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

[fix]

Do you choose to vote for the second candidate because you believe that that is who everyone else is voting for?

Obviously, we cannot know who everyone is voting for. If there is a liklihood only one of the two would win then I would support the one that would limit the greater amount of evil.

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 all Catholics do not vote as they should. We live in the world and use the reasoning the Church teaches.

Again, limiting evil is a good.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Obviously, we cannot know who everyone is voting for. If there is a liklihood only one of the two would win then I would support the one that would limit the greater amount of evil.

And work to get a better candidate next time around.

But all Catholics do not vote as they should. We live in the world and use the reasoning the Church teaches.

Again, limiting evil is a good.

And all too many of us come up with reasons not to limit evil.

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

If you are morally confident, why is it so difficult for you to answer a straight question? Again - Will you be voting for a candidate whose public position on aboriton is considered intrinsically evil by the Church or not?

Have you not heard of the golden rule? You repeatedly demand a “simple answer” to a “simple question” in this context. Of course I realize that the answer may be embarrasing, but do you not have a Catholic obligation to the truth (8th commandment)?

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you are morally confident, why is it so difficult for you to answer a straight question? Again - Will you be voting for a candidate whose public position on aboriton is considered intrinsically evil by the Church or not?

I will be voting for the candidate who, all things considered, I believe will try to limit abortion.

If
Have you not heard of the golden rule?

Yes – have you?

If
You repeatedly demand a “simple answer” to a “simple question” in this context.

And I give them – whereupon you start your usual tirade about me not seeing things in shades of gray, not being “nuanced,” acusing me of taking a protestand position, and so on.

If
Of course I realize that the answer may be embarrasing, but do you not have a Catholic obligation to the truth (8th commandment)?

Of course I realize that the answers to the questions I have asked you may be embarrasing, but do you not have a Catholic obligation to the truth (8th commandment)?

 

[rlg94086]

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

This is from one of the candidate’s websites…can’t say who and can’t provide the link, due to forum rules :

…believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

 

[rlg94086]

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.

Regarding the protection of marriage amendment, the person in question believes it should be decided at the state level. As has already been pointed out, an amendment is carried out by Congress and the states, so it would be better if he was president, right?

Regarding embryonic stem cell research, he is not in line with the Church on this issue, but he is not 100% in favor of embryonic stem cell research as the other major candidates are. He is against the cloning of embryos (or any human cloning), against abortion with the rape/incest exclusion, against euthenasia, and against activist judges deciding that Gay Marriage is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

So, he isn’t perfect, which is, no matter how you and mapleoak try to argue against, is what you require for your votes. However, IMHO, he is the best choice for the presidency in this election.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is from one of the candidate’s websites…can’t say who and can’t provide the link, due to forum rules:

Quote:
…believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

I predict that SoCal will either say that this candidate is not perfect, and to vote for him would be supporting evil, or will say we are being too black-and-white and need to look at other things, so we can vote for the candidate who wants taxpayer-supported abortion.

 

[SoCalRC]

I will be voting for the candidate who, all things considered, I believe will try to limit abortion.

But that is not the question. Is the candidate’s position on abortion instrinsically evil or not?

I realize you do not want to answer. Just a few minutes ago I asserted that the major candidates’ positions all included exceptions for rape, incest, and medical exceptions. Hence all are intrinsically evil.

Since you have repeatedly asserted that not voting for a major canidate is a waste, I asserted that you would, in fact, be voting for a candidate with an intrinsically evil position on abortion. I did not raise the issue on rather or not your vote was licit, only the Catholic morality of the candidate’s postion.

Bamarider lambasted me. You did not correct his understanding of your application of proportionate reasons. Instead, you joined him, suggesting that my assertion was part of a pattern of dishonesty.

So, if you now answer “yes”, you will be admitting to having unjustly attacked me. If you answer “no”, you will be indicating either ignorance about your candidate’s position or the Church’s absolute stance on the matter of abortion.

Admitting poor conduct is never easy. But attempting to conceal such conduct once discovered, particularly by adding more attacks, is behavior best reserved for the comments section on a political blog, not a Catholic forum.

How about it Vern, why not give us all a straight answer? I know what all the Marines in Vietnam said about Army types, but I figured that was hyperbole.

 

[SoCalRC]

This is from one of the candidate’s websites…can’t say who and can’t provide the link, due to forum rules :

Yes, the candidate in question now supports overturning Roe. In 1999 he stated that he supported upholding it.

However, if you search, you will find that his long stated position, repeated this year, is that abortions should be allowed in the cases of rape, incest, and maternal health.

With that in mind, I’ll ask you the same question. Do you believe that such a position is intrinsically evil in Catholic teaching or not?

Remember, I am not asking about proportionate reasons, which we have civilly discussed. Just the morality of the candidate’s stated position on abortion in Catholic teaching.

 

[SoCalRC]

I predict that SoCal will either say that this candidate is not perfect, and to vote for him would be supporting evil, or will say we are being too black-and-white and need to look at other things, so we can vote for the candidate who wants taxpayer-supported abortion.

I predict you will never give a yes/no answer. I’m basing this on the tenacity with which you once refused to acknowledge inventing statistics regarding ectopic pregnancy when confronted with a demand for a source.

But since this time involves false witness against another human person, instead of simply a falsehood regarding objective truth, I sincerely hope you will prove me wrong.

How about it Vern, is your candidate’s stated position on abortion intrinsically evil or not?

 

[vern_humphrey]

But that is not the question.

That is the question – will this candidate, as imperfect as he may be, further the pro-life cause.

Now you will start your rant about how a candidate must be perfect or else his position is “intrinsically evil” and then try to bridge from that to how we must support the candidate who wants taxpayer-funded aborton.

I have asked you before, “Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?”

That is the key question. My answer is, no. What’s yours"

 

[vz71]

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.

But you mentioned someone that can not win. There truly is no one that can 100% loose if on the ballot. If Catholics and others voted the moral teachings of Christ and of Holy Mother Church that person could win.

emphasis mine…

I’m glad to see that big IF there.
Shows me that you know it is not the reality.

So how about working in the real world with the real decisions that we all have to make?

IF…

 

[vern_humphrey]

I predict you will never give a yes/no answer. I’m basing this on the tenacity with which you once refused to acknowledge inventing statistics regarding ectopic pregnancy when confronted with a demand for a source.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

My answer is, if there is a chance one of the candidates will in some way advance the pro-life cause, and the other will set them back, I must vote for the former.

But since this time involves false witness against another human person, instead of simply a falsehood regarding objective truth, I sincerely hope you will prove me wrong.

I agree that you have been bearing false witness – from your accusations of protestantism, to your flip-flop on “shades of gray” to your insistance on a perfect candidate.

How about it Vern, is your candidate’s stated position on abortion intrinsically evil or not?

First of all, I don’t have a candidate.

Secondly, the various candidates have positions ranging from a willingness to work to limit abortion, to a desire to increase it.

Again, I put the question to you, “Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-live position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?”

 

[SoCalRC]

That is the question – will this candidate, as imperfect as he may be, further the pro-life cause.

Vern,

This is reflecting very poorly on you. I have answered your question, again and again, as clearly and succinctly as I can. Citing Church documents to clarify my exact postion.

Why are you unwilling to do the same? Why is it so critical to change questions?

Again: Is your candidate’s stated position on abortion intrinsically evil or not?

Yes or No. After the yes or no, feel free to fill in as much mitigating material as you like, but start with a clear judgement on the morality of the position.

 

[SoCalRC]

First of all, I don’t have a candidate.

Now you are just being absurd. Did you not just argue that voting 3rd party or not voting is something to condemn?

All major party candidates support at least legal abortion for incest, rape, and maternal health. You have stated you will be voting for a major party candidate.

So, will you be voting for a candidate whose position on abortion in instrinsically evil?

 

[vz71]

Again: Is your candidate’s stated position on abortion intrinsically evil or not?

Yours is not a proper question.

Political positions are not intinsic evils, they are simply positions.

The real question is which of these candidates will curtail the intrinsic evil more.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern,

This is reflecting very poorly on you. I have answered your question, again and again, as clearly and succinctly as I can. Citing Church documents to clarify my exact postion.

Socal

This is reflecting very poorly on you. I have answered your question, again and again, as clearly and succinctly as I can. Citing Church documents to clarify my exact postion

Why are you unwilling to do the same? Why is it so critical to change questions?

I don’t know why you keep changing positions – only you can answer that.

Again: Is your candidate’s stated position on abortion intrinsically evil or not?

When I vote, I will vote for the candidate most likely to try to restrict or eliminate abortion.

Do you say that is intrinsically evil? Yes or no.

Yes or No. After the yes or no, feel free to fill in as much mitigating material as you like, but start with a clear judgement on the morality of the position.

There is no perfect candidate (despite your pretense.) In your world, all candidates would be “intrinsically evil” – and you would sneer at them even as you cast a vote that will advance the pro-choice position.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Now you are just being absurd. Did you not just argue that voting 3rd party or not voting is something to condemn?

All major party candidates support at least legal abortion for incest, rape, and maternal health. You have stated you will be voting for a major party candidate.

So, will you be voting for a candidate whose position on abortion in instrinsically evil?

What sophistry!!

I will be voting for a candidate who, albeit not perfect, will in my opinion try to reduce the abortion rate in this country.

Do you say that is “intrinsically evil?”

Now, tell us who you will vote for – describe this “perfect candidate” for us.

 

[SoCalRC]

Yours is not a proper question.

Political positions are not intinsic evils, they are simply positions.

The real question is which of these candidates will curtail the intrinsic evil more.

I beg your pardon? We are talking about abortion, an infallible teaching. Is support of abortion in the cases of incest, rape, and maternal health licit or not in the Catholic faith?

If they are ‘just positions’, are you arguing that the Church is wrong in applying CIC 915 to withhold Holy communion from politicians who vote for abortion? After all, if they are ‘just positions’, how can there be any connection with real sin?

 

[BamaRider]

Vern told everybody-

I will be voting for a candidate who, albeit not perfect, will in my opinion try to reduce the abortion rate in this country.

Then he asked SoCal

Now, tell us who you will vote for – describe this “perfect candidate” for us.

I’ll predict a real long essay that in the end won’t really say anything. It will a deposition on why acknowledged pro life candidates are kinda of evil, but won’t say anything about candidates who support unfettered abortion at will.

All I can figure out SoCal only votes for the perfect candidate, and I’m still waiting the definition of that individual.

I can only assume SoCal sits out elections, if that is his conscience, I don’t have a problem with that. At least his vote won’t cancel out mine.