Under Pope Francis, American Catholics see the ‘pro-life’ label as broader than abortion

[Mystical_Seeker]

The post was about political stances, lest there be any doubt of the priorities between the two.

I never really thought of it this way before, but just now I got the idea that the death penalty, applied in cases where according the guidelines of the Church was “probably” avoidable, may be even worse than abortion.

With abortion, there is not “pretense” that we are “punishing someone” by taking their life. Just acknowledging that for whatever reason, they are inconvenient to us so we’d rather not they become born and establish a life.

But with the death penalty, we have an established life that we have chosen to take because we have presumed to “judge” it in terms of its value. This is not a “life” that we can argue about whether it exists, or whether it is viable outside the womb. Those questions aren’t even there. It’s taking the life out of a living, breathing human being because we have chosen their life needs to end.

And we say we should not have abortions because we should not “play God” with others’ lives. Which is more “playing God” anyway? An abortion, or an execution? :newidea:

 

[Darryl1958]

It is duly noted then how American Catholics under PF are using the inclusive prolife label to prioritize abortion down the scale of prolife issues that are the most important to them.

 

[estesbob]

I never really thought of it this way before, but just now I got the idea that the death penalty, applied in cases where according the guidelines of the Church was “probably” avoidable, may be even worse than abortion.

With abortion, there is not “pretense” that we are “punishing someone” by taking their life. Just acknowledging that for whatever reason, they are inconvenient to us so we’d rather not they become born and establish a life.

But with the death penalty, we have an established life that we have chosen to take because we have presumed to “judge” it in terms of its value. This is not a “life” that we can argue about whether it exists, or whether it is viable outside the womb. Those questions aren’t even there. It’s taking the life out of a living, breathing human being because we have chosen their life needs to end.

And we say we should not have abortions because we should not “play God” with others’ lives. Which is more “playing God” anyway? An abortion, or an execution? :newidea:

So if a Catholic is faced with the situation where he is to vote in the election where one candidate supports unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortion on demand but opposes the death penalty and the other candidate opposes abortion in all circumstances but supports the death penalty are you saying that Catholic can licitly vote for the pro-abortion candidate?

The reason I ask is because the death penalty dodge is one of the usual rationales used by Democrat Catholics to rationalize their support of abject evil.

 

[estesbob]

It is duly noted then how American Catholics under PF are using the inclusive prolife label to prioritize abortion down the scale of prolife issues that are the most important to them.

That is generally the case when you see people demand that the pro-life label be expanded to cover all sorts of ancillary issues. Generally what they are really saying is “I vote Democrat”

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

So if a Catholic is faced with the situation where he is to vote in the election where one candidate supports unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortion on demand but opposes the death penalty and the other candidate opposes abortion in all circumstances but supports the death penalty are you saying that Catholic can licitly vote for the pro-abortion candidate?

I don’t accept the premise that any Catholic is bound by conscience, to vote for a candidate who claims to be pro-life. I was elected as a pro-life conservative, and I walked among some of these people and told them to their faces in 1995 that they were about to blow the only chance they would ever have, to curb some of the elective late term abortions famously done in our state and even my home town. They refused to put in a term for the “health of the mother” that the “moderate” Republican governor promised to veto without, because they said it would be abused and expanded.

I told these people to their faces that they should take what they can get. I didn’t claim it wouldn’t be abused; I just wanted a law on the books that was against late-term abortions, and we can take up abuses as a next step. They couldn’t grasp that concept, but held firm to their mantra “non-negotiable” so they passed a bill the governor vetoed as promised, and not ONE baby was saved because they chose that strategy.

So to me, a vote for a “staunch” pro-life candidate doesn’t mean you are going to actually save any babies, even sometimes when compared to a “wishy-washy” pro-life candidate. In politics, if you don’t negotiate you have two options; either overwhelming force to squash the opposition – which will not happen any time soon in the US – or don’t expect to gain anything.

The liberals got to where we were by incrementalism. Socialists and Communists know the strategy well; take what you can get, then once we all get used to that, we add the “next thing” to it. Never let them see where you are really trying to go, or they will stop you before you can set the groundwork. But we conservatives who have much more money and power at stake by claiming to be “the most pro-life candidate” rather than actually saving babies, like to say “no we can’t do anything unless we go all the way in one huge step” and of course, there is never an overwhelming majority to take that step. So then we do like the liberals say about throwing money at education: “well we just have to keep throwing more money and effort at what hasn’t been working for over an entire generation now.”

So as far as I’m concerned, the Church should recognize its power in calling to value human life through tools of love and mercy. Not through the political process where we hire people to point guns, as necessary, at people who are considering abortions.

When did Jesus EVER say to petition the government to stop others from sinning, under threat of up to and including deadly force?

So you can vote however you want as a Catholic. I’m just telling you that going by whatever candidates are being promoted by pro-life factions, are not necessarily going save any babies compared to any other candidate. Except it might shift the funding mechanisms around a little so I guess maybe there will be a few that don’t get paid for. Maybe it would actually make sense not to be a “single-issue” candidate, since candidates who tend to run on that one single issue have thus far failed to make any really convincing progress, or given hope for progress any time soon, in 40 years, against Roe v Wade.

Maybe it’s a bit like “gay marriage.” Anyone paying attention to social issues knew that it was just a matter of time. Just think though; what if conservatives had “compromised” earlier on and agreed to having “civil unions” that could give gays the legal and financial rights they would inevitably gain – so we would not have to face the reality of imminent “gay marriage” now? Who knows?

The reason I ask is because the death penalty dodge is one of the usual rationales used by Democrat Catholics to rationalize their support of abject evil.

Maybe they are using the “death penalty dodge” to point out the hypocrisy of the mantra “all human life is sacred” coming from the mouths of those who would kill humans unnecessarily?

MS

 

[estesbob]

I don’t accept the premise that any Catholic is bound by conscience, to vote for a candidate who claims to be pro-life. I was elected as a pro-life conservative, and I walked among some of these people and told them to their faces in 1995 that they were about to blow the only chance they would ever have, to curb some of the elective late term abortions famously done in our state and even my home town. They refused to put in a term for the “health of the mother” that the “moderate” Republican governor promised to veto without, because they said it would be abused and expanded.

I told these people to their faces that they should take what they can get. I didn’t claim it wouldn’t be abused; I just wanted a law on the books that was against late-term abortions, and we can take up abuses as a next step. They couldn’t grasp that concept, but held firm to their mantra “non-negotiable” so they passed a bill the governor vetoed as promised, and not ONE baby was saved because they chose that strategy.

So to me, a vote for a “staunch” pro-life candidate doesn’t mean you are going to actually save any babies, even sometimes when compared to a “wishy-washy” pro-life candidate. In politics, if you don’t negotiate you have two options; either overwhelming force to squash the opposition – which will not happen any time soon in the US – or don’t expect to gain anything.

The liberals got to where we were by incrementalism. Socialists and Communists know the strategy well; take what you can get, then add to it. Never let them see where you are really trying to go. We say “no we can’t do anything unless we go all the way in one huge step” and of course, there is never a convincing majority to take that step.

So as far as I’m concerned, the Church should recognize its power in calling to value human life through tools of love and mercy. Not through the political process where we hire people to point guns, as necessary, at people who are considering abortions.

When did Jesus EVER say to petition the government to stop others from sinning, under threat of up to and including deadly force?

So you can vote however you want as a Catholic. I’m just telling you that going by whatever candidates are being promoted by pro-life factions, are not likely to save any babies. Except it might shift the funding mechanisms around a little so

I knew that’s where this was going. In order to rationalize supporting the party of death it is first necessary to denigrate those who are pro-life has not being " pure" enough. Next the definition of pro-life is expanded to such an extent that the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year is delegated to just another “issue .”

I think it’s about time to post a the list again.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

I knew that’s where this was going. In order to rationalize supporting the party of death it is first necessary to denigrate those who are pro-life has not being " pure" enough. Next the definition of pro-life is expanded to such an extent that the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year is delegated to just another “issue .”

I think it’s about time to post a the list again.

The party of death? You are saying that Catholics who vote Democrat are the “party of death?” Have you even HEARD the parable of the Good Samaritan? Or the story of the pharisee and tax collector? I thought Jesus spent a WHOLE LOT of effort illustrating that just because you are a member of some group – even religious group – doesn’t mean you are better than a member of another group considered the “out group.” You are now more moral than Democrats because you vote Republican? Gag me with your spiritual superiority.

Next I’m not saying I am against pro-life. I’m only saying that if you give “all human life is sacred” as the reason, then you must also be opposed to the death penalty, or you are lying about your motives.

All you have to do is say that if I don’t agree with you, then I must agree with the “out group” thinking, and therefore I am in favor of death because you have chosen to avoid acknowledging the logical pit you have dug for yourself.

MS

 

[estesbob]

The party of death? You are saying that Catholics who vote Democrat are the “party of death?” Have you even HEARD the parable of the Good Samaritan? Or the story of the pharisee and tax collector? You are now more moral than Democrats because you vote Republican? Gag me with your spiritual superiority.

Next I’m not saying I am against pro-life. I’m only saying that if you give “all human life is sacred” as the reason, then you must also be opposed to the death penalty, or you are lying about your motives.

MS

What you are saying is you vote Democrat.

 

[estesbob]

EXCUSES*FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS

1. National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
2. Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
3. My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
4. I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
5. Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
6. Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
7. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about*abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
8. I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with*abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
9. I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
10. We can’t do anything aboutabortionuntil we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
11. You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
12. People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
13. We can’t endabortionuntil we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
14. I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
15. There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
16. The Pro-Life movement is in the tank for the Republican party (even though all pro-life legislation has had the overwhelming support of Republicans and overwhelming opposition from Democrats), so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party
17. All people sin, so we’re all really “Cafeteria Catholics”, so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

What you are saying is you vote Democrat.

You are wrong. I am registered as a Republican, and I vote at least two-to-one for Republicans, over Dems and independents combined. I converse with conservative Republicans on Facebook nearly every day, including the person who first recruited me to run for office as conservative pro-lifer.

What you are saying, is that your political identification is more important to you than your own logical consistency on the pro-life issue. You would rather avoid your own faulty reasoning, by identifying with the “party of life” I guess.

So yeah stick to your labels. If you’re Republican, then you’re pro-life. Because “all human life” is sacred. Except that human life which you say is not. If you’re Catholic you go to heaven. If you sit in a garage you are a car.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

According to the Pew research center, we have a lot to worry about because in 2012, 50% of Catholics said in exit polls, that they had voted for Obama.

Since Obama is of the “party of death” then I assume that those 50% Catholics will go straight to hell if they do not repent of their political ways.

Luckily I’m not in that 50%. I have to find my own way to go to hell since I’m not getting it done by voting for pro-aborts.

My source:

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/01/exitpoll-1.png

 

[estesbob]

According to the Pew research center, we have a lot to worry about because in 2012, 50% of Catholics said in exit polls, that they had voted for Obama.

Since Obama is of the “party of death” then I assume that those 50% Catholics will go straight to hell if they do not repent of their political ways.

Luckily I’m not in that 50%. I have to find my own way to go to hell since I’m not getting it done by voting for pro-aborts.

My source:

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/01/exitpoll-1.png

It is well known that many American Catholics have placed their politics before their faith in spite of the clear teachings of the Church. many rationalize it using the same excuses you have used in this thread. For them pro-life politicians are never pure enough, pro-abortion politicians need merely have to have a(D) after their name. And the slaughter continues .

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

One more clarification:

I am NOT saying you cannot be both against abortion and for the death penalty.

Nor am I saying I am in favor of keeping abortion legal. Nor am I saying I am “against” having the death penalty.

In fact, I could probably be a pretty good apologist for the death penalty, because with all its faults I could point out what I could probably sell as advantages. For example some say is isn’t really a deterrent for various reasons especially because it’s so hard and expensive to win a conviction; well for various reasons I believe in some cases it is.

The only thing I’m saying is that if you are prolife, then you must NOT claim it is because “human life is sacred” unless you are also against the death penalty.

Personally I’m not completely convinced I’m against the death penalty. I am against flawed logic, though, especially when it exacerbates the problems we are trying to face together.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

So?

So if voting Democratic is tantamount to buying into the “culture of death” then we’ve already lost half the Catholics.

I’m glad to know you and I are on the half of the ship that hasn’t yet sunk.

 

[estesbob]

So if voting Democratic is tantamount to buying into the “culture of death” then we’ve already lost half the Catholics.

I’m glad to know you and I are on the half of the ship that hasn’t yet sunk.

*At this point, the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitively into a “party of death” due to its choices on bioethical issues, as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life. "And I say this with a heavy heart, because we all know that the Democrats were the party that helped our Catholic immigrant parents and grandparents to better integrate into and prosper in American society. But it’s not the same anymore. Nonetheless, there are among Democrats some pro-lifers, but they are, unfortunately, rare. *

*Cardinal Burke

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

It is well known that many American Catholics have placed their politics before their faith in spite of the clear teachings of the Church. many rationalize it using the same excuses you have used in this thread. For them pro-life politicians are never pure enough, pro-abortion politicians need merely have to have a(D) after their name. And the slaughter continues .

OK then let’s settle this.

1.) Do you believe that “all human life is sacred?”

2.) If yes, then do you believe that its being sacred is your primary reason for opposing abortion?

3.) If yes to that, then do you believe that a death row inmate is still a human even though he/she has been convicted of a crime there is probably at least a 90% chance they actually committed?

4.) If yes to that, then do you believe it is OK to kill that death row inmate, even though it means “stopping a beating heart” of a “sacred” human life?

5.) If yes to that, then you have no credibility because you violate your own mantra. Find another reason to oppose abortion rather than saying it’s because “human life is sacred.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

OK then let’s settle this.

1.) Do you believe that “all human life is sacred?”

2.) If yes, then do you believe that its being sacred is your primary reason for opposing abortion?

3.) If yes to that, then do you believe that a death row inmate is still a human even though he/she has been convicted of a crime there is probably at least a 90% chance they actually committed?

4.) If yes to that, then do you believe it is OK to kill that death row inmate, even though it means “stopping a beating heart” of a “sacred” human life?

5.) If yes to that, then you have no credibility because you violate your own mantra. Find another reason to oppose abortion rather than saying it’s because “human life is sacred.”

1,2 and 3, 4 is out, and 5 then isn’t of question. Seriously is there someone we “have” to kill for some reason?

Then we will have to add 6.

How is it allowed to kill to protect yourself? As humanly as possible, but its spiritually allowed?

 

[estesbob]

OK then let’s settle this.

1.) Do you believe that “all human life is sacred?”

2.) If yes, then do you believe that its being sacred is your primary reason for opposing abortion?

3.) If yes to that, then do you believe that a death row inmate is still a human even though he/she has been convicted of a crime there is probably at least a 90% chance they actually committed?

4.) If yes to that, then do you believe it is OK to kill that death row inmate, even though it means “stopping a beating heart” of a “sacred” human life?

5.) If yes to that, then you have no credibility because you violate your own mantra. Find another reason to oppose abortion rather than saying it’s because “human life is sacred.”

I already told you I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. Our Church does not.

 

[Ender]

Those who have suggested that the expansion of the “pro-life” label to various other issues will dilute the focus on abortion are clearly right. The fact that capital punishment has been the topic for the last few pages of this discussion simply demonstrates the validity of that concern. To put some perspective on this, assume abortions are carried out 365 days a year, for 12 hours a day. At that same rate it would take about 10 minutes to complete a years worth of executions. When you throw the “pro-life” label over such diverse topics as immigration, health care, and the budget you begin to wonder if there is any topic at all that couldn’t in some sense be considered “pro-life”. And that is pretty much the objective of the exercise.

I’m only saying that if you give “all human life is sacred” as the reason, then you must also be opposed to the death penalty, or you are lying about your motives.

There are other threads about capital punishment where this debate ought to continue, but this comment needs to be addressed. Believing that all human life is sacred does not require one to oppose capital punishment. If we can believe God, the sacredness of life is the reason he gave for employing it. You would have us believe that because the life of the murderer is sacred, his life is protected, but God explained that because the life of the victim was sacred the life of the murderer is forfeit. Why should we assume he didn’t actually mean what he said?Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. (Gn 9:6)
Man’s life may be sacred, but it is not inviolate.

Ender

 

[SWolf]

Clumping the two together, exposes the fact that “all human life” is NOT sacred to an ostensible “pro-lifer” who uses that as their battle cry.

The difference is, in the case of abortion, the baby is “inconvenient.” In the case of the death penalty, the criminal is not only “inconvenient,” but we have deemed them no longer worthy of life even though we go to great expense to kill them compared to feeding and housing them. Society spends much more time, effort, and tons more money trying to kill criminals than the ones not given the death penalty. So society actually bleeds money, so that it can see its bloody revenge. That’s really what’s happening here. We don’t believe the teachings of Jesus not to repay evil with evil.

Because it “feels so good” when somebody “really bad” gets executed. Like society has just flushed the toilet on another bit of human waste.

It all feeds the sickness Jesus tried to teach us how to avoid.

Like I stated earlier:

God advocated the death penalty for various crimes, all of which pertained to the ‘common good’ argument outlined in the Catechism. None of the above, which translates to personal feelings on the subject, refutes that.