P
Palladio
Guest
Yes, but abortion is one thing we can end by voting.
- Status
P
Publisher
Guest
It will not end abortion…it will only move the venue…it will not take away the “reasons”…it will only shift the location.
B
BobP123
Guest
But the ultimate decision in the U.S. still would be left to the Supreme Court, the members of which are not elected by us. Even the President who appoints them is not directly elected by us. Sure, they’re approved by those whom we elect but most of the time there’s no advance notice of which of the would-be justices are pro-RoeWade and which are not.
E
estesbob
Guest
When abortion was legalized in this country it increased fourfold within two years. The idea that we can’t make something illegal because people will still break the law is specious
E
estesbob
Guest
There is no greater evil in this country than the acceptance of the killing of 1.2 million children a year. It permeates every corner of our moral fabric.
P
Publisher
Guest
There is no doubt it couldn’t be made illegal for a season…then legal again…then illegal…then legal…but it doesn’t take away the reason…laws do not take away the reason for them in the first place…you are right, making them illegal may cut back on them…or at least the reporting of them…but it will not stop them…it takes something else beside passing a law to change society…legislating one groups morals has never changed society…it must be more than simply passing laws…I am all for the “more”.
T
Tracyms1974
Guest
I think one reason that abortion is still legal is the same reason that cigarettes are still legal - now that we have opened up this can of worms, it’s impossible to get the general American public to imagine life without it. There would be a RIOT if the FDC and the CDC suddenly and without cause announced tomorrow that all cigarettes are now illegal and any sales of such or use of such would be prosecuted. It’s the same with abortion. What abortion really is is back-up birth control in the minds of the uninformed. To the informed, it is the termination of a life. So if the Federal government said tomorrow that all abortion is now illegal and will be prosecuted as a homicide on the part of the giver and the receiver, there would be an even bigger riot because the (selfish!) Americans’ safety net was ripped out from under them. I wouldn’t be affected by either scenario, but these are real obstacles that must be overcome somehow.
Tracy
Tracy
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Perhaps. But Ron Paul has no chance at all. Thompson does.
I just realized we are not supposed to talk about candidates. Pardon.
S
steve_pattee
Guest
My friends in Christ,
The intention of my original question, Is it immoral to vote for a pro-choice politician?, was meant to promote reflection, discussion, and possibly prayer that God’s will be done in my heart and in our world. It is my belief that Christ’s heart is pierced by the act of delilberately killing an unborn child. It is also my belief that His heart is pierced by all unjustified killing.
That said, I have the right and responsibility to make informed decisions based on a faith in God, Church, and the Communion of Saints. That is why I posted the start to this thread… that I may be moved by His faithful. I had hoped that our discussion would be enlightening and respectful.
The Communion of Saints is a powerhouse within the Body of Christ. May my heart be always open to be touched by you, and yours by me. Perhaps we will be joined by Francis, John Paul, and others during this consideration of concern and conscience toward those who shape our country’s government.
How about we start again with more love and less animosity, more humility and less assuredness.
Pax vobiscum.
The intention of my original question, Is it immoral to vote for a pro-choice politician?, was meant to promote reflection, discussion, and possibly prayer that God’s will be done in my heart and in our world. It is my belief that Christ’s heart is pierced by the act of delilberately killing an unborn child. It is also my belief that His heart is pierced by all unjustified killing.
That said, I have the right and responsibility to make informed decisions based on a faith in God, Church, and the Communion of Saints. That is why I posted the start to this thread… that I may be moved by His faithful. I had hoped that our discussion would be enlightening and respectful.
The Communion of Saints is a powerhouse within the Body of Christ. May my heart be always open to be touched by you, and yours by me. Perhaps we will be joined by Francis, John Paul, and others during this consideration of concern and conscience toward those who shape our country’s government.
How about we start again with more love and less animosity, more humility and less assuredness.
Pax vobiscum.
B
BobP123
Guest
The Supreme Court had no business ruling on Roe vs Wade in the first place. They actually violated Amendment 10 by doing so. So I can’t see them actually completely overturning Roe vs Wade either. I can, though, more easily see them turning over the matter to the states. And it would make more sense since the states would be in a better position to establish the proper penalties anyway. Also if you do enough research, you will find almost every state trying to impose some if not complete limitations on abortions right now, which is not a bad thing.
So then it would behoove us to vote for the right state legislators to finally put an end to this horrendous crime.
And to those that would see a lot of jumping from state to state in order to get an abortion, hey, would that situation be that much worse than going to another country to get one if Roe vs Wade were overturned?
But that’s only my opinion.
So then it would behoove us to vote for the right state legislators to finally put an end to this horrendous crime.
And to those that would see a lot of jumping from state to state in order to get an abortion, hey, would that situation be that much worse than going to another country to get one if Roe vs Wade were overturned?
But that’s only my opinion.
E
edwest2
Guest
I was there when abortion was proposed to be legalized. It was meant to be an emergency measure for cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Also, people were told by official spokesmen that “it is the most difficult decision a woman could make and was between her and her god.” Now we have abortion on demand. Now we have babies being killed inches away from birth.
For all the platitudes that “abortion should be rare” it’s not. With all due respect and compassion for victims, I pray that this country can see its way to cut back and eventually, eliminate abortion.
I have no political party affiliation. I know what the Church teaches and will vote accordingly. It is a scientific fact that everyone reading this began life as a human embryo.
God bless,
Ed
For all the platitudes that “abortion should be rare” it’s not. With all due respect and compassion for victims, I pray that this country can see its way to cut back and eventually, eliminate abortion.
I have no political party affiliation. I know what the Church teaches and will vote accordingly. It is a scientific fact that everyone reading this began life as a human embryo.
God bless,
Ed
E
estesbob
Guest
There is no love exressed by supporting abortion. There is no middle ground.
T
Tracyms1974
Guest
What do you think the babies that these “women” are getting rid of would have to say if they could say anything? “Please abort me, I’m of no use to anyone?” I think not. How about, “Look, I understand that you are not in the best position to have a baby right now, but maybe you could find me a new mommy and daddy. Try adoption!” Nine months vs. 18 years. I think any woman if she really put her mind to it could realize the inherent good in the nine month investment in order to bring another family 18 years (and more) of joy.
B
betsygrace
Guest
Hmm… I have found this whole thread rather interesting. I must say I have felt rather paralyzed about voting over the last few years. I didn’t vote in '04 because the abortion issue precluded voting for Kerry, while the Iraq issue precluded voting for Bush for me. I do think situations can exist where it’s best not to vote at all. For example, say you lived in a country composed of two different ethnic populations. Then suppose a candidate representing each group is running in a presidential election and that both are proposing a genocide of the other ethnicity. Well you couldn’t really vote for either of them could you?
In general, I’m somewhat leery of an ends justify the means approach. Whenever people take this route, it always seems to come back to haunt them. It’s very difficult to establish a hierarchy of evils at times, and then try to weigh them in the balance with goods. It seems almost presumptuous. It reminds me of those scenarios where they say there are six people stranded in a raft, and there is only enough food for five to survive, and who would you decide had to be tossed overboard, etc, etc. Those kinds of things turn my stomach, and I really don’t think they are profitable to contemplate, as if one person’s life were worth more than another’s! Who are we to determine that?
This whole issue reminds me of a rather discouraging election we had in Lousiana back when I was a kid in 1992. We had a run-off for governor between David Duke (former head of the KKK) and Edwin Edwards (three-time governor and established crook; now serving lengthy prison term for racketeering, taking bribes, etc.) In this case I think it best to vote for Edwards (who did win actually) in order to discourage racism in one’s state, though I could understand not voting as well. I’m trying to think of how this issue is different from the ficititious one I thought of above. I think the answer lies in the fact that ill-treatment of other races is clearly against the teachings of Christ, while allowing your state to be swindled for the sake of brothers and sisters of a different race isn’t. I guess it’s the difference in determining what’s yours to sacrifice. With the whole abortion issue, who are we to decide we have the right to sacrifice the lives of the unborn in order to stop other inhumanities? On the other hand, do we want to support those other inhumanities with our votes? If you feel both candidates are clearly promoting something that flies in the face of Christ’s commands, how can you vote for either? All this being said, I think this is a really difficult issue, and I can appreciate those who approach it from different angles than myself. In fact I don’t feel hugely confident in my own feelings about it. I guess it just shows with what desperation we need to humble ourselves before God and beg for wisdom. I feel ashamed of myself; I haven’t even started praying about '08 yet! This thread is a good wake-up call.
R
RhyannaRose
Guest
Oh, I am definetly pro-life and I apologize if I didn’t make that clear. I do believe it is an abomination and I wish the POTUS would have been more concerned with unborn babies then a certain middle east country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
But now we are in a war and this war is going to continue to chip away at the safety of America. Our safety depends on being able to win it or disengage it in a manner that does not equal defeat. And not to mention I doubt the terrorists have stopped plotting attacks on this country. I don’t know about you guys, but I think life under Sharia law would really suck, so the war on terror and the war in Iraq are two very important issues to me.
As a Catholic, I am obligated to vote pro-life. I realize that. But it’s frusterating when the only pro-life candidates so far don’t seem to be agreeing with me on protecting our country.
And I apologize in advance for replying to this without reading ahead.
P
Palladio
Guest
You are too much of a fatalist.
The ‘reasons’ are bound to a culture of death which has brainwashed women and men into the unthinkable: change the law, the culture will catch up.
P
Palladio
Guest
Bush was elected by us, twice: how many justices has he named also Roman Catholics?
As far as I can see, it is his one irrefutable conservative action, which has already borne fruit.
Q
quiet52
Guest
A thought on how this issue can be rephrased:
“Should Catholics support politicians who want to prohibit violence against family members, or should they support politicians who believe that family members should have the “choice” to harm their kin (to the point of killing them) because of their authority over them?”
I believe strongly the abortion issue can and should be a “one-issue” vote. There is a hierarchy of wrongs. Murder is more wrong than economic, health or other political wrongs. How can a Catholic Christian NOT believe abortion isn’t murder? How can we with good conscience ignore the magnitude of this sin? Yes, there is a war which may or may not be injust. Yes, there are people suffering in a variety of ways because of poor or inadequate government decisions (by leaders in all three federal branches, and states, cities, etc.). Yes, there is corporate greed and government corruption and/or inefficiency which are huge sins upon society. But we must weigh the import of these sins and weaknesses before we vote.
With regard to a reply to poster supporting “pro-choice” politicians :
It is my opinion that most of mothers who choose to kill their unborn children know at some level that their babies are alive, and very human, in the womb. But human life is devalued for so many reasons (all of which are wrong reasons of course). Yet our nation’s laws seem to value other unborn living creatures more than the lives of unborn humans.
Consider some facts (as listed by the American Life League) which we can think about:
– It is illegal to transport pregnant lobsters anywhere on the East Coast for fear of damaging them or their preborn offspring. This means that the Federal government recognizes lobsters as lobsters from conception.
– Cattle used as breeding stock must be capitalized, which means that all associated costs must be recorded. These costs begin at conception! This means that the Federal government recognizes cattle as cattle from conception.
– An Illinois man was fined $500 in 1984 for killing a female white-tailed deer. He said that he shot at extreme range and mistook the doe for a buck. Unfortuantely for him, the doe was pregnant, so he was fined. This is typical of local and state hunting laws. It also means taht the government recognizes deer as deer from conception.
– In May of 1990, Paul Stedman Cullen poisoned Austin’s 500-year old Treaty Oak Tree. He was convicted of felony criminal mischief, and, due to a previous felony convention, faced possible life in prison. This means taht even inanimate living objects enjoy a higher status than human preborns.
– While people and corporations can be fined huge sums of money for killing preborn members of other species, certain people can make huge sums of money for killing preborn members of our species.
– I don’t know if this is still true, because eagles have recently been taken off the endangered species list: Anyone destroying or tampering with eagle eggs is subject to a $5,000 fine and one eyar’s imprisonment, because the bird enjoys threatened species status. This means taht the Federal government recognizes eagles as eagles from conception.
(continued in second post)
“Should Catholics support politicians who want to prohibit violence against family members, or should they support politicians who believe that family members should have the “choice” to harm their kin (to the point of killing them) because of their authority over them?”
I believe strongly the abortion issue can and should be a “one-issue” vote. There is a hierarchy of wrongs. Murder is more wrong than economic, health or other political wrongs. How can a Catholic Christian NOT believe abortion isn’t murder? How can we with good conscience ignore the magnitude of this sin? Yes, there is a war which may or may not be injust. Yes, there are people suffering in a variety of ways because of poor or inadequate government decisions (by leaders in all three federal branches, and states, cities, etc.). Yes, there is corporate greed and government corruption and/or inefficiency which are huge sins upon society. But we must weigh the import of these sins and weaknesses before we vote.
With regard to a reply to poster supporting “pro-choice” politicians :
I’d like to note that yes, at least 1.2 million unborn children are killed annually (almost 3,300 daily) by surgical abortion in the U.S. alone. I thought I’d add that many more are killed chemically, with birth control pills containing abortifacients, and with the “morning after” pill. A group of pharmacy experts have estimated that 14 million unborn babies are killed chemically every year in the U.S.
It is my opinion that most of mothers who choose to kill their unborn children know at some level that their babies are alive, and very human, in the womb. But human life is devalued for so many reasons (all of which are wrong reasons of course). Yet our nation’s laws seem to value other unborn living creatures more than the lives of unborn humans.
Consider some facts (as listed by the American Life League) which we can think about:
– It is illegal to transport pregnant lobsters anywhere on the East Coast for fear of damaging them or their preborn offspring. This means that the Federal government recognizes lobsters as lobsters from conception.
– Cattle used as breeding stock must be capitalized, which means that all associated costs must be recorded. These costs begin at conception! This means that the Federal government recognizes cattle as cattle from conception.
– An Illinois man was fined $500 in 1984 for killing a female white-tailed deer. He said that he shot at extreme range and mistook the doe for a buck. Unfortuantely for him, the doe was pregnant, so he was fined. This is typical of local and state hunting laws. It also means taht the government recognizes deer as deer from conception.
– In May of 1990, Paul Stedman Cullen poisoned Austin’s 500-year old Treaty Oak Tree. He was convicted of felony criminal mischief, and, due to a previous felony convention, faced possible life in prison. This means taht even inanimate living objects enjoy a higher status than human preborns.
– While people and corporations can be fined huge sums of money for killing preborn members of other species, certain people can make huge sums of money for killing preborn members of our species.
– I don’t know if this is still true, because eagles have recently been taken off the endangered species list: Anyone destroying or tampering with eagle eggs is subject to a $5,000 fine and one eyar’s imprisonment, because the bird enjoys threatened species status. This means taht the Federal government recognizes eagles as eagles from conception.
(continued in second post)
Q
quiet52
Guest
(second part of post)
This past Sunday, the gospel reading (Luke 12:49-53) addressed our responsibility to stand up for our beliefs. Jesus acknowledged that households will be divided because not all family members will accept the fire of His love – not all family members want to be united in faith (which must be lived by the way we live in union with Jesus and others).
Jesus is a source of division. We who truly want to follow Jesus are a source of division within our families and within our larger communities, including nation and world. We’re to advocate for what HE wants, not what people desire for selfish or inconvenient reasons. We cannot in good conscience as Catholic Christians support the means (laws or politicians) which make it possible for kill the unborn.
I liked what our priest said during his homily this Sunday. He reminded us that our state was the first in this nation to legalize abortion – and that 25% of our state’s residents call themselves Catholic. He chastized us for not speaking up for what we’re called to believe, and for not fighting for what is right. He said we are too eager in today’s society to not offend anyone, so we remain quiet, uninvolved and permissive. This is not what Jesus wants from us. We’re not supposed to just shrug our shoulders, so as not to offend. True peace – God’s peace – can only be accomplished by unity of righteousness – not by tolerating wrongs.
How can any Christian trying to live the values taught by Christ and His Church condone any “right” to kill an unborn child?
This past Sunday, the gospel reading (Luke 12:49-53) addressed our responsibility to stand up for our beliefs. Jesus acknowledged that households will be divided because not all family members will accept the fire of His love – not all family members want to be united in faith (which must be lived by the way we live in union with Jesus and others).
Jesus is a source of division. We who truly want to follow Jesus are a source of division within our families and within our larger communities, including nation and world. We’re to advocate for what HE wants, not what people desire for selfish or inconvenient reasons. We cannot in good conscience as Catholic Christians support the means (laws or politicians) which make it possible for kill the unborn.
I liked what our priest said during his homily this Sunday. He reminded us that our state was the first in this nation to legalize abortion – and that 25% of our state’s residents call themselves Catholic. He chastized us for not speaking up for what we’re called to believe, and for not fighting for what is right. He said we are too eager in today’s society to not offend anyone, so we remain quiet, uninvolved and permissive. This is not what Jesus wants from us. We’re not supposed to just shrug our shoulders, so as not to offend. True peace – God’s peace – can only be accomplished by unity of righteousness – not by tolerating wrongs.
How can any Christian trying to live the values taught by Christ and His Church condone any “right” to kill an unborn child?
S
Sure
Guest
Would you have the same attitude if you lived in Germany in 1941 and the issue was the extermination of the Jewish people? Would you have said, “well, changing the law won’t stop the anti-semitism, we have to look at the reasons. It’s perfectly moral to vote for candidates who support the anti-semitic laws and concentration camps if I am supporting their ‘other’ positions.”
If you would vote to protect the Jews in 1941, why not vote to protect the unborn children today?
- Status