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

[SoCalRC]

Gross overstatement…again.

It depends, is torture murder based on who a person’s father is not intrinsically evil in your understanding of the faith?

A ‘little’ murder is like being a ‘little’ pregnant. EVANGELIUM VITAE (#58) expresses that clearly. It only becomes an ‘overstatement’ if one is interested, not only is proprortionate reasons, but in closer complicency with a grave moral disorder to promote a political outcome.

You really need to decide what your ultimate priorities are. Is the standard ‘results’? Let’s look at results. Is the standard Catholic morality? Let’s look there. But if the conclussion is fixed and the goal posts are just moved to fit, don’t pretend that faith is in the driver’s seat.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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?

How low are you setting the bar?

After all, if we follow your advice and only vote for perfect candidates, we don’t vote at all.

But maybe that’s what you want – to suppress the pro-life vote.

 

[SoCalRC]

How low are you setting the bar?

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

After all, if we follow your advice and only vote for perfect candidates, we don’t vote at all.

Again, the only one asking for perfection is you. I think it is reasonable to expect a Roman Catholic Priest not to molest children. And just as reasonable to expect a US public official not to kill them. I’m sorry that bar is too high for your tastes.

But maybe that’s what you want – to suppress the pro-life vote.

Only one of us has declared the other’s position inarguably ilicit. I have noted that proportionate reasons and limiting the harm both require acknowledgement and seperation from the evil being compromised on, yet I have not declared your position to be “pro abortion”.

However, despite my position being in literal sync with both the Doctrinal Note from Rome and an option suggested by the USCCB for the situation at hand, you insist on declaring my position to be not only “pro abortion”, but pursued for evil reasons.

This would seem to suggest that you, not I, are the one with a non Catholic objective in mind.

 

[mapleoak]

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.

If this were true, then what is the point of voting anyway? Does this mean pro-choice people outnumber pro-life people?

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 don’t understand why anyone would think we need to have a perfect candidate either. We only need a candidate who doesn’t believe it is okay to kill innocent people. A candidate who would have supported killing one of my neighbors who was conceived as a result of rape is disqualified in my book. I never murdered anyone, but can assure anyone am far from perfect. To not support killing ones own citizens in a country one is expected to lead is by no means an unreasonable request.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

That is correct – which is why all this nonsense about accusing people of “compromise” and “supporting intrinsic evil” is designed to hurt the pro-life cause.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If this were true, then what is the point of voting anyway? Does this mean pro-choice people outnumber pro-life people?

What was the point of landing on Omaha Beach? The war couldn’t be won just by stepping ashore, and eveyone knew it.

The point was to hammer-hammer-hammer the enemy. To make gains wherever we could, and finaly overwhelm him.

We couldn’t do that by saying, “Hey, Jamaca is an easier target. better beaches. Let’s invade Jamaca.”

 

[rlg94086]

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.)

No offense SoCalRC, but your complaints about the GOP are really tiresome. I agree, not enough has been accomplished. What is your point? That the GOP isn’t perfect? Wow…I am shocked.

Again, you provide no evidence whatsoever of a better way to go right now…only a way that helps Democrats get elected instead. Now, I’m sure you are not going to expect Pro-Life issues to be advanced better under Democrats are you?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Abortion on demand is the law of this land. It cannot be repealed by legislatures because it was declared a “Constitutional right” by the Supreme Court. It can only be repealed by the Supreme Court itself.

The only Court limitation ever put on it was in the Carhart decision, where a ban on partial birth abortion was held legal by the Court. Five Republican appointed justices voted in favor of the ban on partial birth abortion. All Democrat appointees voted in favor of partial birth abortion. Two of the justices who upheld the ban on partial birth abortion were appointed by George W. Bush. One was appointed by Reagan. Two were appointed by George H.W. Bush. All five who voted in favor of the ban are Catholic. All five were appointed by Republican presidents. One has demonstrated that he cannot always be counted on to vote prolife.

That’s why abortion supporters are so desperate to ensure that a president who will absolutely appoint pro-abortion judges is elected. One more prolife judge, and the reign of abortion is over. Everybody knows that. Even Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League know it. They say so themselves. They say the Repub candidate for President is a serious threat to abortion “rights”. They both support the Democrat candidates.

The Democrat presidential candidates both promise they will appoint judges to the Supreme Court who favor abortion on demand. The Repub candidate, at most, favors allowing abortion only in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother…situations that are already legal, but also quite rare. His position would limit abortion almost to the vanishing point. His position is also to return the question to the state legislatures where voters could decide. Many states would ban abortion if that happened…not perfect, but a lot better than what we have now. The Democrats’ position is to keep it just the way it is…abortion on demand, without any states or the national government having the right to vote on it. Both Democrats favor partial birth abortion as well.

So, when it comes to abortion, the choice is clear.

It is moral for Catholics to vote for candidates who will likely greatly reduce the evil, even if the candidate will or may not reduce 100% of the evil. It is immoral for Catholics to vote for candidates who affirmativelyl support the evil and have shown that they would even expand it if they could.

But again. Don’t take my word for it. Please refer to posts # 612 and 613. They couldn’t be more clear.

 

[rlg94086]

It depends, is torture murder based on who a person’s father is not intrinsically evil in your understanding of the faith?

A ‘little’ murder is like being a ‘little’ pregnant. EVANGELIUM VITAE (#58) expresses that clearly. It only becomes an ‘overstatement’ if one is interested, not only is proprortionate reasons, but in closer complicency with a grave moral disorder to promote a political outcome.

You really need to decide what your ultimate priorities are. Is the standard ‘results’? Let’s look at results. Is the standard Catholic morality? Let’s look there. But if the conclussion is fixed and the goal posts are just moved to fit, don’t pretend that faith is in the driver’s seat.

No…it does not. You said “***strongly ***pro-abortion.” That is more than just saying, as you have before, that anyone who allows any abortion under any circumstance is “pro-abortion.” The candidate in question is not “strongly” pro-abortion. Certainly, you do understand that someone who is against abortion with the exceptions of rape and incest is not “strongly” pro-abortion. That is a gross overstatement, as I said - especially in a world that allows abortion on demand in almost all cases.

I know what my ultimate priorities are. They match yours when it comes to our Catholic morality. Don’t start down the road again of indirectly accusing others of not following the Church because their prudential judgment on voting differs from yours.

 

[SoCalRC]

That is correct – which is why all this nonsense about accusing people of “compromise” and “supporting intrinsic evil” is designed to hurt the pro-life cause.

So Rome and the USCCB are out to “hurt the pro-life cause”?

That is, after all, where all the “nonsense” about needing to distance oneself from intrinsic evil when compelled to politically support it.

The point was to hammer-hammer-hammer the enemy. To make gains wherever we could, and finaly overwhelm him.

You need to try to come up with more logical military parallels, or at least ones you are willing to stand by. The purpose of Omaha Beach was to establish a beachhead between Port-en-Bessin and the Vire River thus creating a unified invasion front.

Virtually nothing went as planned at Omaha, but that does not mean that it was not intricately planned beforehand. Quite the opposite, it was extensively planned, right down to partial success options (ex. there are volumes of documents and discussions on why the battle tested 1st Infantry Div. was assigned the east and the untested 29th assigned the west).

When the core of the plan, namely strategic clearing of the beach, collapsed a new plan of small strategic penetrations was quickly devised and implemented. That is, sticking to a failing plan until absolute ruin was not considered. This was common in WW-II.

Because WW-II was waged on two major fronts, targets were almost inevitably always highly strategic and selected carefully. Tactics in virtually every aspect of warfare were also open to revision, based upon actual outcomes. This is the origins of an military axiom you, yourself, have quoted. “If it works, it isn’t stupid. If it doesn’t…”

You recite this, but your own methodology seems to be quite different. Something along the lines of ‘Rather it works or not, the plan is right and you’re stupid…’

 

[Des]

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?

Good post SoCalRC. I’d wonder just how quick people would change their position if such a Candidate said “All infants can be thrown in the garbage before they reach the age of reason”.

Imagine the out cry. You wouldn’t have many going for such a person and back up their position by a weak argument saying ‘but nobody is perfect’. Yes that is weak.

I’m not an American but I’d cut my own two hands off before I’d vote any of the candidates there since they make it clear they are pro abortion. I’ve always voted my conscience and here in Canada, it’s the smaller Christan parties that get my vote since they are against abortion period. If there is one party out there that is against, that is what I’ll always go for. If every party is for abortion, then I’d have no choice but to go with the one with the lesser evil in the long run.

 

[SoCalRC]

No offense SoCalRC, but your complaints about the GOP are really tiresome. I agree, not enough has been accomplished. What is your point? That the GOP isn’t perfect? Wow…I am shocked.

The point is that things that the Church declares are “non negotiable” are, to me, non negotiable. What is more important to you, defending those principles, or defending the GOP? Based on your comment of “tiresome”, I can hazard a guess, but it is ultimately only for you to know.

Again, you provide no evidence whatsoever of a better way to go right now…only a way that helps Democrats get elected instead. Now, I’m sure you are not going to expect Pro-Life issues to be advanced better under Democrats are you?

I do not expect abortion to get advanced under Democrats (the GOP at least gives lip service and it hasn’t done anything measurable), but that party is reasonably aligned with the Church on a number of pro-life issues, as well as other issues that the Church has declared to be “non negotiable”. That isn’t enough for me to vote for them in good conscience, but it is certainly not an obvious step in the wrong moral direction from losing to Republicans either.

Again, it comes down to your priorities. Are you interested in promoting Catholicism or villifying your political opponents?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Good post SoCalRC. I’d wonder just how quick people would change their position if such a Candidate said “All infants can be thrown in the garbage before they reach the age of reason”.

Imagine the out cry. You wouldn’t have many going for such a person and back up their position by a weak argument saying ‘but nobody is perfect’. Yes that is weak.

We wouldn’t vote for such a candidate, and that’s the point.

But the other point is, if one candidate will do something to reduce the number of abortions, and his opponent will increase them, we are bound to vote for the former.

I’m not an American but I’d cut my own two hands off before I’d vote any of the candidates there since they make it clear they are pro abortion. I’ve always voted my conscience and here in Canada, it’s the smaller Christan parties that get my vote since they are against abortion period. If there is one party out there that is against, that is what I’ll always go for. If every party is for abortion, then I’d have no choice but to go with the one with the lesser evil in the long run.

Your government is a parliamentary system. Ours has separation of powers. You understand the difference and the significance?

In your system, coalition governments are possible. In our system, they are not. Therefore in your system, smaller parties can have an impact all our of proportion to their numbers. That is not the case in our system.

 

[SoCalRC]

I’m not an American but I’d cut my own two hands off before I’d vote any of the candidates there since they make it clear they are pro abortion.

Your outside view of the US is common. I first started really questioning the whole ‘lesser of two evils’ strategy when a Swiss Catholic was utterly baffled by our US political definitions of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ and unabashedly told me so.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Again, it comes down to your priorities. Are you interested in promoting Catholicism or villifying your political opponents?

What, did he smear someone with a charge of incest? Did he accuse someone of being Protestant? Did he accuse someone of making an compromise with “intrinsic evil?”

If he did, I didn’t see it.

 

[SoCalRC]

In your system, coalition governments are possible. In our system, they are not. Therefore in your system, smaller parties can have an impact all our of proportion to their numbers. That is not the case in our system.

Actually, in our system it is possible for minorities to have a dissproportionate impact for their numbers. Look at the US Senate. Or, an extreme case, the US presidency.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The following is from the USCCB’s document “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.

Abortion is the #1 evil. A vote for pro-abortion candidates is a vote for that evil. As the bishops said, all other positions held by such candidates must remain suspect.

 

[rlg94086]

The point is that things that the Church declares are “non negotiable” are, to me, non negotiable. What is more important to you, defending those principles, or defending the GOP? Based on your comment of “tiresome”, I can hazard a guess, but it is ultimately only for you to know.

You are guessing wrong. I was a Democrat before. I support the GOP primarily because of Life issue, but also because the party lines up with my views on economics, property rights, etc. I’m not surprised that you would prefer to pigeon-hole anyone who votes for the GOP as defending the party over their faith. It fits your MO.

SoCalRC:

I do not expect abortion to get advanced under Democrats (the GOP at least gives lip service and it hasn’t done anything measurable), but that party is reasonably aligned with the Church on a number of pro-life issues, as well as other issues that the Church has declared to be “non negotiable”. That isn’t enough for me to vote for them in good conscience, but it is certainly not an obvious step in the wrong moral direction from losing to Republicans either.

Again, it comes down to your priorities. Are you interested in promoting Catholicism or villifying your political opponents?

Well then, since you felt free to “hazard a guess,” I guess I should hazard a guess on your real motives. You have no problem with throwing your vote to the Democrats, because you prefer them over the Republican Party. Rather than vote for the party that you know is stronger on the non-negotiables, you remove yourself from the fray and allow the party you really want to succeed and win the election.

It would be helpful if you were more honest about this, rather then trying to paint your viewpoint as morally superior. You are making a practical judgment, and sacrificing some of the non-negotiables to do it.

 

[SoCalRC]

What, did he smear someone with a charge of incest? Did he accuse someone of being Protestant? Did he accuse someone of making an compromise with “intrinsic evil?”

If he did, I didn’t see it.

He indicated that, in his world view, Democrat is inherently the antithesis of pro-life. My point was that does not hold up if we use the Catholic definition of “right to life” or look at the Catholic definition of “fundemental and inalienable ethical demands”.

Again, a person has to choose - are you interested in the Church’s definition of values, or Rush L.'s?

It is sort of a no-brainer. The whole concept of ‘my political party good, people on the other side are evil and hate all things good’ is distinctly non-Christian. It might be good for motivating political bases with feelings of moral superiority, but it is at odds with our regular prayer for unity and peace.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, in our system it is possible for minorities to have a dissproportionate impact for their numbers. Look at the US Senate. Or, an extreme case, the US presidency.

I’m looking – but there’s nothing to see.

There are from time to time as many as two Third Party members in the House and Senate. The only time a Third Party candidate won the White House, it killed off the major party from which the Third Party sprang and there was a Civil War.

Now it is possible to for a Third Party to syphon off votes from a similar-minded Major party – is that what you want? Are you a stalking horse for the pro-abortion party?