Voter's Guide

[Jeremy]

Lisa4Catholics:

You set befor her or another person set before her a rediculous scenerio

The whole question is how “non-negotiable” the non-negotiables are. If the non-negotiables are 100% non-negotiable then the serial killer would have to be the better candidate. But otherwise you admit that the non-negotiables are actually negotiable in certain circumstances, in which case they become “really really important” but not the only thing we should consider.

felra:

Your choice of “anti-abortion” and “pro-abortion” gives transparency to your mind-set/value frame of reference. See post #43 for my choice of terms for transparency on my mind-set/frame of reference.

I just read through your post 34 a couple times and I’m not sure I see your point. I call it pro/anti abortion because that’s what we’re talking about, abortion. There are only two other accepted references that I know of, -life and -choice. People on each side refer to themselves as pro-X because then their opponents become anti-X which sounds offensive. It is a way to demonize one’s opponent.

 

[felra]

People on each side refer to themselves as pro-X because then their opponents become anti-X which sounds offensive. It is a way to demonize one’s opponent.

Exactly my point! …no go reread your choice of terms.

 

[Jeremy]

I find nothing offensive about “anti-abortion”. I myself am very anti-abortion and proud to say so.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Jeremy:

felra, so you would vote for a serial killer running on an anti-abortion platform if the only other viable candidate was pro-abortion? You didn’t actually say that but that seems to be the logical conclusion, given your response.

If you vote for a pro-abortion candidate that protects the right to kill you are voting for a serial killer

 

[felra]

Jeremy:

I find nothing offensive about “anti-abortion”. I myself am very anti-abortion and proud to say so.

And that you should be proud. However, consider that a big part of winning the battle for the culture of life against the culture of death advocates is the ability to frame the debate via the language that you choose. I prefer to take the offensive/pro-active (i.e., “pro-life”) approach versus the defensive/re-active approach (i.e., “anti-abortion”).

I am unwilling to give the pro-death/anti-life advocates any ground, any semblance that their position against the sanctity of life is legitimate; as they certainly do not extend to the pro-life advocates (they tend not to be neutral folks). Example: “Product of abortion” (denying the existence of a new eternal soul in the womb of the mother); “Termination of pregnancy” (murder of a child with an eternal soul).

The entire strategic underpinning to the anti-life (“pro-abortion”) movement is to deny the existence of a person from the moment of conception, otherwise, how could anyone advocate/promote the murder of a child? Example: John Kerry in the presidential race, when confronted about his position for abortion, made the distinction between when biological life begins (stated that life begins at the moment of conception), and when the fetus becomes a person (when there is enough biological development to actually have a person). This is simply the language and strategy of the devil who is the architect/commander in chief for the culture of death advocates.

 

[Jeremy]

felra, I can appreciate your desire to hold firm to our position and not give any ground. I agree for example that referring to a child as a “choice” is repulsive and already shows that one does not value the life of the fetus.

However I disagree with either side using charged language in debate. This goes for us as well as them. I firmly believe that the vast majority of pro-abortion activists are simply mistaken about when human life begins. Not all of them of course, but most. I think the most effective approach for us to win in this debate long-term is to convince these mistaken individuals that human life really does begin at conception and that that life is not qualitatively different from your life and mine.

But as with any serious debate you must come to the table willing to respect and listen to the other side’s point of view, because you expect them to show the same courtesy to you. The problem with calling yourself “pro-life” is that you label your opponent anti-life. They do not see themselves as anti-life – they may be opposed to the death penalty, euthanasia, and war – because they do not see a fetus as “life”, so they find your label offensive and will immediately shut you off. In their mind you have labelled them offensively and so they won’t listen to what you have to say, and so nothing will change and babies continue to die.

In any case I think pro/anti-abortion are charged labels anyway for our side. No one on the opposition wants to think of themselves as pro-abortion, like they think abortions are fun or something. They see it as something necessary but unpleasant.

My point is that it is important to keep dialogue open so that we can convince people we are right, even if it means using language we are not very comfortable using.

 

[fix]

Jeremy:

Unfortunately what abortion is and is not is confused in the minds of most people, including politicians. I think most people who are pro-abortion do not believe that fetuses are human beings in the first place. In order to say that someone has knowingly “allied himself with the enemies of life” – as opposed to simply making a grave error in judgment – you would have to consider whether they would support the killing of millions of innocent people in other contexts. If someone says they would not slaughter 2 million one year old babies but they would pass legislation that legalizes 2 million abortions, then they are not murdering monsters but people who are making a terrible mistake in judgment.

To put it another way, the general criteria for mortal sin is that one knowingly do wrong. Many people who are pro-abortion do not think that what they are doing is wrong, because they just do not see abortion as murder. Of course some of these people do know better, but I really think most people don’t, including politicans.

I am not condoning this or anything but to say that pro-abortion people are necessarily “allying themselves with the enemies of Life” is misleadingly harsh when what these people really need most of the time is education.

That seems to be a stretch. Catholic politicians know the teaching of the Church. They can’t be called invincibly ignorant. Non Catholics who claim a fetus is not a life have heard the arguments that it is a life and rejected them. One has an obligation to learn the truth.

The problem is not always one of “education”. The problem may be that for those who are anti life to accept the truth would mean changing the way they lead their lives.

We, also, can’t leave out the fact that sin tends to deaden our conscience. All the contraception that goes on can make it hard to accept the truth about things like abortion, homosexual conduct, etc.

 

[Jeremy]

I will agree with you that a lot of people go to some pains to deliberately misunderstand for various selfish reasons. However you know as well as I do that most pro-abortion people are people who act just like you and me and who are not devilish “enemies of Life” who delight in killing babies. Ask the next pro-abortion person you see “would you kill your one-year-old child if it made your life easier?” and will almost certainly hear “No way”. Referring to them as enemies of Life only demonizes them and makes them want to ignore us even more.

 

[felra]

Jeremy:

I will agree with you that a lot of people go to some pains to deliberately misunderstand for various selfish reasons. However you know as well as I do that most pro-abortion people are people who** act just like you and me** and who are not devilish “enemies of Life” who delight in killing babies. Ask the next pro-abortion person you see “would you kill your one-year-old child if it made your life easier?” and will almost certainly hear “No way”. Referring to them as enemies of Life only demonizes them and makes them want to ignore us even more.

They may "act just like you and me", but they don’t believe like you and me. I agree that we have to know our audience and exercise Christian charity and tactfulness in presenting our pro-life cause/agenda–this will hopefully at least get the pro-abortion proponents to give us a hearing. But personally I stick with my “pro-life” label for their “pro-choice/abortion” label. For the “in your face” proponents who on their end persist in “anti-abortion” rhetoric; I may matter-of-factly mix in/alternate a few “anti-life” to keep them honest.

Again, why I choose the vernacular “pro-life” over “anti-abortion”, because I believe that the only way to convert the hearts of others is with the truth that each moment of conception results in a new person with an eternal soul being born. “Pro-life” reflects this reality, “anti-abortion” reflects being against a procedure. I don’t want to give the devil any uncontested wiggle room in the debate. I personally have not had many pro-abortion folks take objection or offensive to my use of “pro-life” terminology.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

felra:

In all due respect, but what rhetorical, academia, idealogical, philosophical, conceptual, political …universe do you live in? We are talking about the bloody slaughter of millions of innocents here …have those “conscientious objectors” to the CA voter’s guide sat quietly with this reality? I commend the CA voter’s guide for taking the gloves off by pointing out the obvious and being part of the political reality solution, rather than a sideline pundit critquing *what they didn’t include–*which I find interesting if not amusing.

CA voter’s guide talks about more than just the bloody slaughter of millions of innocents too, e.g. homosexual “marriage”. The 5 issues they chose to include are certainly not negotiable according to Catholic teaching. But there are other issues that would also rise to the level of “non-negotiable”. The specific example I gave, contraception, by some accounting causes as many or more deaths than surgical abortion. I’m glad you find my comments amusing, or at least interesting.

I know others disagree, but I found the “Faithful Citizenship” guide more helpful. It starts with the dignity of the human person as the foundation. This seems like a good place to start, rather than with specific issues. If you start by valuing the dignity of the human person, you end up with the right positions on the CA voter’s guide’s specific issues, and on pretty much any other issue of interest. I’m sorry if that confuses some people. But in my little corner of the rhetorical, academic, intellectual universe it helps to start with broad principles and use those to focus on specific issues or questions.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

felra:

In all due respect, but what rhetorical, academia, idealogical, philosophical, conceptual, political …universe do you live in? We are talking about the bloody slaughter of millions of innocents here …have those “conscientious objectors” to the CA voter’s guide sat quietly with this reality? I commend the CA voter’s guide for taking the gloves off by pointing out the obvious and being part of the political reality solution, rather than a sideline pundit critquing *what they didn’t include–*which I find interesting if not amusing.

 

[felra]

Bobby Jim:

If you start by valuing the dignity of the human person, you end up with the right positions on [the CA voter’s guide’s] specific issues, and on pretty much any other issue of interest…it helps to start with broad principles and use those to focus on specific issues or questions.

I am in total agreement with you on this.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Bobby Jim:

CA voter’s guide talks about more than just the bloody slaughter of millions of innocents too, e.g. homosexual “marriage”. The 5 issues they chose to include are certainly not negotiable according to Catholic teaching. But there are other issues that would also rise to the level of “non-negotiable”. The specific example I gave, contraception, by some accounting causes as many or more deaths than surgical abortion. I’m glad you find my comments amusing, or at least interesting.

I know others disagree, but I found the “Faithful Citizenship” guide more helpful. It starts with the dignity of the human person as the foundation. This seems like a good place to start, rather than with specific issues. If you start by valuing the dignity of the human person, you end up with the right positions on the CA voter’s guide’s specific issues, and on pretty much any other issue of interest. I’m sorry if that confuses some people. But in my little corner of the rhetorical, academic, intellectual universe it helps to start with broad principles and use those to focus on specific issues or questions.

Right. There are many non-negotiable issues, but these five are in the guide because there are actual movements dedicated to encouraging doing the five evils. I assure you that if there was a serious movement to promote other things (say, rounding up the poor or minorities and imprison them) they would appear in the guide.

Scott