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

[vern_humphrey]

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?

No, we’re talking about sophistry – your pretense that it is “intrinsically evil” to vote for any candidate who is not perfect.

 

[SoCalRC]

Do you say that is “intrinsically evil?”

I have repeatedly stated that rather or not proportional reasons can be applied in supporting a candidate is a separate question.

I am asking, point blank, about the morality of the major candidates’ stated postions. You must have an opinion, because you asserted that my answering the question was a poor reflection on my honesty.

This is a critical question, not sophistry. If you are abstaining from voting for a candidate with an intrinsically evil position, proportionate reasons do not apply. If the candidate does have an intrinsically evil position, you must examine it, carefully, to make a proper, proportional decision.

I’ll simplify the question: Are direct abortions in the case of incest, rape, and maternal health intrinsically evil or not?

I say “yes”, they are intrinsically evil. What is your answer?

 

[SoCalRC]

No, we’re talking about sophistry – your pretense that it is “intrinsically evil” to vote for any candidate who is not perfect.

Vern. When you are in a hole, the best advice is to stop digging. I have just acknowledged the existance of the concept of “proportionate reasons” in voting. I have quoted several sources for it. I am not asking about the morality of YOUR vote. I am asking about the morality of the CANDIDATE’S position.

Answer the question, then we can go on to all the additional attacks you have since levied.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have repeatedly stated that rather or not proportional reasons can be applied in supporting a candidate is a separate question.

But you pretend differently.

I am asking, point blank, about the morality of the major candidates’ stated postions. You must have an opinion, because you asserted that my answering the question was a poor reflection on my honesty.

And I stand by that.

My act – to vote for the candidate who will try to reduce abortion – is a good act, not an evil one.

This is a critical question, not sophistry.

Tell that to the Marines!

If you are abstaining from voting for a candidate with an intrinsically evil position, proportionate reasons do not apply. If the candidate does have an intrinsically evil position, you must examine it, carefully, to make a proper, proportional decision.

And your point in all this sophistry is?

I’ll simplify the question: Are direct abortions in the case of incest, rape, and maternal health intrinsically evil or not?

Of course – but that’s a looooong stretch from your pose that we can only vote for perfect candidates.

I say “yes”, they are intrinsically evil. What is your answer?

I said the same. Now here’s one for you – is it not intrinsically evil to push people to vote for the party that publically states it wants taxpayer supported abortion?

What say you about that?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern. When you are in a hole, the best advice is to stop digging. I have just acknowledged the existance of the concept of “proportionate reasons” in voting. I have quoted several sources for it. I am not asking about the morality of YOUR vote. I am asking about the morality of the CANDIDATE’S position.

Answer the question, then we can go on to all the additional attacks you have since levied.

Socal, when you are in a hole, the best advice is to get out before someone comes and squats over it.

 

[SoCalRC]

What say you about that?

I’d say you are a sad coward. How can abortion be the most important issue to you if you put your pride ahead of simply and proudly acknowledging what the Church teaches?

Of course abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and maternal life are infallibly grave moral disorders! Why not proudly declare as much? Why argue that one is working to make any political party pro life if one is embarrassed to even proudly proclaim Church teaching on abortion and condemn positions that compromise it for what they are?

But pushing you to do what, seemingly, is beyond the limits of your moral character is not going to do anything but encourage your to continue this behavior. So…

I forgive you for bearing false witness against me in this matter. And I will pray for you to find the courage to at least make your compromises in faith more honest ones.

 

[mapleoak]

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…

But, remember that morality is not dependent on ‘IF other do this’.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’d say you are a sad coward. How can abortion be the most important issue to you if you put your pride ahead of simply and proudly acknowledging what the Church teaches?

Double it back at you with knobs on it!

You have shifted positions, leveled accusations, and tried your best – and this is the best you can come up with!

 

[mapleoak]

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

So you are still waiting to see who is going to be the most popular, and then will make your moral choice based on that?

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

Don’t forget the ones who have a willingness to eliminate abortion.

 

[mapleoak]

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

I will answer it. Yes, the candidates from both major parties stated position on abortion is intrisically evil. Since he stated he doesn’t have a candidate yet though, he would still be deciding between the two based on popularity.

 

[rlg94086]

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.

Are you saying that my answers to your questions was not enough? I really don’t wish to rehash this over and over again.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So you are still waiting to see who is going to be the most popular, and then will make your moral choice based on that?

Nope. I plan to see which one is best able to reduce abortion.

Don’t forget the ones who have a willingness to eliminate abortion.

I won’t.

But I will bet you a pint of Guiness that our next president will be either a Republican or a Democrat.

I will bet you another pint that the more Democrats there are in the House and Senate, the more pro-abortion bills we will see pass.

 

[edwest2]

To my fellow Catholics,

I recommend ignoring the various political football teams out there. It is nonsense to believe: “My party - right or wrong.”

Vote as the Bishops recommended. Even if that means making the extraordinary choice of voting for none of the candidates for president. You can still vote on individual issues.

God bless,
Ed

 

[mapleoak]

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

No, he stated he doesn’t vote for candidates who support intrinsic evil against the Church. He also has stated plainly that a candidate does not have to be perfect.

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.

Don’t worry, his and my votes have no effect on your vote. There was the false assertion made in a prior post that votes can be cancelled, which is absolutely illogical.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, he stated he doesn’t vote for candidates who support intrinsic evil against the Church. He also has stated plainly that a candidate does not have to be perfect.

Don’t worry, his and my votes have no effect on your vote. There was the false assertion made in a prior post that votes can be cancelled, which is absolutely illogical.

In fact, in two elections in the last 20 years, third party candidates have syphoned off votes from candidates who otherwise would have won.

When the smoke clears and you see the worst candidate won, and is putting his agenda into effect, how will you justify your vote?

 

[mapleoak]

Nope. I plan to see which one is best able to reduce abortion.

So you believe there is a chance that either part may present the candidate best able to reduce abortion. Does it matter what there stated position is, so long as the chance of abortion being reduced?

 

[BamaRider]

No, he stated he doesn’t vote for candidates who support intrinsic evil against the Church. He also has stated plainly that a candidate does not have to be perfect.

ok, shoot me a PM on who that individual is in the Presidential race. I’ll take a non response y’all will be seating home in Nov.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So you believe there is a chance that either part may present the candidate best able to reduce abortion.

I believe there may be a candidate who will appoint judges who will see Roe v Wade as the bad ruling it is.

Does it matter what there stated position is, so long as the chance of abortion being reduced?

Stated position on what? One side claims to be pro-life, albeit imperfectly, and the other is proudly and loudly pro-abortion.

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating – we don’t lie down and go to sleep after the election. We keep up the fight, and if a candidate has made pro-life noises, we pressure him to live up to them.

 

[SoCalRC]

Double it back at you with knobs on it!

You have shifted positions, leveled accusations, and tried your best – and this is the best you can come up with!

Like I said, I will be praying for you. If you ever find the courage to answer the question, I’ll be listening.

 

[mapleoak]

In fact, in two elections in the last 20 years, third party candidates have syphoned off votes from candidates who otherwise would have won.

When the smoke clears and you see the worst candidate won, and is putting his agenda into effect, how will you justify your vote?

When the smoke clears, the worst candidate who wins will have won in spite of my voting third part or my abstention. Not because if I didn’t either abstain or vote third party, I would have voted for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil.