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

  • Thread starter Thread starter mapleoak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vern_humphrey said:
And how does that justify voting for candidates who openly state they are for taxpayer-funded abortion?
Click to expand...
You seem confused. My voting position on abortion is absolute.

You are the one who favors supporting an intrinsically evil position on abortion. And you have repeatedly stated your past support for President Bush, who has, in fact, permitted taxpayer funded abortions within his executive power to stop continue.
 
fix said:
It would seem you claim we may support some serious evil? Is this your position now?
Click to expand...
No, my position has remained constant. I do not negotiate on issues that the Church has specifically declared “non negotiable” in voting. This includes, but is not limited to, abortion.

The point was that the Bishops indicated that life issues carry special weight, so an application of proportionate reasons, under their stated criteria, might be licit.

However, the possibility of a licit application is not an endorsement of it. Also, I would have to agree with Mapleoak that your citations are becoming somewhat incoherent. Having argued that abortion trumps all other issues, then switching to the Church’s more expansive view of right to life to somehow ‘get’ someone for not agreeing with you in regards to compromise on abortion is just, well, odd.
 
SoCalRC said:
You seem confused. My voting position on abortion is absolute.

You are the one who favors supporting an intrinsically evil position on abortion. And you have repeatedly stated your past support for President Bush, who has, in fact, permitted taxpayer funded abortions within his executive power to stop continue.
Click to expand...
Your position seems to change with every post.

So, have you found the perfect candidate? If not, how can you vote at all?😛
 
rlg94086 said:
  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.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is going to require judicial activist appointments. Look at Carhart. Even Scalia and Thomas indicated that they would have not upheld the law if the commerce clause of the constitution had been raised. And they joined the majority in applying Roe and Casey as “stare decisis”.
rlg94086 said:
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
This is probably a more viable path than attempting to overturn Roe. Also, unlike overturning Roe, it would have a broader national impact on abortions. However, I am not sure how voting for a presdential candidate who voted against constitutional ammendments regarding fetal life and protection of marriage is going to further that goal.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Your position seems to change with every post.
Click to expand...
I’ve quoted the same Church documents hundreds of times, in countless threads. I’ve also offered to go through them with you a line at a time. You difficulties in reading and comprehension are beyond my control.
vern_humphrey said:
So, have you found the perfect candidate? If not, how can you vote at all?😛
Click to expand...
I don’t require a perfect candidate, only ones who does not hold intrinsically evil positions on moral issues that the Church has deemed non negotiable in voting.

It isn’t as difficult as it sounds. It all comes down to ones own priorities; which matters more, political loyalty or God’s law?
 
liotino said:
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
Click to expand...
If I understand you correctly, I agree. If we want fewer abortions we need fewer unwanted pregnancies and different attitudes about abortion. It is difficult to foster a culture of life if one continuously compromises on our teaching about it, even if the compromises are for a worthwhile goal.
 
SoCalRC said:
I’ve quoted the same Church documents hundreds of times, in countless threads. I’ve also offered to go through them with you a line at a time. You difficulties in reading and comprehension are beyond my control.

I don’t require a perfect candidate, only ones who does not hold intrinsically evil positions on moral issues that the Church has deemed non negotiable in voting.

It isn’t as difficult as it sounds. It all comes down to ones own priorities; which matters more, political loyalty or God’s law?
Click to expand...
And you haven’t been able to sort that one out, have you?
 
SoCalRC said:
If I understand you correctly, I agree. If we want fewer abortions we need fewer unwanted pregnancies and different attitudes about abortion. It is difficult to foster a culture of life if one continuously compromises on our teaching about it, even if the compromises are for a worthwhile goal.
Click to expand...
Which is why allowing “other matters” to predominate when making decisions about voting is so disasterously wrong.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Which is why allowing “other matters” to predominate when making decisions about voting is so disasterously wrong.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you point is here? Are you arguing that the Church was wrong in identifying multiple non negotiable issues in voting?

Or is it that Pope Benedict was wrong in tying those issues to Communion in a Post-synodal apostolic exhortation?

Or are you just trying to falsely paint me as someone who supports compromising on abortion?

All the yippy dog ankle biting in the world is not going to change the broad facts. I consider multiple pro-life issues (including abortion) non negotiable. You consider all pro life issues, including abortion, to be negotiable.

Reconciling your compromise with Church teaching on the importance of abortion, and the incredible ineffectiveness of relying on GOP voting to address the problem, remains the only part of the dialog with substance.
 
vern_humphrey said:
And you haven’t been able to sort that one out, have you?
Click to expand...
No, I am fairly certain of your priorities. But it is not my place to judge them.

Remember, all the screaming in the world. All the self rightous declarations about “couch potato Catholics”. And even misdirection is not going to change the reality:

You vote for an intrinsically evil position on abortion
 
SoCalRC said:
No, I am fairly certain of your priorities. But it is not my place to judge them.

Remember, all the screaming in the world. All the self rightous declarations about “couch potato Catholics”. And even misdirection is not going to change the reality:

You vote for an intrinsically evil position on abortion
Click to expand...
You are, of course, dead wrong. Check the rabbit ears on your psychic TV.😉

Once again, have you found the perfect candidate? After all, by your own reasoning, if your candidate is not perfect, you “vote for an intrinsically evil position on abortion.”😉
 
BamaRider said:
Referring to Vern, SoCal sez-

He does? Where ya get that?
Click to expand...
He makes it up, of course. It follows the pattern of false accusations such as “Pro-lifers don’t care about the child after it’s born.”
 
SoCalRC said:
No, my position has remained constant. I do not negotiate on issues that the Church has specifically declared “non negotiable” in voting. This includes, but is not limited to, abortion.
Click to expand...
You think the Church teaches that throwing out all Jews and taking their land and money is negotiable? That deportation is not intrinsically evil does not mean we are free to endorse it in such cases.
The point was that the Bishops indicated that life issues carry special weight, so an application of proportionate reasons, under their stated criteria, might be licit.
Click to expand...
So, you accept moral reasoning used by Cardinal Ratzinger.
However, the possibility of a licit application is not an endorsement of it.
Click to expand...
If it is licit it is not evil.
Also, I would have to agree with Mapleoak that your citations are becoming somewhat incoherent. Having argued that abortion trumps all other issues, then switching to the Church’s more expansive view of right to life to somehow ‘get’ someone for not agreeing with you in regards to compromise on abortion is just, well, odd.
Click to expand...
What I am arguing is that by accepting we may limit evil we are not endorsing evil.
 
SoCalRC said:
If I understand you correctly, I agree. If we want fewer abortions we need fewer unwanted pregnancies and different attitudes about abortion. It is difficult to foster a culture of life if one continuously compromises on our teaching about it, even if the compromises are for a worthwhile goal.
Click to expand...
The fight for life has to incorporate war and capital punishment as well. Our position stays weak when we are wishy washy about life or allow wiggle room. We also argue well and not stop dead in the tracks the sideline standard well what about this or that. The monkey wrenches and the need to respond to them keeps this in a circle effect with no exits…Later…
 
liotino said:
The fight for life has to incorporate war and capital punishment as well. Our position stays weak when we are wishy washy about life or allow wiggle room. We also argue well and not stop dead in the tracks the sideline standard well what about this or that. The monkey wrenches and the need to respond to them keeps this in a circle effect with no exits…Later…
Click to expand...
But it can’t, not with the same force.

These issues are ones on which the Church has said Catholics may disagree in good conscience. I, myself, am 100% with the Church on the non-negotiable life issues, but support capital punishment, and take a broad view on just-war (I view the Iraq war as just, but massively mishandled).

To stop abortion, at least most abortions, we need the biggest pro-life coalition possible. That is why we should support generally pro-life politicians who would allow rape/incest exceptions.

They are 99.99% with us, we can’t afford to lose them. Once we get 99.99% of abortions banned, we can work on the 0.01%

God Bless
 
vern_humphrey said:
He makes it up, of course. It follows the pattern of false accusations such as “Pro-lifers don’t care about the child after it’s born.”
Click to expand...
So you are now claiming that abortion in the case of rape, incest, and maternal life are licit?

I thought EVANGELIUM VITAE was clear, as was CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI. But I must be twisting Church teaching again. Silly me, just because something is, infallibly, held to always be grave moral disorder, I go off and assume that “always” means, well “always”.

This seems to be the same confusion I have with “non negotiable”…
 
SoCalRC said:
EVANGELIUM VITAE #58

Supporting aboritons in the cases of rape, incest, and maternal health is not a 100% Catholic pro life position.
Click to expand...
And show me where I support aboritons in the cases of rape, incest, and maternal health.

You can’t because I never have. This is part of your “perfect candidate” obsession. You want to pretend that somehow there are perfect candidates, and we cannot make a decision to vote for the candidate who is more pro-life if he isn’t perfect in every way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top