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

[BamaRider]

Because the SoCal said this about Vern’s pro life voting record-

You vote for an intrinsically evil position on abortion

I’m gonna point out he is referring to one of CAFs most prolific and poignant contributors, with over *17,000 *posts. Before ANYONE considers the statement true, I suggest a quick search of his posts, and then come back here and tell us you think his vote is counter productive to pro life issues.

His positon on pro life is on display everywhere on this forum.

I think the statement is a ltitle over the top.

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

No. I am just noting that the Church makes a moral distinction between deporting them and exterminating them.

Again, this is an odd argument for you to make. Don’t you support the Iraq war? That has displaced millions of people, disproporionately Christian, who were literally driven from their homes under threat of violence. The US is aiding the Sunni militias who are primarily responsible. The stated reason being that ethnically cleansed neighborhoods result in lower levels of violence, at least in the short term.

Are you now accusing the party you support of engaging in another large scale intrinsic evil which the Church relates to the right to life?

So, you accept moral reasoning used by Cardinal Ratzinger.

I agree that proportionate reasons is an accepted theological argument and defer to Ratzinger’s training, experience, and heirarchal position in terms of the question of rather it can, at least in some cases, be applied with regards to intrinsic evil in voting.

However, rather or not proportionate reasons can be applied is a seperate question from should it be applied. My understanding is that the connection to intrinsic evil must be “remote”. However, if I were to vote for an intrinsically evil position on abortion over a licit one, specifically to try to address the intrinsic evil of abortion, I cannot imagine my connection being remote. Hence, I could not apply the concept myself.

But you continue to dodge the question. How can YOUR position be reconciled with either Ratzinger’s or Burke’s statements? As I just showed, they seem to set criteria that you do not meet (as does the USCCB).

What I am arguing is that by accepting we may limit evil we are not endorsing evil.

So you are rejecting the limitiations of “proportionate reasons” provided by Burke, Ratzinger, and the USCCB?

Wouldn’t that make arguments like ‘0 abortions stopped voting GOP, hundreds of thousands of lives lost in Iraq, so…’ type reasoning?

As numerous others have noted, it seems very odd to me that you are not only willing to apply proportionate reasons, but even grant yourself extra elbow room - THEN argue that other Catholics engaging in proportionate reasons type voting are inarguable complicent in evil.

At least, unlike Ender and Vern, you have conceded that my position - not voting for the evil at all, is licit.

 

[SoCalRC]

Because the SoCal said this about Vern’s pro life voting record-

I’m gonna point out he is referring to one of CAFs most prolific and poignant contributors, with over *17,000 *posts. Before ANYONE considers the statement true, I suggest a quick search of his posts, and then come back here and tell us you think his vote is counter productive to pro life issues.

His positon on pro life is on display everywhere on this forum.

I think the statement is a ltitle over the top.

Then report it to the moderators. The fact remains that Vern strenuosly argues that he should vote for a major party candidate, because that candidate can win, over a candidate with a 100% pro life position who “cannot win”.

All the major party candidates in the current presidential race hold positions on abortion which are instrinsically evil. That is, there is no candidate from those parties who does not support legal abortion int the cases of rape, incest, and maternal life.

In fact, there is not major party candidate who has not supported upholding Roe in a presidential political contest!

I cannot help if you do not understand that 100% pro life on abortion for Catholics and lip service pro life from a politician are not the same thing. But if you state your intent to vote for a candidate who supports some legal abortion, you are not voting for a 100% pro life canidate in our faith.

 

[mapleoak]

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?

Well said. There is no reason that a candidate must be perfect, as no one is perfect. But there is no reason whatsoever for a leader of anything (even imperfect leaders) to support murder of its citizens or abortion in any form, scope, or degree.

 

[SoCalRC]

When did I say that?

That’s one of your made-up accusations – typical.

You have stated you are going to vote for a major party candidate for president. No major party candidate for president does not publicly support legal abortion for rape, incest, and maternal life.

In fact, no current major party candidate has not publicly supported upholding Roe in a presidential political contest.

This leaves main two possibilities, you are going to vote for an intrinsically evil candidate, which you deny. Or, you do not believe that rape, incest, and maternal life abortions are intrinsically evil, which you also deny.

So, either one of your denials is in error, or we have to look at other possibilties, which are less flattering.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Then report it to the moderators. The fact remains that Vern strenuosly argues that he should vote for a major party candidate, because that candidate can win, over a candidate with a 100% pro life position who “cannot win”.

As opposed to SoCal, who says we can only vote for a perfect candidate.

Now, before anyone objects, I realize this may be a mis-characterization of SoCal’s position (I don’t want to do to him what he does to others – he always criticizes other people based on his own made-up ideas about their positions.).

My position is simple – we have an obligation to work to end abortion. One way to do that is through the political process. And in politics, we will never find the perfect candidate – and it is no sin to vote for the less-than-perfect candidate, if by so doing we can advance the cause.

SoCal seems to vacillate between the “perfect candidate” position on the one hand, and saying it’s okay to vote for the pro-abortion candidate if you think you have a good reason.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You have stated you are going to vote for a major party candidate for president. No major party candidate for president does not publicly support legal abortion for rape, incest, and maternal life.

So we’re back to the “perfect candidate” silliness?

 

[mapleoak]

As numerous others have noted, it seems very odd to me that you are not only willing to apply proportionate reasons, but even grant yourself extra elbow room - THEN argue that other Catholics engaging in proportionate reasons type voting are inarguable complicent in evil.

I know the feeling well. One poster in particular (not fix) on a parallel thread has said that since I don’t support either of the major party candidates and vote strictly pro-life, that I am sleeping in the same bed as the pro-choice folks.

Have you noticed that your demand for the perfect canidate has put you in bed with those who claim its ok to vote for canidates who favor abortion on demand.?

Not only is it uncharitable, as anyone who follows my posts knows well my position on abortion and the plight of the unborn, but it is hurtful as well as wrong.

 

[SoCalRC]

So we’re back to the “perfect candidate” silliness?

No. Now we are on to honesty. Either you acknowledge that you are voting for an intrinsically evil position or you do not.

WHY you support intrinsic evil is a seperate question. But simply calling me a liar who makes things up, when the candidate’s positions and your voting intentions are both public, is not a honest or Christian response.

If you will not even accept the reality of the compromise you make, how can you, in good faith, argue that you are applying proportionate reasons?

 

[vern_humphrey]

No. Now we are on to honesty. Either you acknowledge that you are voting for an intrinsically evil position or you do not.

You seem to have only two speeds.

You trot out the old “perfect candidate” rot and expect everyone to accept it.

WHY you support intrinsic evil is a seperate question. But simply calling me a liar who makes things up, when the candidate’s positions and your voting intentions are both public, is not a honest or Christian response.

What nonsense!

If you will not even accept the reality of the compromise you make, how can you, in good faith, argue that you are applying proportionate reasons?

How can you, in good faith, keep making these strawman arguments, based on your “perfect candidate” idea?

 

[SoCalRC]

SoCal seems to vacillate between the “perfect candidate” position on the one hand, and saying it’s okay to vote for the pro-abortion candidate if you think you have a good reason.

My position is clear. No compromise on what the Church has deemed non negotiable. However, I do acknowledge that the Bishops have raised the concept of proportionate reasons.

But proportionate reasons cannot be applied if you cannot be honest about the morality of the position of the candidates you support. Either the position is intrinsically evil in Church teaching, or it is not. It is not a shade-of-gray question.

If you cannot muster the courage to admit that you do, in fact, cast votes for intrinsically evil positions on abortion, how can you possibly believe that you are in a position to judge others?

 

[SoCalRC]

How can you, in good faith, keep making these strawman arguments, based on your “perfect candidate” idea?

Vern, it’s simple. Will you be casting your vote for a candidate who who publicly holds a position on abortion that the Church deems intrinsically evil, or not?

I thought you liked simple questions…

 

[vern_humphrey]

My position is clear. No compromise on what the Church has deemed non negotiable. However, I do acknowledge that the Bishops have raised the concept of proportionate reasons.

So you admit we can only vote for the perfect candidate?

Where do you expect to find this paragon?

But proportionate reasons cannot be applied if you cannot be honest about the morality of the position of the candidates you support. Either the position is intrinsically evil in Church teaching, or it is not. It is not a shade-of-gray question.

Therefore I suggest you start being honest.

And by the way, weren’t you the one who accused me of seeing things in two-dimensions, not seeing shades of gray, not understanding your “nuances?”

Quite a volte face!

If you cannot muster the courage to admit that you do, in fact, cast votes for intrinsically evil positions on abortion, how can you possibly believe that you are in a position to judge others?

If you cannot muster the courage to admit that you do, in fact, demand we vote only for perfect candidates (and where did you say we would find this candidate?), if you keep flip-flopping on two-dimensional versus nuanced positions, how can you possibly believe that you are in a position to judge others?

 

[fix]

No. I am just noting that the Church makes a moral distinction between deporting them and exterminating them.

Yea, and that does not mean we may vote for deporting them in good conscience, unless we apply the moral reasoning we constantly argue over.

Again, this is an odd argument for you to make. Don’t you support the Iraq war?

No.

That has displaced millions of people, disproporionately Christian, who were literally driven from their homes under threat of violence. The US is aiding the Sunni militias who are primarily responsible. The stated reason being that ethnically cleansed neighborhoods result in lower levels of violence, at least in the short term.

If the intent is to do that then it would be evil. But, I doubt that is the intent.

Are you now accusing the party you support of engaging in another large scale intrinsic evil which the Church relates to the right to life?

I am not a member of any party. I do not support evil.

I agree that proportionate reasons is an accepted theological argument and defer to Ratzinger’s training, experience, and heirarchal position in terms of the question of rather it can, at least in some cases, be applied with regards to intrinsic evil in voting.

Ok

However, rather or not proportionate reasons can be applied is a seperate question from should it be applied. My understanding is that the connection to intrinsic evil must be “remote”. However, if I were to vote for an intrinsically evil position on abortion over a licit one, specifically to try to address the intrinsic evil of abortion, I cannot imagine my connection being remote. Hence, I could not apply the concept myself.

One is not voting for evil. One is voting to limit evil.

But you continue to dodge the question. How can YOUR position be reconciled with either Ratzinger’s or Burke’s statements? As I just showed, they seem to set criteria that you do not meet (as does the USCCB).

What? I accept Ratzinger’s position.

So you are rejecting the limitiations of “proportionate reasons” provided by Burke, Ratzinger, and the USCCB?

Wouldn’t that make arguments like ‘0 abortions stopped voting GOP, hundreds of thousands of lives lost in Iraq, so…’ type reasoning?

As numerous others have noted, it seems very odd to me that you are not only willing to apply proportionate reasons, but even grant yourself extra elbow room - THEN argue that other Catholics engaging in proportionate reasons type voting are inarguable complicent in evil.

At least, unlike Ender and Vern, you have conceded that my position - not voting for the evil at all, is licit.

In the Nazi example I would think it licit to vote for the deportation candidate. My point is using* your *argument you would not vote for that person and allow more people to be killed.

And yes, I do not think the Church says it is immoral to vote for a candidate who is more pro life yet cannot win.

 

[mapleoak]

SoCal seems to vacillate between the “perfect candidate” position on the one hand, and saying it’s okay to vote for the pro-abortion candidate if you think you have a good reason.

I cannot find anywhere where SoCalRC endorses the support of a pro-abortion candidate. Not even a limited pro-abortion candidate which his and my attackers do endorse.

 

[fix]

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?

My point is you seem to hold to a position that claims it is immoral to vote for a grave evil if any alternative exists no matter if that alternative can win the election or not.

I would vote for the second candidate to limit the greater amount of evil. If I am understanding you we ought to vote for the third candidate and allow the extermination to begin?

 

[SoCalRC]

And by the way, weren’t you the one who accused me of seeing things in two-dimensions, not seeing shades of gray, not understanding your “nuances?”

I’m not asking about your justifications. I’m asking you to simply acknoweldge your actions - in line with an absolute teaching from the Church.

Again, the question is simple:

Will you be casting your vote for a candidate who publicly holds a position on abortion that the Church deems intrinsically evil, or not?

After you answer that question clearly, I’m glad to listen to your reasons why - but start with a clear answer on your actions.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I cannot find anywhere where SoCalRC endorses the support of a pro-abortion candidate. Not even a limited pro-abortion candidate which his and my attackers do endorse.

Socal does two things:

1. He presents the position that we can only vote for the perfect candidate (and where shall we find a perfect man)?
2. He then offers the argument that “other things” may over-ride our obligation to vote against abortion.

My position is that we are obliged to work to end abortion, and when we work through the political process that means our votes extend beyond our own satisfaction. Given the working of the American political process, often the best we can do is support an imperfect candidate.

Not voting, or voting third party is simply “tuning in, turning on, and dropping out.” It does nothing to advance the cause, no matter how good it feels.

 

[mapleoak]

My point is you seem to hold to a position that claims it is immoral to vote for a grave evil if any alternative exists no matter if that alternative can win the election or not.

I would vote for the second candidate to limit the greater amount of evil. If I am understanding you we ought to vote for the third candidate and allow the extermination to begin?

Do you choose to vote for the second candidate because you believe that that is who everyone else is voting for? By “we ought to vote” do you mean all Catholics. Because if in the hypothetical example that was given, if all Catholics voted for the 3rd candidate, the extermination would not begin.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Do you choose to vote for the second candidate because you believe that that is who everyone else is voting for? By “we ought to vote” do you mean all Catholics. Because if in the hypothetical example that was given, if all Catholics voted for the 3rd candidate, the extermination would not begin.

But that’s not what happened. Like in America today, too many Catholics were willing to vote based on what they percieved to be “social justice,” the Nazis came to power, and the Holocaust proceeded because of that