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

[MIZER]

SoCalRC,

You absolutely correct with this:

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 is the phillosophy behind the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. We seek to make abortion impossible to ignore. Go to www.abortionno.org and you will see what I mean.

 

[vern_humphrey]

SoCalRC,

You absolutely correct with this:

That is the phillosophy behind the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. We seek to make abortion impossible to ignore. Go to www.abortionno.org and you will see what I mean.

But do you do it by refusing to vote for any candidate who isn’t absolutely perfect?

That policy would leave you unable to vote for anyone, since no one is perfect.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

SoCalRC,

You wrote:

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?

I agree.
And surely the instructions from the bishops should be seen as: If you have no immediate prospect of achieving your primary aim, then you should at least aim to reduce the evil.

 

[mapleoak]

What if your 3rd party vote, in reality, serves to elect the more agregious candidate?

It doesn’t help the more agregious candidate unless one votes for the agregious candidate. Likewise It helps the less-agregeious candidate only if one votes for him.

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.

Logically, a non-vote or a third party vote doesn’t favor any candidate that is non-voted for.

If the more agregious candidate gets elected because the pro-lifers either stay home or vote third party…

Again the assumption (which is a big assumption) is that the third party voters and non-voters would be willing to compromise and support a candidate who supports killing a certain segment of the population. When I refuse to vote for either of the major party candidates, it is because I disagree with their support of killing that population segment. Therefore, my vote would not default to either one had I decided not to vote third party. I simply don’t support either one period.

 

[MIZER]

mapleoak,

I think you’re wrong about this.

It doesn’t help the more agregious candidate unless one votes for the agregious candidate. Likewise It helps the less-agregeious candidate only if one votes for him.

A third party candidate splits the vote and thus reduces the chances of the main candidate, for whatever ideology the third candidate is most closely associated. So for example, if the the third candidate is conservative then the conservative vote would be split and the main conservative candidate has a harder time getting enough votes to beat the liberal candidate. If the liberal candidate wins as a result, then we can say the more aggregious candidate won as a result of the conservative voters being split which is directly related to the fact that some people voted for the third party as a way of protesting the imperfections found in the main conservative candidate.

 

[mapleoak]

A third party candidate splits the vote and thus reduces the chances of the main candidate, for whatever ideology the third candidate is most closely associated. So for example, if the the third candidate is conservative then the conservative vote would be split and the main conservative candidate has a harder time getting enough votes to beat the liberal candidate.

Again you are assuming that the person who voted third party would be willing to settle for a candidate who supports limited intrinsic evil as a default option. This type of voter who ‘would have’ voted for a less evil position instead votes third party and thereby reduces the vote count that ‘would have been’ given to the candidate who supports limited intrinsic evil. For the voters who would not have settled for the limited intrinsic evil candidate, their voting third party does not affect either the intrinsic or the limited intrinsic evil supporting candidate.

 

[MIZER]

mapleoak states:

Again you are assuming that the person who voted third party would be willing to settle for a candidate who supports limited intrinsic evil as a default option.

Agreed, I see your point but you are making the same assumption in the reverse. So the question becomes, are we not morally obligated to participate? I never considered sitting out an option and I was assuming, wrongly apparently, that the discussion centered on morally correct behavior when faced with two candidates, niether of whom share our ideology on abortion.

No matter how you slice it, we are in a quandry. To sit out and not exercise our right to vote is a cop-out and if voting third party is the equivalent of sitting out then it’s a cop-out as well.

 

[vz71]

No matter how you slice it, we are in a quandry. To sit out and not exercise our right to vote is a cop-out and if voting third party is the equivalent of sitting out then it’s a cop-out as well.

Not really.
Somewhere along the way, one side or the other will show themselves to benefit the pro-life cause more then the other.

Or if you want to be pessimistic, one side will cause the least harm.

 

[marietta]

YADA:

Women who seek abortions are counselled individually. The boyfriends/husbands/mothers/etc. may try to influence the choice, but the woman is ultimately responsible for the choice she makes. This is why these women receive counselling alone, before the procedure, so the counsellor might determine whether she is being coerced or not. Many have misgivings. A good number change their minds. Some leave the clinic with their boyfriends or husbands or mothers, only to return later in the day or week unaccompanied. Minors receive counselling with their parent(s) but are additionally interviewed alone. The decision is the woman’s decision.

Every Catholic woman who has given birth has done so by choice. That’s what pro-choice is. Some women, even some Catholic women, choose not to carry to term for whatever reason. That, too, is what pro-choice is.

It’s also pro-choice to refuse to have sex with one’s husband, whether or not the woman is ovulating. If a woman feels unable to care for (another) child, she does have options.

marietta

 

[SoCalRC]

What if your 3rd party vote, in reality, serves to elect the more agregious candidate? …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?

I have some empathy for the concept. The Church, in a Doctrinal Note, has identified 9 broad moral areas which are non negotiable. This was reaffirmed by Pope Benedict XVI when he referred to the Doctrinal Note in a Post-synodal apostolic exhortation and, again, called the values “non negotiable” in the context of voting.

Using that list, and some of the specific applications noted by the USCCB in its paper on the development of a proper conscience in “Faithful Citizenship”, our current political leadership is quite horrific. Some of these areas reasonate with me personally. For example, a government policy of torture. This is an extraordinary departure from American heritage. Washington’s troops, as well as perceived civilian sympathizers, had already been subjected to horrific attrocities when General Washington ordered his troops specifically not to answer in kind at Trenton and Princeton in 1776

Similiarly, the first, and greatest, Republican president gave an order in 1863, in the middle of the Civil War, prohibiting torture and official cruelty. I thought that it was a sad commentary on our current culture of death and dehumanization when a GOP presidential hopeful explained that he objected to torture because of his own experiences being tortured was booed in a presidential debate. How odd that his message of finding strength to resist toture in the knowledge that his country stood for something different fell on deaf ears. I found it sadder still that, presumably for the purpose of politics, he flip flopped on torture and supported some of the current administration’s desired legislation he had previously supported.

But in the area of abortion, I find the argument utterly uncompelling. On one side you have candidates who state they would like to work towards reducing abortions, but do not feel it is appropriate for the government to try to use prohibition on something on which the American people hold a wide variety of beliefs and no broad concensus.

On the other side, you have politicians who held the identical view on legalization for most of their adult lives, then switched just in time for a national election. And, who still profess to want abortion to be legal for some specific cases.

I think anyone with any real compassion and honesty can have some empathy for the first position, if it is honestly held. There are some instances when our absolute ban on abortion is a difficult teaching. For example, in specific instances of maternal health. Who can’t feel empathy for a young mother, dying with the doomed twins inside her? Even Vern, who proudly professes to have a moral advantage because of his pro-life positions, will adamently insist that the termination of an ectopic pregnancy is inarguably licit, regardless of what the Church had to say about the matter in 1902, 1951, and in the directives to health care providers we use today.

But the position of legalized abortion is still intrinsically evil. Abortion is never licit. But is the alternative really any different? The position remains intrinsically evil and, troubling to me, appears to be an argument of convenience in a personal quest for power. How is the sort of person who cares so little about abortion that they will flip flop on their long held beliefs for political expediency a ‘lesser’ evil? It seems to me that the choice becomes ‘intrinsic evil’ vs. ‘dishonest intrinsic evil’.

So, in the end, regardless of any empathy I feel, I choose to stand with God. That is, I choose to vote my faith. Political expediency, the concept of “God helps those who help themselves” is not from the Bible (it is a Benjamin Franklin quote actually). The Bible actually states the opposite. For example, in Proverbs it notes that the man who trusts in himself instead of God is a fool. If others cannot join in that leap of faith, fine. I’d suggest only that they hold themselves accountable for results in return for their pragmatism and that they show tolerance for others who, like themselves, compromise their faith in their voting.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not really.
Somewhere along the way, **one side or the other **will show themselves to benefit the pro-life cause more then the other.

Or if you want to be pessimistic, one side will cause the least harm.

Note what I bolded – one side or the other. If all pro-lifers vote third party because neither of the other parties have a perfect candidate, then the pro-abortion side always wins.

And for the life of me, I can’t understand – if we cannot vote for anyone but a perfect candidate – how we can vote for a Third Party candidate. Do all third party candidates have halos and display the stigmata?

 

[st_lucy]

YADA:

Women who seek abortions are counselled individually. The boyfriends/husbands/mothers/etc. may try to influence the choice, but the woman is ultimately responsible for the choice she makes. This is why these women receive counselling alone, before the procedure, so the counsellor might determine whether she is being coerced or not. Many have misgivings. A good number change their minds. Some leave the clinic with their boyfriends or husbands or mothers, only to return later in the day or week unaccompanied. Minors receive counselling with their parent(s) but are additionally interviewed alone. The decision is the woman’s decision.
I am unsure how well aware you are that most if not all women who walk into PP are not counseled and they are even asked to lie about the conception of their child.

Every Catholic woman who has given birth has done so by choice. That’s what pro-choice is. Some women, even some Catholic women, choose not to carry to term for whatever reason. That, too, is what pro-choice is.

I am sorry but pro-choice gives absolutely no choice for the poor child who is being pulled apart limb by limb or having a hole drilled into his head so that the dr can suck out his brains.

It’s also pro-choice to refuse to have sex with one’s husband, whether or not the woman is ovulating. If a woman feels unable to care for (another) child, she does have options.

marietta

 

[SoCalRC]

You have yet to give a compelling argument of how your approach will actually accomplish anything.

You are saying that my 0 is not any bigger than you 0 (with our zeros representing the actual difference in abortions caused by our respective votes). The difference is that I put my faith in God, not in the political process. You can disagree, and argue that such faith has no place in “reality”. But I think of things like Daniel 3:

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered King Nebuchadnezzar, "There is no need for us to defend ourselves before you in this matter.

If our God, whom we serve, can save us from the white-hot furnace and from your hands, O king, may he save us!

But even if he will not, know, O king, that we will not serve your god or worship the golden statue which you set up."

Nebuchadnezzar’s face became livid with utter rage against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. He ordered the furnace to be heated seven times more than usual

and had some of the strongest men in his army bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and cast them into the white-hot furnace.

In this case, the three men were saved, but for me the true test of faith can be seen in a few words in the middle:

"But even if he will not…"

If we only follow God when we like the odds, how deep is our faith?

I quote the Catechism a lot. I also read it a lot. But it is a big, thick book. The local Catechism includes pictures and real life examples, but it too, is a pretty big book. The Church, in its wisdom, created a Compendium to the universal Catechism. This is a much shorter book, in a simple question and answer format. But if even it is too daunting, there is a collection of basic formulas about Catholic doctrine in the back. The first is essentially from the Gospel of Luke:

Love God with all your heart
Love your neighbor as yourself

Abortion is part of the second. If one obsesses about abortion at the expense of other pro life teachings we could argue if the definition of “neighbor” is too narrow. But that is a detail, what about the first part? If you don’t trust God, or His power, where is the love?

I think a lot depends on how one interprets Matt 27:46:

And about three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Was it doubt and pain? Or something else? I know what I think, I pray Psalm 22 every Good Friday after the service.

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.

That is a bit of a contradiction. If you vote for a major party you will be participating in putting a strongly pro-abortion candidate in the White House. Every presidential candidate running has publicly supported upholding Roe within the last two election cycles and every candidate has expressed misgivings about overturning Roe as recently as 2007. All publicly state they believe in some level of legalized abortion.

But it is also probably a reflection of our public discourse. Look at the simplistic terms. One party ‘good’ one ‘bad’. I do find some of the current adminstration’s actions extremely vile and evil. Rather it is torture, or veterens suffering in squalor. But ultimately I have to choose between my faith and politics. I choose my faith. If you cannot respect that, so be it. At least you attempt honest dialog.

Look at Vern, whose reponse is seemingly from Pee-Wee Herman’s playbook (“I know you are, but what am I…”), or Ridgerunner, who is again attacking a straw man (apparantly the part where I stated pro-abortion candidate support could be licit slipped by him, as did the parts of his quotes that support my position). If I cannot get someone to even take a stand on their candidate’s position with regards to Catholic teaching, how can an honest theological discussion occur?

Similiarly, if one is only interested in battling arguments one falsely puts in someone’s mouth, how can discussion of any nature occur?

 

[SoCalRC]

Note what I bolded – one side or the other. If all pro-lifers vote third party because neither of the other parties have a perfect candidate, then the pro-abortion side always wins.

And for the life of me, I can’t understand – if we cannot vote for anyone but a perfect candidate – how we can vote for a Third Party candidate. Do all third party candidates have halos and display the stigmata?

You have it backwards. If Catholics continue to vote for intrinsically evil positions on abortion, legitimate pro life always loses.

Your sneer about “perfect” candidates is a bit of a joke. We’re not talking about electing Christ. We are talking about finding one candidate who takes a just and moral stand on the slaughter of innocent children. Just how low are you willing to set the bar and still pretend that you are voting your faith, not your politics?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Again you are assuming that the person who voted third party would be willing to settle for a candidate who supports limited intrinsic evil as a default option. This type of voter who ‘would have’ voted for a less evil position instead votes third party and thereby reduces the vote count that ‘would have been’ given to the candidate who supports limited intrinsic evil. For the voters who would not have settled for the limited intrinsic evil candidate, their voting third party does not affect either the intrinsic or the limited intrinsic evil supporting candidate.

I don’t think this is correct. It is said, and widely believed that one candidate favors returning the issue of abortion to the state legislatures, thus allowing the voters to prohibit it if they wish, to permit it without limitation or permit it with limitation. The Roe decision stands in the way, as it has prevented any legislature, state or federal, from legislating on the subject. This candidate, it is said, favors allowing abortion only in the cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. Since those are already allowed by Roe, voting for this candidate would not be “for” abortion at all, but only “against” abortion on demand. Further, if, through this candidate’s appointment of Supreme Court Justices, Roe is overturned, the issue will be returned to the states. Therefore, voting for this candidate would, at worst, leave the law unchanged on a few items while changing it favorably in a very major respect.

It is a certitude that the other two presidential candidates favor keeping abortion out of the hands of the people through their legislatures, and keeping abortion on demand the law of the land. They would also favor removing the ban (which ban the Supreme Court allowed) on partial birth abortion. They have promised to appoint “pro-choice” judges to the Supreme Court, which would keep abortion on demand the “law of the land” for decades.

Those who want a “change” in the culture concerning abortion before any change in the abortion laws, should not insist on a nationwide change, any more than they should insist on a “worldwide” change. Some states would ban it right now. Mine would. Since the two pro-abortion candidates’ position is that the people should never be allowed to vote on the issue, either statewide or nationwide, a “change” in the culture would do no good if their appointees are put on the Supreme Court.

Only the Supreme Court can undo what the Supreme Court has done. Right now, there are four justices out of nine who clearly seem to be ready to overturn Roe. It would take one more. With one presidential candidate there is a strong possibility (nothing is ever certain) that he will appoint another prolife justice. With the other two, there is no possibility at all, and they have said so.

Voting for the candidate with the least harmful position is a perfectly licit moral choice, if there is a good result (elimination of abortion on demand, allowing people to vote on a state level, knowing some will prohibit it), even if not all evils are vanquished at the same time (rape, incest, life of the mother…actually the Church does not oppose the last one under some circumstances anyway). Please refer to the “updated” posts I posted just a few posts above. Please read them instead of paying attention to what I, or anyone else says. Those things have all been quoted before, but in a thread with 600+ posts, things tend to get lost. Supporting those who promise to support abortion on demand is a moral evil. Supporting one who appears likely to at least limit it is the moral choice.

So, it’s really very clear. I encourage all to read for themselves what the Church leaders have really said.

 

[rlg94086]

You are saying that my 0 is not any bigger than you 0 (with our zeros representing the actual difference in abortions caused by our respective votes). The difference is that I put my faith in God, not in the political process. You can disagree, and argue that such faith has no place in “reality”. But I think of things like Daniel 3:

In this case, the three men were saved, but for me the true test of faith can be seen in a few words in the middle:

"But even if he will not…"

If we only follow God when we like the odds, how deep is our faith?

I quote the Catechism a lot. I also read it a lot. But it is a big, thick book. The local Catechism includes pictures and real life examples, but it too, is a pretty big book. The Church, in its wisdom, created a Compendium to the universal Catechism. This is a much shorter book, in a simple question and answer format. But if even it is too daunting, there is a collection of basic formulas about Catholic doctrine in the back. The first is essentially from the Gospel of Luke:

Love God with all your heart
Love your neighbor as yourself

Abortion is part of the second. If one obsesses about abortion at the expense of other pro life teachings we could argue if the definition of “neighbor” is too narrow. But that is a detail, what about the first part? If you don’t trust God, or His power, where is the love?

I think a lot depends on how one interprets Matt 27:46:

Was it doubt and pain? Or something else? I know what I think, I pray Psalm 22 every Good Friday after the service.

Absolutely none of that proved your point…at all…other than to restate that you believe that God doesn’t care about results.

The Old Testament story you shared is important. It tells us not to do evil. If a president, or police officer, or anyone else in authority tells me and my wife that we must abort our child, then we should not do it. Thanks for clearing that up.

These guys didn’t have a choice between electing Nebuchadnezzar or electing a king who also worshipped false idols but wouldn’t have required them to worship false idols. If they did have that choice, and you were around you would counsel them to vote for some unknown guy which would help elect Nebuchadnezzar and cause great suffering for the Jews.

SoCalRC:

That is a bit of a contradiction. If you vote for a major party you will be participating in putting a strongly pro-abortion candidate in the White House. Every presidential candidate running has publicly supported upholding Roe within the last two election cycles and every candidate has expressed misgivings about overturning Roe as recently as 2007. All publicly state they believe in some level of legalized abortion.

Gross overstatement…again.

 

[MIZER]

Marrietta,

The slogan “pro-choice” doesn’t have anything to do with choice.

The word choice in the slogan does not mean choosing not to have an abortion, nor does it mean choosing not to have sex. It does not mean choosing adoption for one’s unborn child. It does not mean choosing to parent.

The word choice in the slogan means abortion.

Have you ever seen the bumper sticker that says simply, CHOICE? The word does not mean life for the unborn. It means abortion and as propaganda, it was designed to hide the truth about what abortion is. It puts a name on something that everyone can “get behind” and be for (pro) without having to mention what choice it is that everyone is for (pro). The truth is, the “choice” is an intrinsic evil. The truth is, the “choice” is an act of violence that kills a child. Put that behind the word “pro” and see if it still works for you.

For this reason I won’t use the slogan “pro-choice.” If you believe a woman should have a legal and/or moral right to have her unborn child killed, then what you are appropriately called, is pro-abort. That’s it.

 

[KathleenElsie]

There are no earthly solutions for these problems. So what each of us should do it to pray and follow what Holy Mother Church teaches.

 

[vz71]

Note what I bolded – one side or the other. If all pro-lifers vote third party because neither of the other parties have a perfect candidate, then the pro-abortion side always wins.

And for the life of me, I can’t understand – if we cannot vote for anyone but a perfect candidate – how we can vote for a Third Party candidate. Do all third party candidates have halos and display the stigmata?

I wasn’t addressing the issue of third party candidates.
I address one or the other because it almost always comes down to only two viable choices.

 

[SoCalRC]

Absolutely none of that proved your point…at all…other than to restate that you believe that God doesn’t care about results.

No, it is my belief that following God is what leads to results. Look at early Christians and Rome.

God is the one true source of power, not politicians. So, either vote the faith, or vote politically, but don’t pretend the two are synomyms.

It is especially peculiar that you bring up the issue of results. Voting GOP is what gave us Roe, and maintained it (look at the makeup of the court at each point in time).

In the real world, voting GOP over the last 25 years has done nothing to measurably stem abortion either. In fact, abortion rates fell faster under Clinton, perhaps the most reviled politician in GOP circles. So are you really interested in “results” or simply “lip service”?

The problem I have with going for lip service, particularly the kind that is seemingly an insult to my intelligence, is that it is a morally slippery slope. Once I no longer hold myself accountable for tangible results - that is, once I compromise my faith for no tangible good but plenty of measurable harm, it is too easy for faith to take the back seat to human nature (desire to win, loyalty to one’s ‘tribe’, etc.)