To All Liberal Catholics

[MillTownCath]

There is no moral equivalence between ones preferred method of providing Heath care and abortion.

I was not talking about abortion, thanks.

 

[kama3]

But the reality is that if abortion were illegal, women would start saying no to sex and not get pregnant and not “need” an abortion.

It’s called wishful thinking.

I live in a country where abortion is illegal. Guess what: women still get abortions. They have no problem to either (1) procure the needed service illegally, (2) do the procedure abroad or (3) (particularly early in the pregnancy) obtain and eat enough hormone pills to induce a miscarriage.

One thing this ban really accomplishes is that it prevents anyone from obtaining realistic statistics.

 

[nahaingil]

I grew up in a fairly conservative (voting wise) household. I still would consider myself morally conservative when it comes to sexual morality and life issues. However, I can barely stand either political party, and have a hard time voting at all. As far as church teaching I am an orthodox Catholic. I have been volunteering in the inner city for the last year and a half after graduating college. I have many friends doing similar things.

Quite frankly I find the liberal and conservative labels ridiculous. The reality is that in this country many ‘conservative’ Catholics are entirely ignorant of the church’s social teaching. I’ve quoted directly from encyclicals and gotten called a communist. If we want to not have government health care then we need to step in and fill in the gaps. It’s our job as Christians. It seems that many of us (liberal or conservative) just want a comfortable life and are satisfied with giving a little money here and there to different charities. I know that the Church is one of the largest charitable organizations in the world, and those who are doing something are doing a good job. But it’s not all of us, and what is being given does not cover what is needed. I agree that it is not the governments place to create equality and take care of the poor. It’s ours and we suck at it. It’s time for us to try to love and give everything to God, not use labels to excuse ourselves from caring.

 

[kama3]

The Catholic church puts emphasis on the following items when selecting a candidate for office:

1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Embronic Stem Cell Research
4. Gay Marriage

If these are to be the only criteria, then I have a good candidate for you:

1. He outlawed abortion
2. Under his rule, euthanasia was illegal
3. Stem cells have not been discovered yet
4. He did not support gay marriage

I’m talking about Joseph Stalin.

Now, Joseph Stalin implemented many other policies which were directly in violation of Roman Catholic moral teaching (or any moral teaching for the matter), however since he was demonstrably right on three of four non-negotiables, then he would make a good candidate by your criteria.

Arguably, his other policies were also defensible. He fought a war, but it was a so-called just war, because his country was attacked. He sent a lot of people to gulags, but that’s fine; they were already born which apparently means that the matter is in the negotiable realm, and besides, he had a justification, as he believed that these people were threat to the stability of the state. Plus, high death rate in gulags was more a result of harsh climate and living conditions, then an intended feature of the system. An indirect effect, we would say.

I hope you can now see the absurdity of your position.

 

[St_Francis]

It’s called wishful thinking.

I live in a country where abortion is illegal. Guess what: women still get abortions. They have no problem to either (1) procure the needed service illegally, (2) do the procedure abroad or (3) (particularly early in the pregnancy) obtain and eat enough hormone pills to induce a miscarriage.

One thing this ban really accomplishes is that it prevents anyone from obtaining realistic statistics.

Heaven forbid that we should be unable to obtain reliable statistics!

The reality is that in your country, altho abortion is illegal, it is apparently obtainable (given the lies of the original supporters of abortion in the US, I would not necessarily trust those statistics).

Before the US had the Pill, the sexual revolt, and legalized abortion, the rates of illegitimate births was very low. Most unmarried people refrained from sexual activity because the stakes were very high.

And that is pretty much the way things are all over the world throughout time. The more something is permitted, the more people do it.

 

[St_Francis]

If these are to be the only criteria, then I have a good candidate for you:

1. He outlawed abortion
2. Under his rule, euthanasia was illegal
3. Stem cells have not been discovered yet
4. He did not support gay marriage

I’m talking about Joseph Stalin.

Now, Joseph Stalin implemented many other policies which were directly in violation of Roman Catholic moral teaching (or any moral teaching for the matter), however since he was demonstrably right on three of four non-negotiables, then he would make a good candidate by your criteria.

Well, I would question your saying 3/4, but that aside, you’re looking at this very oddly. The reason that the life issues are non-negotiable is that they are intrinsically evil, that is, they are acts evil in and of themselves. The fact that someone is against them does not make that person *all right *to vote for, merely that being for them means the person is someone one should not vote for.

In the past US presidential election, there were those who did not want to vote for McCain because they felt that he was immoral on the issues of war. OK, that’s valid, but that did not make it all right for them to vote for Obama, who was against a bill that even the National Abortion Rights Action League was for. Now, *that *is pro-abortion. I don’t know that he ever talked about euthanasia, but he did advocate bringing the health care industry under federal control, and the Democrat support for ESCR is pretty well-known.

So, one couldn’t really vote for Obama either, even if one did agree with some of his policies. The fact that he is such a strong supporter of abortion puts him out of the loop, too.

So… what should one do when one cannot vote for either/any of the nominees? If one has only two definitely immoral choices, then one cannot vote.

A good Catholic could not have voted for Stalin, because despite his wonderful record wrt homosexuals and the lfe issues, he was very immoral in prudential areas. His outlawing of abortion–done not for moral reasons but pragmatic reasons–does not negate his other immoral stances which render him morally unacceptable despite his having legalized abortion.

I hope that this has clarified our position so you can see its reasonableness.

 

[asia53]

Before the US had the Pill, the sexual revolt, and legalized abortion, the rates of illegitimate births was very low. Most unmarried people refrained from sexual activity because the stakes were very high.

“Most unmarried people” is a stretch. There were other contraceptive methods before the Pill. The Pill became popular, because of the ease of taking them, and the 99% effective rate.

I’m of an “age”. I remember the pre-pill, pre-sexual revolt and pre-legalized abortion days. If young people were engaging in sexual activity, using contraceptives—they were not talking about it. Simply, it wasn’t talked about! Any statistics about pre-marital activity among the young unmarried people from that time are very questionable as to accuracy.

 

[Rock_Happy]

For the sake of informing others, I’d like to hear in this thread why you believe being a Liberal Catholic does not automatically put one in a bad standing with the Church and its social doctrine.

Allow me to ask the other question. When we name great leaders in history, they are all progressive or “liberal”, whether politician or pope or social advocate. Name one great conservative.

Names like Lincoln, Ghandi, Roosevelt, John Paul, Kennedy, King, come to mind. Among conservatives, names like Hoover, Nixon and Bush come to mind.

Reagan seems to be the gold plated conservative, but he is largely rejected by historians.

The lineage of Popes is the same. The progressives go down in a good light. The conservatives are at best forgotten.

 

[St_Francis]

“Most unmarried people” is a stretch. There were other contraceptive methods before the Pill. The Pill became popular, because of the ease of taking them, and the 99% effective rate.

I’m of an “age”. I remember the pre-pill, pre-sexual revolt and pre-legalized abortion days. If young people were engaging in sexual activity, using contraceptives—they were not talking about it. Simply, it wasn’t talked about! Any statistics about pre-marital activity among the young unmarried people from that time are very questionable as to accuracy.

The statistics I hae seen come from more sophisticated analysis than asking people what they are doing. I read about them in print some years ago but will try to find something online for you.

 

[kama3]

Heaven forbid that we should be unable to obtain reliable statistics!

Pray tell, how is an illegal abortion different from a legal abortion in the eyes of the Lord?

I believe that the state policy should aim to decrease the number of abortions. This is something we should agree on.

However, different policies can be implemented in order to decrease number of abortions. Some will be more effective, some will be less effective. Some will have opposite effect. Seemingly unrelated policies (i.e. related to education) can have effect. Obviously, determining the best course of action requires feedback information about policy effectiveness. Without feedback, the policymaking is blind. This is why reliable statistics is of great importance: it allows to guide the policy.

The problem with banning abortion is that the ban precludes obtaining reliable statistics. At the same time, it provides a convenient excuse for the politicians to limit other anti-abortion policies, because if the problem apparently does not exist, solutions are unnecessary, and these other policies cost money. Now, I believe this would be a sensible trade-off if the ban was effective…

…except that I am familiar with the case where demographic data clearly suggest that it is not. The evidence is very simple: you have two neighboring countries with a similar society and similar economic situation. Country A allows abortion on demand, country B does not. Country A (where abortion is legal) has about the same fertility rate than country B. The same contraceptives are available in both (in fact, in A they are cheaper). So unless people in B have less sex than people in A (no evidence thereof), it follows that the rate of conception is the same in A and B, so abortion-free B should have higher birth rate. It does not (in fact, it is slightly lower!). This indicates that the real abortion rate in A and B is the same.

Political response? Such problem does not exist. But wait, it gets better! One shining star recently advocated a law which (if passed) would land me in jail for writing the paragraph above, because to him pointing out obvious statistical discrepancy is promoting abortion.

So the Church view that abortion should be banned is counter productive:

1. It prevents enacting other anti-abortion policies, because such policies require abortion to be legal
2. At the same time, it prevents policy change, because that would require repealing the ban.

 

[kama3]

So… what should one do when one cannot vote for either/any of the nominees? If one has only two definitely immoral choices, then one cannot vote.

That’s very convenient, but leads to other problem: if you don’t vote, you enable evil to operate through your inaction.

I don’t agree with using abortion as primary voting criteria, because that can easily lead to voting for (a new version of) Joseph Stalin. Instead, I try to assess the total amount of good and evil the candidate is expected to do, all issues included, and vote according to that.

 

[St_Francis]

That’s very convenient, but leads to other problem: if you don’t vote, you enable evil to operate through your inaction.

Since I am not out fighting crime 24/7, by your logic, I am enabling evil to operate by my inaction.

As a Catholic, my task is clear: do good and avoid doing evil. If my choice is between a man who pushes abortion and a man who wants to get rid of abortion because he has killed off so many people in the country and wants to kill off more, there are no write-ins and no other candidates, then I cannot vote for either because voting for either one would be doing evil.

I don’t agree with using abortion as primary voting criteria, because that can easily lead to voting for (a new version of) Joseph Stalin. Instead, I try to assess the total amount of good and evil the candidate is expected to do, all issues included, and vote according to that.

From my point of view, a candidate who pushes abortion is ruled out; the evil he fosters is too great to be overcome by any supposed good he might accomplish. In the same way, a man wwho kills millions is also ruled out.

Both men are the same: no matter what good they do, it cannot wipe out that evil.

 

[estesbob]

That’s very convenient, but leads to other problem: if you don’t vote, you enable evil to operate through your inaction.

I don’t agree with using abortion as primary voting criteria, because that can easily lead to voting for (a new version of) Joseph Stalin. Instead, I try to assess the total amount of good and evil the candidate is expected to do, all issues included, and vote according to that.

The Church does not say we MUST vote for someone because they are pro-life. It merely says we can not vote for a pro-abortion canidate unless they are more pro-abortion than they are. As we see constantly people who use your philosphy to support evil-makng absurd rationalizationtha to vote for a canidate who support taxpayer abortion on demand becuase they think he will increase social spending and/or promises to raise taxes on the rich.

Heres how Archbishop Chaput describes such an attitude:

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

 

[St_Francis]

Pray tell, how is an illegal abortion different from a legal abortion in the eyes of the Lord?

I do not think they differ; I just think that those who enable abortion by making or keeping it legal are culpable.

I believe that the state policy should aim to decrease the number of abortions. This is something we should agree on.

I disagree. What you are doing when you frame you argument like that is to push the issue of legality under the table.*

I think that the government has a job: to protect the people jn its borders. I think that the police should work as hard on a crime committed against an illegal alien as against a legal resident. And I think that the police should work as hard on a crime committed against an unborn child as against a child who has been born. (As it turns out, each is somewhat more difficult to protect than the average resident, because they are hidden and crimes against them less discoverable, but when we discover someone is killing legal residents, or illegal residents, or unborn babies, all three sets of crimes should be investigated and prosecuted.)

However, different policies can be implemented in order to decrease number of abortions. Some will be more effective, some will be less effective. Some will have opposite effect. Seemingly unrelated policies (i.e. related to education) can have effect. Obviously, determining the best course of action requires feedback information about policy effectiveness. Without feedback, the policymaking is blind. This is why reliable statistics is of great importance: it allows to guide the policy.

Yes, because we have done such a great job managing the people wrt abortion in other nations!*

The problem with banning abortion is that the ban precludes obtaining reliable statistics. At the same time, it provides a convenient excuse for the politicians to limit other anti-abortion policies, because if the problem apparently does not exist, solutions are unnecessary, and these other policies cost money. Now, I believe this would be a sensible trade-off if the ban was effective…

…except that I am familiar with the case where demographic data clearly suggest that it is not. The evidence is very simple: you have two neighboring countries with a similar society and similar economic situation. Country A allows abortion on demand, country B does not. Country A (where abortion is legal) has about the same fertility rate than country B. The same contraceptives are available in both (in fact, in A they are cheaper). So unless people in B have less sex than people in A (no evidence thereof), it follows that the rate of conception is the same in A and B, so abortion-free B should have higher birth rate. It does not (in fact, it is slightly lower!). This indicates that the real abortion rate in A and B is the same.

Without other supporting informatiin, one cannot tell if this is the correct conclusion at all. Imaginary country B’s people may be refraining from having sexual relatiins when they are not ready to bave a baby; they may be more careful about using birth control; or they may be having illegal abortions at the same rate that imaginary country B’s people are hacing legal abortions. There’s no way to tell from the info you have given.

continued below…

 

[St_Francis]

…continued from above

Political response? Such problem does not exist. But wait, it gets better! One shining star recently advocated a law which (if passed) would land me in jail for writing the paragraph above, because to him pointing out obvious statistical discrepancy is promoting abortion.*

So the Church view that abortion should be banned is counter productive:

1. It prevents enacting other anti-abortion policies, because such policies require abortion to be legal
2. At the same time, it prevents policy change, because that would require repealing the ban.

I think that the example of the US is very clear: we repealed laws against abortion and abortion rates skyrocketed; despite increases in aid to poor people, despite increases in educatiin about birth control, despite increased access to birth control. IOW, despite all the people-managing policies the US put in, the rates went up.

So I would say that your conclusions are based on error.

 

[kama3]

I think that the example of the US is very clear: we repealed laws against abortion and abortion rates skyrocketed; …] despite all the people-managing policies the US put in, the rates went up.

1. How do you know what the real abortion rates were back when the abortion was illegal? IOW, how much of the growth is due to the fact, that abortions started being counted?
2. Your claim does not seem to be supported by the data: johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html , washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011107331.html

Rapid increase in U.S. abortion rates started in 1967. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. 1973 does not stand out in anyway when you look at the graph: it is in the middle of an upward trend. The US abortion rate peaked in 1980 and was steadily declining until 2005, when it stabilized. To day, it hovers around 2005 levels.

 

[kama3]

Without other supporting informatiin, one cannot tell if this is the correct conclusion at all.

Poland: banned abortion, 88% catholic,18,936$ GDP per capita, fertility rate 1.30 children per woman. Abortion rate uknown.
Slovakia: legal abortion, 69% catholic, 22,129$ GDP per capita, fertility rate 1.37 children per woman. Abortion rate ca. 11%.

Both countries are quite similar. You can look up any supporting data yourself.

I do not think they differ; I just think that those who enable abortion by making or keeping it legal are culpable.

I’d normally agree. But I have good reasons to suspect (suspect, I am not 100% sure) that the effectiveness of abortion ban in Poland is dubious. Not only demographic data does not show that it works, but it is also relatively easy to circumvent. In effect, the law does not prevent abortions; it hides them.

Now: why should I support a law which does not eliminate evil, but instead hides it from me?

 

[St_Francis]

…Now: why should I support a law which does not eliminate evil, but instead hides it from me?

I notice that most laws cause people to hide their actions, in fact, I can’t think of a single law that people do not hide their breaking of.

 

[St_Francis]

Poland: banned abortion, 88% catholic,18,936$ GDP per capita, fertility rate 1.30 children per woman. Abortion rate uknown.
Slovakia: legal abortion, 69% catholic, 22,129$ GDP per capita, fertility rate 1.37 children per woman. Abortion rate ca. 11%.

Both countries are quite similar. You can look up any supporting data yourself.

I’d normally agree. But I have good reasons to suspect (suspect, I am not 100% sure) that the effectiveness of abortion ban in Poland is dubious. Not only demographic data does not show that it works, but it is also relatively easy to circumvent. In effect, the law does not prevent abortions; it hides them.

Now: why should I support a law which does not eliminate evil, but instead hides it from me?

Let’s see now, you bring up Poland as an example of a nation which outlawed abortion and did not have a decrease in abortion to “refute” my assertion that if abortion were outlawed in the US, women would engage in less sexual activity when they did not want to have children.

And you support this “refutation” by… your unnamed suspicions.

This makes no sense to me.

You do not provide anything like a corresponding rise in quick visits to England, or a corresponding rise in abortion in the neighboring nations, nor a continued high rate of Sexually transmitted diseases (std’s) in Poland. You offer *nothing *to support your assertion that there are just as many Polish women getting abortions now as before the ban.

 

[St_Francis]

1. How do you know what the real abortion rates were back when the abortion was illegal? IOW, how much of the growth is due to the fact, that abortions started being counted?
2. Your claim does not seem to be supported by the data: johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html , washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011107331.html

Rapid increase in U.S. abortion rates started in 1967. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. 1973 does not stand out in anyway when you look at the graph: it is in the middle of an upward trend. The US abortion rate peaked in 1980 and was steadily declining until 2005, when it stabilized. To day, it hovers around 2005 levels.

No, you are correct about the graph. This is because abortion laws in the various states were liberalized starting in… 1967, the year the rates started their upward climb. Since the states liberalized their laws to allow abortion in case of physical or mental harm to the mother, women just went in and said they were being mentally harmed by the pregnancy, depressed, thinking of suicide, and they were then able to procure an abortion

.