Why almost half the Catholics not prolife?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Raafat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
amen, kicking people while they are down, and probably suffering the conviction of the spirit due to their sin, is not the way to go. we must pray for them and lead them by word and deed to God’s love, only in the heart of Jesus is salvation
 
Everyone who is advocating that we ignore medical advice and end social distancing prematurely. That policy will trade lives for dollars.
this is still quite broad. How about an example: Near where I live I saw a man laying bricks for a wall for a new subdivision. He was by himself…nobody nearby. In Michigan, this activity is banned. Question: Is advocating for people to work safely immoral?
Question 2: Is it immoral for me to disagree with certain governors definition of what is and is not “essential”?
If there is another way, yes. And there is another way. The US has spent about $2.5 trillion so far on economic support. More than $2 trillion of that has gone to corporations. There is absolutely no reason why that support couldn’t go to individuals who are out of work. If we choose to support corporate profits over the lives of individuals, we are NOT pro-life.
I’m sure the are items in the last bill that we would find common ground on, however, the government literally printed money to hand out. I do, however, think the government cannot save many, many people from impending economic doom if they don’t get back to work, safely and soon. (Admitting some businesses, like bars, might take a while longer). But, I disagree with the views of some politicians, like the governor of Michigan. Is my view immoral?
 
No it isn’t. Don’t make stuff up. And don’t presume to put words in another persons mouth. It’s dishonest and uncharitable.
Pretending to be pro life when you’re not is also dishonest.

@nicholasG, if you had a vote to make abortion illegal would you vote yes.
 
Agree. The Church commands we protect human life from conception until natural death. THAT is how one is pro-life.
 
Question: Is advocating for people to work safely immoral?
Is the ban following medical advice from competent medical experts? If the answer is yes, then the ban is proper. If the answer is no, then the ban should be revised to accord.
Is it immoral for me to disagree with certain governors definition of what is and is not “essential”?
I doubt it. Is your disagreement based on proper medical advice from competent medical experts, or is based on something else?
I do, however, think the government cannot save many, many people from impending economic doom if they don’t get back to work, safely and soon. (Admitting some businesses, like bars, might take a while longer). But, I disagree with the views of some politicians, like the governor of Michigan. Is my view immoral?
The government can certainly save every American from economic doom. It has many tools at its disposal. It could create a WPA style work at home program where unemployed Americans work at home for a federal agency doing something that they are capable of doing. It could dedicate trillions to unemployment assistance. It could do pretty much anything.

It chooses not to, however, and instead sends that money to airlines and other corporations.

Is your disagreement with the governor based on expert medical opinion? If it isn’t, why would you disagree?
 
Well, I don’t know if this is the complete answer but I assume most Catholics that are practicing and are pro-choice themselves wouldn’t have an abortion or undertake risky hedonist behavior, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are comfortable with others not having that option.

Again, it comes down to separation of Church and State. For the most part America is in the Secular realm of things that does a balancing act of not imposing religious views on non-believers while maintaining the rights of religion for those that have a religion. This includes non-Christian denominations like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism.

Also, when I look to the government and their essential function it is to maintain law and order while maintaining individual rights and provide the political landscape for a free economy. I don’t look to the government to solve my own or even posses my own religious views. For me, that’s a private matter.

So, again, I’m not a one issue voter. I’m not going to vote for a president simply because they are pro-life. I would rather choose a president based on stability of governance, Economic Policy, and their agenda on human or individual rights. Again, Trump will win re-election and that’s fine, but I’m not voting for him. I voted for Obama but I didn’t vote for Hillary. This time around I will vote for Biden, who has explained that while he personally is pro-life and wouldn’t want anyone in his family to have an abortion as a representative of the people he has to allow what has been considered legal in America to go on.

But again, in terms of whose Catholic or who isn’t Catholic…well, I never engage in that kind of discussion because it speaks to a very narrow perspective on life. I’ve lived in London and traveled to France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Austria. I very much felt a bond with the Catholics there, who some on here would call cultural Catholics or Cafeteria Catholics. Again, I’m not falling for the line I have to vote for Trump to remain Catholic, or whatever other bullying or shaming is involved for not voting for the guy. All these countries have a different political dynamic that isn’t transferable to America. So, again, I don’t question anyone’s Catholicism. I won’t call them a Cafeteria Catholic or a Cultural Catholic, because again it’s a very narrow view of the world that doesn’t know the culture or have the culture.

And again, I did not grow up in a Red State and I’ve never even been to one. I grew up and live in California, and in America I’ve only been to Manhattan and New Jersey. So, whatever it is like living in a Red State I wouldn’t know. But the Red State isn’t the Standard way of living Catholic life in the rest of the world where there is so much Evangelical Influence. So, just because you live that way, it doesn’t mean the rest of the country lives that way or Europe or world.
 
Last edited:
The government can certainly save every American from economic doom. It has many tools at its disposal. It could create a WPA style work at home program where unemployed Americans work at home for a federal agency doing something that they are capable of doing. It could dedicate trillions to unemployment assistance. It could do pretty much anything.

It chooses not to, however, and instead sends that money to airlines and other corporations.

Is your disagreement with the governor based on expert medical opinion? If it isn’t, why would you disagree?
A couple of points: 1) I absolutely disagree that the government can save every American from economic doom. This is because the US is either 1) printing money, or 2) borrowing more. We are $22T in debt, and unfunded liability, according to Forbes is: $210 Trillion.That amount exceeds the net present value of the tax revenue designated to pay those benefits by $46.7 trillion.

At best, the government can stave off economic doom for current Americans for a small period of time, but will create an unsolvable problem for the future that your children or grandchildren will not be able to stave off.
  1. Medical experts can tell you how coronavirus is transmitted, or what goes into a vaccine. What medical doctors differ on is the amount of risk a society should take to get back to work. We already assume risk before coronavirus, allowing some 40,000 deaths due to the flu, or 40,000 deaths to automobile accidents. Were we already guilty of not being pro-life because we didn’t shut down business to cure the flu? Were we already guilty of not being pro-life because we don’t ban automobiles?
Bottom line: There is a difference between an intrinsic evil, like abortion, and trying to utilize moral judgments to determine the lesser of two evils (total shutdown of all activity vs trying to balance minimizing risk and allowing the necessary economic activity necessary to have people provide for themselves so as to not starve).

My worry is exemplified by this story…which has duplicated in a number of states…and this only after one month of shutdown

 
Again, it comes down to separation of Church and State. For the most part America is in the Secular realm of things that does a balancing act of not imposing religious views on non-believers while maintaining the rights of religion for those that have a religion. This includes non-Christian denominations like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism.
Abortion is not a religious issue. There are pro-life atheists and agnostics.
 
If you’re asking why a lot of Catholics support the legalization of abortion?

It’s because the pro-legalized-abortion side has a powerful and well funded propaganda machine that controls Hollywood, the media and academia.

Furthermore, they don’t want to risk hostility by opening their mouth.

So they sit silent and mum while the abortion industry gets to control the narrative.
 
People who say “I personally would never get an abortion, but I do not want to deny someone that option” are not much different than people who were personally against slavery, but would not want to infringe on someone else’s right to own one.

Really, we need to decide, as a country, whether or not the unborn are human beings with the same rights as everyone else. There is no middle ground. If you are fine with someone else having an abortion, then you cannot truly believe that that is the deliberate taking of a human life they are engaging in. It is sociopathy to tolerate that.
 
No it isn’t. Don’t make stuff up. And don’t presume to put words in another persons mouth. It’s dishonest and uncharitable.
Pro-abortion is debatable, but by definition that sentiment literally is what means to be pro-choice.
 
Executing a dangerous criminal who has murdered or worse vs. executing a human being who has done nothing wrong. There is no comparison.

Now, I am against the death penalty as well, but, it boggles my mind how people are care more about treating evil individuals humanely than the most innocent among us.
 
Also, when I look to the government and their essential function it is to maintain law and order while maintaining individual rights and provide the political landscape for a free economy. I don’t look to the government to solve my own or even posses my own religious views. For me, that’s a private matter.
not that my opinion on this matters but this whole thread is opining anyway, so, while I agree with the sentiment of not being a one-issue voter, I myself abstain from voting since Im against the whole thing, but “maintaining indivdual rights” would not abortion being illegal be under this to you? or do you use a separate political definition to nuance your position? i am not trying to antagonize, since I generally agree with the sentiment of your post as I can interpret it, but I would like to know. you dont need to answer ofc
 
With a few exceptions, abortions are of necessity
This is patently false. A great number of abortions occur for matters of convenience.

Additionally, the Scripture you quote is taken out of context. Jesus never meant for us to not judge behavior or actions of others. What the quote “judge not lest ye be judged,” refers to is the eternal judgment of a person.

The never-ending pro-choice trope of “I’m personally against abortion, but don’t want to impinge on someone else’s choice,” is ridiculous. What if you were personally against theft, or assault, or some sort of sexual crime?

Remember, abortion used to be [correctly] against the law. Let us all pray for a swift reversal of Roe v Wade, and let the States make their own laws accordingly.

When you didn’t do it for one of these least ones, you didn’t do it for Me,
Deacon Christopher
 
Bottom line: There is a difference between an intrinsic evil, like abortion, and trying to utilize moral judgments to determine the lesser of two evils (total shutdown of all activity vs trying to balance minimizing risk and allowing the necessary economic activity necessary to have people provide for themselves so as to not starve).
This proves the point I am trying to make. Choosing between “the lesser of two evils” is NOT pro-life. it may satisfy some other need, but it is NOT a pro-life position. Any time, anything is chosen over life, the policy is NOT pro-life.

Does the Church compromise on abortion? Then why would it compromise on any other issue of life?

Does our society do enough to reduce car accidents or flu deaths? Certainly not. Is our society pro-life? Absolutely not. It never has been. So I’m not sure your examples are appropriate.

Our economy is not worth lives. If you think it is, you aren’t taking a pro-life stance.

Would it be pro-life to support abortion clinics because otherwise abortionists would lose their jobs? of course not. So why open restaurants if it would hurt people?

Would it be pro-life to declare war on Canada because Boeing needs the revenue on their balance sheet? Of course not, so why open car factories to help Ford?

Why not just provide benefits to unemployed people directly? Hire them to do temporary jobs for the government, kind of like the WPA did. We choose not to do that, just like we choose to only be kind of pro-life. When it doesn’t run afoul of our favorite politician’s views.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top