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

[SoCalRC]

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.

Let me remind you that the absolute authority on Roman Catholicism is the Pope:

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” - Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Pope “speak in the name of Christ”:

“Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” - Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church

We are talking about moral absolutes in Voting for Catholics:

“The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.” - USCCB, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, #28

“When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person.” - Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, #4

“In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to <<take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it>>” - Pope John Paul II, EVANGELIUM VITAE #73, quoting the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith Declaration on Procured Abortion

“These values are not negotiable” - Pope Benedict XVI, SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS #83

Abortion is just one example of these voting absolutes, however, when I quote the Church stating that there are others, Ridgerunner puts up a ‘Zzzz’ emoticon. So let’s first focus on one - abortion.

Do you see any room in the quotes above for compromise on abortion? Is there any place where it is suggested that our obligation is anything but complete rejection?

I see none. It is an absolute teachings, declared infallible by the universal agreement of the Bishops. So, it is my understanding that we can NEVER support abortion.

The Church has presented a few instances where it appears to be possibly licit to vote for a candidate who supports abortion (as all major party candidates currently do). But ALL of them require that the illicit position be clearly opposed. For example:

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia…”

“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons…” - Cardinal Ratzinger, Memorandum to Cardinal McCarrick

Since you, Vern, and Ridgerunner have all claimed to be voting specifically because of a stance on abortion, the above does not apply. So we have to look to the concept of “limiting the harm”:

“Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death.” - USCCB, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, #32

“an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality” - Pope John Paul II, EVANGELIUM VITAE

Notice the emphasis added to both quotes. If you compromise on abortion for the purposes of limiting the harm, you are still not released from your moral obligation with regards to an absolute in our faith. Further, the principle cannot be used as an excuse to compromise on other fundemental morals:

“In this context “limiting the harm”], it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.” - Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, #4

This was quoted/reiterated by the USCCB in it’s document quoted above (see #30), which also explained that doing so was the second of two common mistakes made by Catholics in voting:

“The second [tempation in public life that can distort Catholic teaching] is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture,4 war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed.” - USCCB, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, #29

So, let’s look where this leaves us. First, although Vern calls it a “straw man” and aggressively avoids giving a straight answer, rather or not a candidate’s position on abortion is intrinsically evil or not is absolutely critical. We must NEVER directly support such evil. When we are doing so for pragmatic reasons we must still, absolutely, be clear in our objection to what is, for Catholics, never acceptable.

From a Catholic point of view, it is THE question. By avoiding it, we branch into the area of direct support which, again, is NEVER licit.

Second, the Church has stated, as a matter of Doctrine, that it is “incoherent” to elevate any one teaching to the detriment of others in voting. So Catholics who argue that there is only one possible interpretation of “proportionate reasons” or “limiting the harm” are asserting a moral authority in excess of the Mother Church.

This last one troubles me a great deal. Look at the quotes at the beginning, they are absolute. Now look at this interpreation from the USCCB:

“When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.” - USCCB, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, #36

Even if you argue that my 3rd party votes are “wasted”, my interpretation of “no compromise” is expressly listed as licit by the US Bishops and is in literal compliance with the guidance from Rome.

I do not care if someone has 17000 posts or 70000 posts. No Catholic has a doctrinal right to support or present an intrinsically evil position as a valid reflection of Catholic teaching.

Further, no Catholic has a right to assume a moral authority above that of the Vicar of Christ and declare that which the Church has deemed valid to be “evil”.

And that is precisely what what is occuring each time someone delcares that my position of no compromise is “pro abortion”. And it occurs every time someone presents the abortion of any innocents, including children concieved via rape or incest, as legitimately “pro life”.

Folks can wail away and sling as much garbage as they want, but “not putting Catholicism first” is the most “charitable” interpretation I can come up with for such actions and remarks.

 

[rlg94086]

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

This thread is about abortion. People take middle grounds for a variety of issues.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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:

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.

To be sure, there are some posters who are quite pointed on specific issues, but over all I’ve been impressed with the general tenor of the posts there. I did not say they were more intelligent than people here, only that they were less rabid and tended to do their homework fairly, and not cherry pick quotes while ignoring the sentence before or after than qualified what is quoted.

Many threads start out quite good here, but then seem to be taken over by the tag teams of absolutism.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

I have written you 2 private messages, to spare having to publically tell you what I privately told you, and that is that based on your behavior I have no wish to talk to you further. both times you have continued to quote me and offer your “nasty” responses. Neither of my private posts were “nasty” as you put it and you might want to publically post them if you are so convinced. Your attitude has driven me to find no basis of communication. Will you accept this and move on? Or continue to reply to my posts as I have asked you not to?

 

[rlg94086]

To be sure, there are some posters who are quite pointed on specific issues, but over all I’ve been impressed with the general tenor of the posts there. I did not say they were more intelligent than people here, only that they were less rabid and tended to do their homework fairly, and not cherry pick quotes while ignoring the sentence before or after than qualified what is quoted.

Many threads start out quite good here, but then seem to be taken over by the tag teams of absolutism.

Fair enough. As I said, it looks like a good site, so I thank you for providing the link. I will visit regularly.

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

But is promoting ‘compromise’ really educating anyone? Seriously, look at the numbers you cite. Over half favor very limited legal restriction, 2/3 want compromise.

Political entities exist to keep obtain and retain political power. You do not do that in a true democracy if you push the majority, let alone a super majority against its will. So using your reasoning, any political solution aimed at ‘chipping away’ is doomed to fail when it comes to significant progress. This would seem to match tangible results to date.

If you want real change, you have to change the will of the people. In that light, is the best way to convince people that some issues should be beyond compromise really compromising on those very issues?

 

[rlg94086]

But is promoting ‘compromise’ really educating anyone? Seriously, look at the numbers you cite. Over half favor very limited legal restriction, 2/3 want compromise.

Not sure what you are talking about. Compromise doesn’t educate - it gets something done. Educating has to go on in paralell. Since 46% agree that abortion should be illegal in “almost all cases” and 2/3 of the total believe we “need to find a middle ground,” that tells me there is hope for at least starting to stem the tide of abortion. Remember that the *status quo *is virtually unlimited abortion. If we can get 2/3 to agree today to further limit abortion from today’s situation, that would be a good thing. It wouldn’t be the end of the story…just a start. Your voting method would accomplish nothing, at best, or make things worse by throwing more power in the pro-abortion direction, at worst.

SoCalRC:

Political entities exist to keep obtain and retain political power. You do not do that in a true democracy if you push the majority, let alone a super majority against its will. So using your reasoning, any political solution aimed at ‘chipping away’ is doomed to fail when it comes to significant progress. This would seem to match tangible results to date.

Really? Then how would you reconcile the obvious success the left has had at “chipping away?” They have been, sadly, very good at it. We didn’t morally decay overnight.

SoCalRC:

If you want real change, you have to change the will of the people. In that light, is the best way to convince people that some issues should be beyond compromise really compromising on those very issues?

“Changing the will of the people” is not going to happen by marginalizing your vote into some lunatic third party that no one will pay attention to and throwing the power to the major party you most disagree with. It is only worthwhile if you don’t care about results - as you have stated before.

 

[SoCalRC]

Not sure what you are talking about. Compromise doesn’t educate - it gets something done.

What? From what I can see you get politicians who give some lip service to abortion to get votes, but then follow through with enough wishy-wash (like flip flopping on even overturning Roe) so that the more permissive middle is not turned away.

GOP presidential candidates have been political flip flops on Roe for three straight elections, and this year’s GOP field was the most pro-choice and abortion tainted since the GOP platform was changed.

This sort of voting does not appear to have even changed a political party, let alone a country.

Really? Then how would you reconcile the obvious success the left has had at “chipping away?” They have been, sadly, very good at it. We didn’t morally decay overnight.

This is the problem with equating politics with religion, we have to start playing fast and loose with history, both past and present to keep the fascade.

It was a GOP appointee majority court that handed down Roe, and a GOP appointee majority court (8 out of 9) that upheld it in 1992. The 15 states that liberalized abortion laws prior to Roe were politically split.

And it is the GOP that has us at odds with Rome over war, torture, and the death penalty. Political parties are not a substitute for the Church.

“Changing the will of the people” is not going to happen by marginalizing your vote…

In the 30 odd years since Roe, the GOP has controlled the White House 24 of them. Politics reflects the will of the people, modern propoganda notwithstanding it does not signficantly change it with any permanence. If you want to have a culture of life, start setting an example and living it.

The problem with divide and conquer via compromise is that it cannot be coherently connected to the original teaching. If life is always important, why focus only on abortion? If abortion is beyond compromise, then why are you compromising?

The policy makes better politics than theology, since religion is what is being collapsed to fit.

 

[rlg94086]

What? From what I can see you get politicians who give some lip service to abortion to get votes, but then follow through with enough wishy-wash (like flip flopping on even overturning Roe) so that the more permissive middle is not turned away.

GOP presidential candidates have been political flip flops on Roe for three straight elections, and this year’s GOP field was the most pro-choice and abortion tainted since the GOP platform was changed.

This sort of voting does not appear to have even changed a political party, let alone a country.

This is the problem with equating politics with religion, we have to start playing fast and loose with history, both past and present to keep the fascade.

It was a GOP appointee majority court that handed down Roe, and a GOP appointee majority court (8 out of 9) that upheld it in 1992. The 15 states that liberalized abortion laws prior to Roe were politically split.

And it is the GOP that has us at odds with Rome over war, torture, and the death penalty. Political parties are not a substitute for the Church.

In the 30 odd years since Roe, the GOP has controlled the White House 24 of them. Politics reflects the will of the people, modern propoganda notwithstanding it does not signficantly change it with any permanence. If you want to have a culture of life, start setting an example and living it.

The problem with divide and conquer via compromise is that it cannot be coherently connected to the original teaching. If life is always important, why focus only on abortion? If abortion is beyond compromise, then why are you compromising?

The policy makes better politics than theology, since religion is what is being collapsed to fit.

You have yet to give a compelling argument of how your approach will actually accomplish anything. Your disdain for the GOP is noted…again…but the other option here in the little place I like to call reality, is the Democratic Party. I will not participate in a strategy that will result in a strongly pro-choice president in the whitehouse. We are in for a tough few years on the life front as it is, with the Congress moving more in that direction. I would prefer that we not compound the problem.

If you have something new to convince me that your way is better from a practical standpoint, please express it. Otherwise, I guess we will just keep going round-and-round-and-round… :whacky: …okay, never mind…I’m dizzy. Time to get off this carousel.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let me remind you that the absolute authority on Roman Catholicism is the Pope:a

Dang! Here I thought you were the absolute authority on Roman Catholicism.

Folks can wail away and sling as much garbage as they want, but “not putting Catholicism first” is the most “charitable” interpretation I can come up with for such actions and remarks.

Yes, but you are the guy who accuses people you disagree with of “compromising,” “supporting intrinsic evil,” “being protestant” and involvement in incest.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I guess, RLG, we can revisit some of the things that have been said over and over again, and ignored.

The late Archbishop O’Connor

"In good conscience one could refrain from voting altogether. In some instances, this might be best, even though voting is normally a moral obligation. Or one could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position. "

One candidate is “less supportive of abortion” than the two others who overtly support abortion on demand, if he can be said to favor abortion at all.

…next…

 

[Ridgerunner]

Priests for Life

"You should avoid to the greatest extent possible voting for candidates who endorse or promote intrinsically evil policies. As far as possible, you should vote for those who promote policies in line with the moral law.
In many elections there are situations where all of the available candidates take morally unacceptable positions on one or more of the “non-negotiable” issues.
In such situations, a citizen will be called upon to make tough choices. In those cases, citizens must vote in the way that will most limit the harm that would be done by the available candidates.

1. For each office, first determine how each candidate stands on each of the issues that will come before him and involve non-negotiable principles.
2. Rank the candidates according to how well their positions align with these non-negotiable moral principles.
3. Give preference to candidates who do not propose positions that contradict these principles.
4. Where every candidate endorses positions contrary to non-negotiable principles, choose the candidate likely to do the least harm. If several are equal, evaluate them based on their views on other, lesser issues.

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.
A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, “an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”(EV 73; also CPL 4).
Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future."

There are no perfect candidates among the presidential contenders. Two (guess which two) support abortion on demand as it now is. One would limit it severely.

 

[Ridgerunner]

USCCB

“Living the Gospel of Life”

"But being ‘right’ in such matters [racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care] can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.

We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity meaningfully to participate in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that defend human life, especially those of God’s children who are unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue – or lack thereof – is a judgment not only on them, but on us. Because of this, we urge our fellow citizens to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest."

Life is the preeminent issue. We should vote. Party politics should not dermine our vote. Our votes should, as nearly as possible, promote life.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Catholic bishops on voting for abortion candidates and issues.

Statements of Various US Bishops on the Centrality of the Abortion Issue in the Elections
We are unconditionally pro-life, since respect for the right to life is necessary for a human being to be able to exercise any other human right. – Cardinal William H. Keeler, Archbishop of Baltimore, Chairman, Pro-life Committee of the US Catholic Bishops, Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza, Bishop of Galveston-Houston, President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/U.S. Catholic Conference
We, the Four Bishops of Massachusetts, … wish to underscore the absolute centrality of the first issue, the protection of human life. Support and promotion of abortion by any candidate is always wrong and can never be justified. We will never cease to denounce abortion and euthanasia and teach all Catholics that to support those positions is to support death over life. - +His Eminence, Bernard Cardinal Law, Archbishop of Boston, +Most Reverend Thomas Dupre, Bishop of Springfield, +Most Reverend Sean O’Malley, OFM Cap, Bishop of Fall River, +Most Reverend Daniel Reilly, Bishop of Worcester, October 2000
[Abortion is] a defining issue not only personally but also socially. Poverty can be addressed incrementally, but the death of a child is quite final. – Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago, October 2000
It is impossible to advance human dignity by being “right” on issues like poverty and immigration, but wrong about the most fundamental issue of all – the right to life." Archbishop Charles Chaput, OFM Cap., Archbishop of Denver, American and Catholic: thoughts on responsible citizenship, October 11, 2000
The thousands of innocent pre-born babies killed every year by abortion constitute a greater evil than the execution of a few convicted felons by the state not only because of sheer number of deaths, but because of the gravity of the act itself. Therefore opposition to abortion must be a priority for Catholics who support the Church’s teaching about the sacredness of all human life. – Archbishop Elden Francis Curtiss, Archbishop of Omaha, September 2000
Many Catholic leaders both clerical and lay have urged that citizens not vote for anyone who does not have a strong pro-life position. I do not see how a disciple of the Lord could ignore the fundamental importance of public policy protecting human life…To support candidates who would continue or even expand the possibilities for more people to die by human choice is seriously wrong. – Bishop John Myers, Bishop of Peoria, October 17, 2000
Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign. …The taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but also the entire electorate.-- Bishop James C. Timlin, D.D., Bishop of Scranton, “The Ballot and the Right to Life” Fall 2000
I fail to understand how any Catholic can support a candidate who is outspokenly and unambiguously “pro-choice”, who supports the idea that the child in the womb is the property of the mother to be disposed of at will, and will make appointments to the Supreme Court that will reinforce the tremendous error of Roe v. Wade.-- Bishop William Murphy, Auxiliary Bishop of Boston
There is a multitude of serious issues facing voters this year. Many of those issues are described in a document from the U.S. Bishops entitled Faithful Citizenship… But there is one issue that rises above the others. When you vote on November 7, I hope and pray that you will not forget the most disenfranchised citizens in this land - the unborn. – Cardinal James Hickey, Archbishop of Washington, October 26, 2000
In two weeks all of us will have an opportunity to choose leaders for our nation, our state and our local communities who share our commitment to fundamental rights for the unborn, those advanced in age, the sick and the needy. As you cast your ballot, I prayerfully urge you to take a stand worthy of the Community of Faith of which you are a member. – Archbishop Edward Egan, Archbishop of New York, October 29, 2000
Some may be discouraged by the particular candidates available; others feel that none adequately represents all of our concerns, especially our commitment to the right to life from the moment of conception until natural death. However, by not voting, we cede control of our nation to those who lack or oppose our moral commitments. Recall the traditional Catholic principle of choosing the lesser evil; when faced with two options, neither of which is entirely good, one may choose the lesser evil. This enables us to give morality a voice and to vote for whoever will best promote our Christian concerns. – Bishop Vincent De Paul Breen, Bishop of Metuchen, October 18, 2000
The protection of life in all its stages, unfortunately, has been threatened by a culture of death. The most notable attack on life itself in our country is the terrible horror of legalized abortion…[P]ray for a greater respect for human life in our country and in particular for the overturning of misguided interpretations of our Constitution which allow abortion and even partial birth abortion. – Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, Bishop of Camden, October 6, 2000
Catholic citizens especially should affirm a personal stance that respects and sustains human life and makes it unmistakably clear to all candidates and officials that this will be a determining factor in their choice of candidates. – Bishop James T. McHugh, Bishop of Rockville Centre, NY (“Voting the Gospel of Life,” Columbia Magazine, September 2000).
We must support candidates who uphold the Gospel of Life…This presidential election and the related Senate elections are most crucial because the next president will probably appoint up to three justices to the Supreme Court. – Bishop Paul S. Loverde, Bishop of Arlington, August 5, 2000

Abortion is the #1 issue. Appointment of Supreme Court justices is of paramount importance in voting for presidential candidates.
Unfortunately Bishop Loverde missed his estimate by one…so far. Had he been right in his guesstimate, we would see Roe overturned. It is possible to vote for the “lesser evil” morally. One of three presidential candidates favors severely limiting abortion. Two favor abortion on demand and even opposed the ban on partial birth abortions; something five out of nine Republican appointees voted to ban. The Democrat appointees all voted to keep partial birth abortion legal.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Pope John Paul II

"Evangelium Vitae 1995 JPII

This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people–even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the “right” ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the “common home” where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: “How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?”[16] When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.
To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: “Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin” (Jn 8:34). "

Abortion is the #1 most important political issue.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Professor John Finnis. Preeminent Catholic philosopher.

Finnis is one of the most prominent living legal philosophers. His work, Natural Law and Natural Rights, is regarded as one of the definitive works of natural law philosophy,[2] drawing both on Oxonian and Catholic Thomistic philosophical traditions to challenge the dominant Anglo-positivist approach to legal philosophy taken by John Austin and H.L.A. Hart.

Professor John Finnis has explained the application of these principles to abortion law reform as follows:
The always illicit vote is [the vote] for a law as permitting, precisely to permit, abortion. This is always illicit, even if one is personally opposed to abortion and is voting for it only to keep one’s seat and prevent euthanasia or genocide laws, or only to equalise the position of the poor and the rich. The kind of vote which [EV] judges can be licit has as its object not to permit abortions now illegal but rather to prohibit abortions now legal or imminently likely otherwise to become legal. For example: the existing law or the threatened alternative bill says abortion is lawful up to 24 weeks, and the law the Catholic legislator is voting for says abortion is lawful up to 16 weeks. Even though it is a vote for a law which does permit abortion, it is chosen by this legislator as a vote for a law which restricts abortion. That this restrictive law I am voting for also permits abortion is only a side-effect—when we consider the act of voting in the perspective of the acting person—even though the side-effect of permission is as immediate as the object of restriction."

It is morally permissible to vote for a candidate whose objective is to restrict abortion from its present legal status to a lesser one, particularly when running against candidates who would expand or retain greater abortion rights. One presidential candidate has, in the past, spoken out against abortion on demand and presently says he favors limiting it. Furthermore, he wants to return it to the states, some of which would undoubtedly ban it altogether. The two Democrat candidates want to keep abortion on demand as the “Law of the land” upon which the people cannot vote.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Catholic Church has, for centuries, recognized the “Principle of Double Effect”. If one (you, the voter in this case) does something that is intended to achieve a good effect, ( Overturning abortion on demand, favored by both Democrat candidates.) it may be done morally even if it presents a danger or even a certainty of a bad effect or of leaving a bad effect in place (leaving in place abortion only in case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Seemingly the position of the Repub candidate). The principle is stated thus:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:
“1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.” Banning abortion on demand,
"2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. e.g., leaving in place permissibility for rape, incest or to save the life of the mother…seemingly the Repub candidate’s maximum permissive positionIf he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. Possible, but uncertainThe bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. ** Overturning Roe, if it left abortion in place only in the cases of rape, incest or life of the mother, the worst possible outcome, would be simultaneous.In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect" ** Again, assuming the Repub candidate still favors leaving abortion legal in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother, there would be no “new” effect at all, since those are alread legal. The worst imaginable effect of his position would be ONLY to prohibit all other abortions.

 

[Ridgerunner]

In reviewing my last posts, I ask the reader to be careful to note that the portions in quotation marks are the statements of the sources cited. Those not so marked are my additional statements. In the very last one, my additions are bolded, but the rest are from the original.

I also ask the reader, again, to google “Carhart” and “abortion on demand” together. That will get you to the Carhart decision, which has been much discussed. Please read it yourself. I think you will find:

1. That neither Justices Roberts nor Alito are quoted at all in the case, despite allegations on here that they support the decisions in Roe or Casey. The opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Also, please note the dissenting opinion by Democrat appointee Ginsberg. She found banning partial birth abortion “alarming”. Also, please note that all five of the justices who voted to ban partial birth abortion were Republican appointees. Also please note that no one on here has EVER quoted Roberts or Alito (both Bush appointees, both Catholic) as saying they support abortion on demand. Not in any cases. Not in any statements, anytime, anywhere. They can be found in the Senate Confirmation hearings saying Roe and Casey are “precedent”. Of course they are. All old cases that are not overruled are “precedent”. Please note as well that prior to Roe, no President ever had occasion to inquire into a potential appointee to the Court about his/her position on abortion. It had never come up before. Please also note that since Roe, NO DEMOCRAT APPOINTEE TO THE COURT HAS EVER VOTED TO LIMIT ABORTION. Five Republican appointees have. Also, since SoCalRC accuses me of being a Republican, which I’m not and never have been, and have said over and over again that I’m a “Zell Miller Democrat”, which I have said over and over again. But like Zell Miller, I can’t vote for these Democrat abortion candidates (which is all of the Democrat presidential candidates and nearly all congressional candidates), and I won’t. Zell Miller got pretty roughly handled by pro-abortion democrats too, and called all sorts of things, just like SoCalRC calls me. If Zell lived with it, so can I. I am totally beyond caring what Democrat operatives think of me.

Finally, since every last one of the things I have just posted have been posted before, but totally ignored by those posting here who want you to vote for pro-abortion candidates or not vote at all (you can be sure pro-abortion voters WILL vote) it makes no sense to keep posting them over and over again. So, after this last time, I won’t (unless, of course, I change my mind). Good night.

 

[MIZER]

SoCalRC,

You wrote:

Even if you argue that my 3rd party votes are “wasted”, my interpretation of “no compromise” is expressly listed as licit by the US Bishops and is in literal compliance with the guidance from Rome.

What if your 3rd party vote, in reality, serves to elect the more agregious candidate? Don’t you have a problem then? I don’t think a third party vote is wasted but rather in the tight races we’ve seen, it can actually help one of the main candidates get elected because, in reality it’s like not voting at all. If the more agregious candidate gets elected because the pro-lifers either stay home or vote third party, then aren’t we culpable for not looking at the situation realistically and doing what we can to make sure the lesser of the two evils prevails?

 

[vern_humphrey]

But is promoting ‘compromise’ really educating anyone? Seriously, look at the numbers you cite. Over half favor very limited legal restriction, 2/3 want compromise.

Political entities exist to keep obtain and retain political power. You do not do that in a true democracy if you push the majority, let alone a super majority against its will. So using your reasoning, any political solution aimed at ‘chipping away’ is doomed to fail when it comes to significant progress. This would seem to match tangible results to date.

If you want real change, you have to change the will of the people. In that light, is the best way to convince people that some issues should be beyond compromise really compromising on those very issues?

That’s not a realistic analysis – and you include the old canard about those voting for an imperfect candidate are somehow doing something “intrinically evil.”