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

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, if the person in question wants to OK it, I’m happy to publicly provide the entire sequence of exchanges. It will just be another case of catching you promoting a falsehood.

So what’s your holdup?

 

[SoCalRC]

So what’s your holdup?

A) Reality

B) I appologized publicly here already if I was mistaken about the original comment being in jest

C) I am waiting for permission

Even if it was in jest, someone may not want a personal admission of incest to be publicized.

I must admit that you are, if nothing else, doggedly dishonest. Do you really think no one has noticed that you have now dodged simple questions many, many times?

 

[vern_humphrey]

A) Reality

The reality is that you made a nasty, bigoted insult - one that exceeds in offensiveness the “N-word.”

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It is why there is so little real dialogue here at all. Most of it comes down to a few rabid voices that play the game of obfuscation, and quick attempted witticisms to deflect answering real questions. In the end, one finally just ignores some posters as disingenuous and interesting only in haranguing others who actually spend the time to do the research they are so unwilling to do themselves. So Cal, there are actually some rather good discussions that go on at vox-nova.com. Moderate Catholicism with dozens of comments per day on a variety of subjects. I can post there without this kind of childish pretense at actual debate.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is why there is so little real dialogue here at all. Most of it comes down to a few rabid voices that play the game of obfuscation, and quick attempted witticisms to deflect answering real questions. In the end, one finally just ignores some posters as disingenuous and interesting only in haranguing others who actually spend the time to do the research they are so unwilling to do themselves. So Cal, there are actually some rather good discussions that go on at vox-nova.com. Moderate Catholicism with dozens of comments per day on a variety of subjects. I can post there without this kind of childish pretense at actual debate.

If you can put a stop to the pretentous claims to know the other guy’s position better than he does, and prevent the nasty private mails, you’ll have accomplished something.

 

[rlg94086]

It is why there is so little real dialogue here at all. Most of it comes down to a few rabid voices that play the game of obfuscation, and quick attempted witticisms to deflect answering real questions. In the end, one finally just ignores some posters as disingenuous and interesting only in haranguing others who actually spend the time to do the research they are so unwilling to do themselves. So Cal, there are actually some rather good discussions that go on at vox-nova.com. Moderate Catholicism with dozens of comments per day on a variety of subjects. I can post there without this kind of childish pretense at actual debate.

Looks like a good site…thanks for recommending it. I’ve read a few threads in their entirity. While the debate does appear to be good quality, I see some of the same banter that goes on here:

You know what, Feddie and Blackadder, I’m going to enjoy watching the egg on your faces, and on the faces of all the other right-wing nut-jobs who are howling for persistence in the “surge” and [candidate name omitted - RLG] 100-year occupation of Iraq when a “religiously conservative” (and “moderate” Muslim) ayatollah issues his fatwa and FORCES American troops out of Iraq:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sistani_s_edicts
Then I guess we’ll have to listen to all your caterwauling about “ungrateful Shiahs” who “support the terrorists”–when the chief “terrorists” in that geo-political morass are the interloping invaders, the occupiers who are preventing the “civil war” that you seem to think the Iraqis are longing for US to prevent (when they could damned well do it themselves, if they really WANTED to)!

That was from a thread on the funding of Planned Parenthood in the latest Iraq bill. Other than the ability to discuss candidates, a lot of the discussions look just as heated as the ones do here. One of the other threads I read compared another poster’s views to Nazism and the other poster protested about the “inevitable” Hitler reference. That was on an NFP-related topic.

Gee…sounds like there are much more intelligent moderates there than on the CAF forum.

 

[BamaRider]

Everytime the SoCal makes a comment like this-

And you position is clear. You support a candidate whose position on abortion is intrinsically evil. But you lack the courage to admit as much, making your position illicit as an application of either “limiting the harm” or “proportionate reasons”.

I’ll remind the folks what the Priests for Life say (a organization of Catholic Clergy with the support of their Bishops that say this-

OK, so you’ve heard all the exhortations about how you have to vote, and how a candidate’s position on abortion is the primary issue in deciding whether to vote for him or her. You know that the wrong position on abortion can never be balanced by having great positions on lots of other issues. You accept all that.

But then when you look at the candidates, you find one worse than the other in accepting and promoting child-killing. Then you see some pro-life organizations endorsing one of the two miserable choices, and other pro-life groups saying that neither one is pro-life, and neither deserves our endorsement.

Then you are confused about whether it is OK to vote for any of them, or perhaps not vote at all.

This may help to clarify the confusion: Forget about putting any labels or endorsements on anyone. Don’t call them anything. In your mind, don’t give any endorsements. Or, if you prefer, call them both pro-abortion.

Then just ask a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?

For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban partial-birth abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to ban late-term abortion, or to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea?

Nobody is saying that’s the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other. And if you can, then what is your choice?

One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. (You, and many who think like you, could run for office yourself and have the perfect position on abortion, but you don’t have the political base needed to get elected…at least not right now.) So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.

But acknowledging this, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm.

Why?

Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.

This is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” We may never choose evil.

But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. You oppose the evil of abortion, in every circumstance, no matter what. You know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is OK, you don’t agree.

But by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good.

Some may think it’s not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer – in the case described above – is yes

Which is all Vern is trying to do and promote. And in so doin he’s been called a fiiber and dishonest.

I’ll remind SoCal again, you’re talking about one of CAF’s most prolific and respected contributors, with over 17,000 posts, thousands of them in defense of the unborn. To ascertain he’s making a “intrinistic evil” vote is just wrong. Is his/our candidate perfect? No, but who is? (he’s admitted that) He’s just like the rest of us, making the best vote he can, with the candidates we have.

You keep saying we have options, no we don’t. If we want to defeat the most outlandish pro choice candidates to ever get on a ballot we need to do as the Priest for Life direct. Put your vote where it counts the most, and you won’t be wrong.

You keep condeming that premise, and that is what has so many jumping up and down. You’ve painted yourself into a position of not voting this fall, well and good, your opinion. But then you come on here and want other Catholics to join ya, by saying every candidate in this election is “intrinistcaly evil” so ya can’t vote is just plain wrong, and folks are not gonna let that go unchallenged bro.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The most accurate term to use is pre-born human, as the debates do not comonly occur over one documented instance, but rather the entire concept of abortion, which in America is legal up to 9 months.

Hi, Hasikelee,
Please allow me to put in my take on this subject

A less accurate term, but one still more accurate than fetus is embryo, as the majority of humans are killed during the embryonic stage in America.

Embryo is a difficult term wrt humans, because, if we deny the pre-embryonic stage, then we define also the blastocyst as the embryo.
This raises a difficulty, for the blastocyst splits ito the placenta and the foetus, which remain connected until birth.

The term child is vague, but can still be validly used in an argument as it designates which human is being killed.

Child, or better, infant, are terms commonly used to refer to a born person. However, there is good reason to believe that at the time of the awakening, known from ancient times as the quickening, there is definite evidence that a functional central nervous system is beginning to show signs of consciousness.
From this time, a procured miscarriage was regarded as homicide, and an accidental miscarriage as a death to be mourned.
This time, about 16 weeks gestation seems to be when a foetus becomes an unborn infant or child.

The term baby is one of endearment which has many different definitions. Baby is a term typically given to the human after birth. It also has strong connotations for all who participate in the debates, so baby is probably the least accurate term to use.

Yes, I agree.
There remains a problem with 16 weeks, for before 24 weeks, the infant lungs are incapable of functioning correctly, if at all. The pro ‘choice’ people use this as a definition of non-viability, so set 24 weeks as a permissible late limit.
This is a legal fudge.
What is needed is for good catholic physisions to devis an artificial placenta, so that the pre 24 week infant can be maintained without the need for ventilating the lungs before they are ready.
Most of the problems have already been solved, with functioning heart/lung machines, and artificial kidneys.
The job is actually easier, as the infant brain is still capable of entering deep shut-down, necessary to survive oxygen starvation inherent in normal childbirth. Also, since the infant being supported is of under 0.5 kilo weight, then the machine is an ideal case for miniaturization, and could easily be tested on small animals.
Once this is achieved, then the non viability argument fox has been shot, and arguments about sentience can be followed.
As an aside, this would be useful in a non termination situation, where pre-eclampsia might be a problem.
So there remain the absolutists, and their beliefs have to be respected, who believe that, as the embryo is a human being, then any termination is homicide.
Then there are those who accept that for extreme reasons, a termination, provided that the foetus is not yet sentient, might be permissible, even though the aborted infant will of necessity suffocate, as its lungs are not yet ready to be ventilated.
Then there are those who will permit the abortion of a sentient infant, and make no attempt to save the child alive, even to the point of deliberately destroying it.
The first two positions, I can understand, and to some extent respect, the last position is to me, plain murder.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Better search your own comments on a vote against a certain constitutional ammendment.

And I never indicated that either Roberts or Alito were personally in favor of abortion, that is another falsehood you insist on repeating. I insisted only that they had publicly acknowledged it as estabilished legal precedent and have now both applied it as legal precedent from the Supreme Court. You mislead by misdirection, as you know, and as you intended. You suggested that Roberts and Alito were pro-abortion. You said they approved Roe and Casey in the Carhart opinion. They didn’t write a word of the Carhart opinion. You know that. That’s why I encouraged people to read it themselves. You, of course, prefer to tell others what they should think.

You made this false assertion before, and I went through my exact comment, as you quoted, and confirmed it with quotes from Alito and Roberts themselves, as well as Scalia and Thomas concurring opinion from a Supreme Court Case. Somehow, reality just does not enter your world ** You want people to think Roberts and Alito are pro-abortion so you can say Republicans never did anything prolife. Roberts and Alito were crucial to the decision upholding a ban on partial birth abortion. You, of course, opined that the decision was essentially meaningless and SAID Roberts and Alito approved Roe and Casey in Carhart, which they did not. Roberts and Alito are nowhere quoted in Carhart. You know that. Of course they said Roe and Casey were precedents of the Supreme Court. To have said otherwise would have been absurd. You’re still slandering them, and it’s disgusting.**

Let’s get it right. Vern (and you) have now been caught lying several times. Never. You mislead by misdirection. You’re doing it now. You accuse people of lying because they do not agree with you. You call people whatever you want to call them. And I do think that calling others “pro aboritionists” because they 100% reject abortion while one personally politically supports a position on abortion that the Church considers intrinsically evil is a tad hypocritical. ** You DO support pro-abortion candidates. The problem is, you won’t admit it, notwithstanding that everything you say makes it obvious.** But the incest claim is false. That is just typically tool-dom, repeating a false assertion over and over until it becomes ‘truth’, at least among a certain segment of the population. Well, then quote what you said. If you don’t, I’ll ask Vern. As between the two of you, I would believe Vern every time.

And yes, I do consider it a distinction that, should Vern at least find the courage to acknowledge the evil his is politically supporting (like Rlg) that his position might be potentially licit. That is quite a difference from being called a pro aboritonist and a couch potato Catholic. ** "Couch potato Catholic? What are you talking about? And I ask you and Vern to quote whatever Vern said when, as you say, he acknowledged supporting evil.**

If I were to adopt your and Vern’s methodology, I would note all the examples of your political activity promoting the gay agenda and its attack on the Sacrament of Marriage and the Family, then propose that it is proof that you are “Log Cabin Republicans” using abortion as a smokescreen to cover your promotion of your agenda. Of course, I’d add in a cutting comment about the suitability of your, Vern’s, and Bama’s chosen user names…

**You’re absolutely mad. :whacky: Call me anything you want, then try to imagine how little I’ll care. **

FWIW, Rush always has a disaster when he ventures out of his bubble as well. For some reason his sanctimonious hate speech does not play nearly as well when he is forced to defend it against reality…** Rush? You mean Limbaugh? Who quoted him? Certainly I didn’t. Do you sit around thinking everyone who doesn’t agree with you is some kind of Limbaugh clone? If he didn’t take “sancimonious hate speech” lessons from you, he missed the educational opportunity of a lifetime. **

Just a reminder, you have claimed to have committed grievous sin against the inalienable rights of the human person in this thread, ** I did not say that. Everybody on earth commits sins. But I did not say what you’re saying. Identify the post by number.**but still seem to lack the courage to answer questions about your exact position on Catholic teaching about abortion. **I’m not going to climb into your rabbit hole with you. Besides wobbling all over the place with misdirection, you’re just not that interesting. I have said before, and will say again, that supporting abortion candidates is supporting abortion. I consider that a seriously immoral thing to do. About a million posts ago, you were given many, many, many citations by others from the Pope, from bishops, from a priest’s organization saying it. You ignored it all and just went off all over again equating abortion with all sorts of other social issues. You do that because you want Catholics to vote for pro-abortion politicians. There is no more important political issue in recent elections. **

Now, go ahead and start one of your endless posts about how all “life” issues are the same. Either that, or start one of your endless sanctimonious hate speeches about Republicans.

I doubt I’ll read them. As I mentioned above, you just aren’t that interesting. You just say the same things over and over again so you can be the last poster. Be my guest

 

[MIZER]

Dear Nom the Wise,

I wanted you to know that I read your long post you thought no-one would read. And, you are correct. The terms we use betray our position. There is some argument on this board regarding the use of the term baby to describe the conceptus, embryo or fetus. Baby is objectionable to the pro-abort position. The truth is found in this expression which has been used by the pro-life community for years. It goes like this, “When it’s wanted by the mother it’s a baby, when it’s unwanted by the mother it’s something else.”

I was standing with a pro-life display for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (www.abortionno.org) once at a University and a professor came flying out of her office, running toward us, just screaming, “it’s a fetus, it’s a fetus, it’s a fetus.” I’m not kidding this woman had an evil look in her eye and she was hysterical. She could not tolerate the idea that we might tell people, “it’s a baby.” Well,…it is a baby. Wanted by the mother or not, it’s a baby.

 

[mapleoak]

Which is all Vern is trying to do and promote. And in so doin he’s been called a fiiber and dishonest.

He is also saying those who refuse to support intrinsic evil are supporting evil and therefore are at odds with Church teaching.

I’ll remind SoCal again, you’re talking about one of CAF’s most prolific and respected contributors, with over 17,000 posts, thousands of them in defense of the unborn. To ascertain he’s making a “intrinistic evil” vote is just wrong.

This has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. He has said I support evil by how I vote in exactly the same matter, disregarding my solid pro-life track record on these forums. Thousands of posts does not make one incapable of error.

Is his/our candidate perfect? No, but who is?

A candidate who supports an intrinsic evil such as killing living defenseless and the most innocent of human beings is far from an ‘imperfect’ candidate. The answer to the question of whether the candidates from either major party hold a position supporting an intrinsic evil as defined by the Church is ‘YES’. The answer is not ‘they are pro-life, but imperfect’. If one is going to justify voting for such a candidate, then one should acknowledge the fact that the candidates hold such views.

 

[mapleoak]

The reality is that you made a nasty, bigoted insult - one that exceeds in offensiveness the “N-word.”

This has absolutely no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of the argument at hand. It is only a distraction ad hominem.

 

[mapleoak]

Mizer and MDR, thank you for the excellent posts.

 

[mapleoak]

Sadly he has a point. Every vote that goes to the 3rd party is a vote lost to the better of the choices.

As pointed out previously, voting third party for a candidate not supporting intrinsic evil or by choosing abstention, (positions which are completely in alignment with Church teaching) helps the wholly pro-choice candidate as much as it helps the partial pro-choice candidate. My vote or refusal to vote helps neither as I do not endorse either candidates pro-abortion stance. My vote does not default to a ‘would have been a vote for the partial pro-choice candidate’ had I chose not to vote third party or abstain. This is simple logic.

 

[vern_humphrey]

He is also saying those who refuse to support intrinsic evil are supporting evil and therefore are at odds with Church teaching.

No, he isn’t. He is saying that those who knowing lead people away from supporting pro-life candidates are at odds with Church teaching.

 

[mapleoak]

So if we do vote third party we need to understand the the winner could be the worst of the choices.

The reason the winner WILL be a candidate who supports abortion, is because enough pro-life people are willing to accept or put up with a certain amount of ‘lesser evil or lesser killing’ to accomplish their goals.

 

[mapleoak]

No, he isn’t. He is saying that those who knowing lead people away from supporting pro-life candidates are at odds with Church teaching.

I hold a moral position that it is justifiable and in no way contradictory to Church teaching to refuse to vote for a candidate who supports abortion in any form. Did you not say that because of that I am supporting the most pro-abortion candidate? Apologies if I was mistaken.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I hold a moral position that it is justifiable and in no way contradictory to Church teaching to refuse to vote for a candidate who supports abortion in any form. Did you not say that because of that I am supporting the most pro-abortion candidate? Apologies if I was mistaken.

I did not say different – although I disagree with your political assessment.

My remarks are directed at those who have the intent of leading Catholics into voting for the pro-abortion party, or failing that, getting them to drop out.

 

[rlg94086]

The reason the winner WILL be a candidate who supports abortion, is because enough pro-life people are willing to accept or put up with a certain amount of ‘lesser evil or lesser killing’ to accomplish their goals.

Give some evidence please. The way I understand the numbers, there are not enough pro-life voters (those who rank it issue #1) to win a three-way race. Therefore, they would inevitably swing the vote to the least pro-life candidate - even if **all **of them voted for your fictitious, perfect candidate whom no one has heard of.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902646.html (young voters)

In an American University online survey last month of 18-to-29-year-olds in four battleground states, 23 percent of the 128 respondents said that they definitely would not vote for a candidate who disagreed with them on abortion policy. Forty percent said that they might consider changing their vote over abortion policy, but that it would depend on a candidate’s views on other issues. One-third of the respondents answered that a candidate’s position on abortion “wouldn’t really matter” to them if they agreed with the candidate on most other issues.

In the survey 49 percent of the respondents identified themselves as pro-choice, while 29 percent identified themselves as pro-life, and 21 percent said that they were “somewhere in between” these two views. In the overall ranking of issues, 30 percent of the respondents said abortion is a very important issue, though it wasn’t as important to them as the economy, which drew ranked highest by 67 percent of the respondents, or the the war in Iraq, which was ranked important by 64 percent of the respondents. Health care drew 46 percent of the respondents and 37 precent of respondents selected the environment as an issue of importance.

pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=195 (general population)

These efforts, at least in part, reflect the fact that no large and forceful majority resides on either side of the issue. For instance, an August 2006 poll by the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life showed that a bare majority of Americans, 51%, believe abortion should be available in all or most cases, compared with 46% who say it should be illegal in all or most cases. **At the same time, two-thirds of Americans say that the nation needs to find a “middle ground” when it comes to abortion. **

So, from a practical standpoint (I realize you reject such thinking), it makes sense to work to elect the guy who is most pro-life and can garner a bunch of the 2/3 voters who believe in a “middle ground.” That is the best chance we have right now, as we continue to educate people on the evil of abortion and work toward eliminating it.

 

[ribozyme]

Give some evidence please. The way I understand the numbers, there are not enough pro-life voters (those who rank it issue #1) to win a three-way race. Therefore, they would inevitably swing the vote to the least pro-life candidate - even if **all **of them voted for your fictitious, perfect candidate whom no one has heard of.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902646.html (young voters)

pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=195 (general population)

So, from a practical standpoint (I realize you reject such thinking), it makes sense to work to elect the guy who is most pro-life and can garner a bunch of the 2/3 voters who believe in a “middle ground.” That is the best chance we have right now, as we continue to educate people on the evil of abortion and work toward eliminating it.

Do you think the middle ground is advantageous territory for conservatives especially regarding issues such as the economy and Iraq?