to work with the current parties…especially the one that is most pro-life…and work to make them more pro-life. The other way is to create a new, pro-life third party, but, as I have explained ad nauseum, there is not a third party platform that will unite all pro-lifers - some pro-lifers are more “liberal” on other issues, some are more “conservative.” All a new third party would do is pick up a maximum of 15-20% and throw all the branches of federal government into the hands of the pro-choicers.

BTW…any way we go at it, it will require more education of the people to move our culture in a further pro-life direction, and stop the slide of secularism.