Why do many Catholics vote for pro-choice candidates/parties?

Status
Not open for further replies.
please, explain to me how on earth saying abortion is genocide is hyperbole???
 
Abortion is not targeting a particular nation nor ethnic group. Abortion does not seek to inhialite the human race, nor one particular nation/ethnic group.
 
Nicene said:
“it is considered remote material cooperation”

You mean that part?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Click to expand...
From 2004 memorandum titled Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles:
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
In China, its been used to systematically murder females.
In Iceland, it is used to systematically murder babies diagnosed with down syndrome.
In NYC, more black kids are now aborted than born.

Please, tell me how this is not a systematic attempt to destroy a particular group of humans.
Please, explain to me how this is not genocide.
 
again. voting for ‘pro-choice’ candidate is voting for genocide.

There are no two-ways around it.
 
Last edited:
yoo said:
In China, its been used to systematically murder females.
In Iceland, it is used to systematically murder babies diagnosed with down syndrome.
In NYC, more black kids are now aborted than born.

Please, tell me how this is not a systematic attempt to destroy a particular group of humans.
Please, explain to me how this is not genocide.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure “genocide” is the word I would use, at least in the first two of your three examples, but your point is a very good one. Hypotheticals I can think of:
  • If it could be determined that a baby in the womb would grow up to be homosexual, what would gay people think about aborting it? What would happen to “freedom of choice” then? Is it possible that there could be people who would favor abortion in that instance — pro-choice, but don’t want to have a gay son or daughter?
  • Is it possible that a society could ever decide to allow sex-selection abortion to favor females? Keep in mind that masculinity is viewed as being toxic in some circles.
 
Remember that the poster responding to you, is a long time pro life activist (you may have already read that), wanted to put it out there.
 
I don’t know about that…

First, the definition of genocide which you put up:
Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. “a campaign of genocide”
Click to expand...
That word “especially” implies that genocide is not limited to “the deliberate killing of… those of a particular ethnic group or nation.”

Second, I don’t know that this happens in real life, but it is not unknown in murder mysteries to have a case of an apparent serial killer when the real killer was actually just targeting one of the victims; the rest were camouflage so to speak.

Remember that the real push for Sanger’s promotion of birth control came from eugenics, which was very popular until Hitler slid down the previous slippery slope.

But before WW2, eugenics was a big thing throughout the Western world. Eradication of the “feeble-minded” and other less desirable “stock” led to forced sterilizations which continued until 1981 (in Oregon), as well as other measures.
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
Is it possible that a society could ever decide to allow sex-selection abortion to favor females ?
Click to expand...
That’s allowed now anywhere in the western world. Thanks to the British Parliament, it’s even allowed in Northern Ireland…because they care so much about the Irish.
 
MiserereMeiDei said:
Is it possible that a society could ever decide to allow sex-selection abortion to favor females ?
Click to expand...
Let me clarify. What I meant was that, conceivably (no pun intended), a woman could become pregnant, learn that she was carrying a boy, and could say “no, I don’t want a boy, I want all girls, there need to be fewer males in the world, masculinity is a bad thing, and the fewer men, the better”. Girls are routinely taught that boys are bad, boys lie, “the future is female”, and so on. Given this mindset, how much of a stretch is it to think that boys could be routinely “culled” the way poultry farmers cull chicks?

Never mind that she needed a male — if even just a sperm donor (and there are women who regard men as having little usefulness aside from this) — to conceive the child in the first place. If science could find a way around this, some would support it.
Click to expand...
 
Some do indeed support this and are trying to convince others to do just that. Just as, I assume it’s what you were thinking of, the Chinese penchant for doing the same to females. If fourth wave feminism were to be anything like coherent and potent, it’s possible, but it would also be short lived as sane people would out-breed those who select for sex…or anything else for that matter. It only worked in China because of the one child policy and the Chinese attitude toward female offspring and now they have a shortage of females, which isn’t good for trying to maintain a stable society. It can’t work in the west at all even though it’s perfectly legal for them to do it, they’d need the state to make it work. The vast majority of westerners aren’t as invested in what sex the baby is as the Chinese are.
 
Given the fact that according the CARA, only about 23 to 25% of Catholics attend Mass weekly, and the remaining majority varies from occasionally to once or twice a year to not at all, it should come as no surprise that we have a tremendous number of Catholics who most likely don’t even have a clue as to what the Church teaches about pro choice.
 
otjm said:
it should come as no surprise that we have a tremendous number of Catholics who most likely don’t even have a clue as to what the Church teaches about pro choice.
Click to expand...
Or that it’s a sin to miss mass on Sunday. Perhaps that should be mentioned on Christmas and Easter.
 
What is your source for your US statistics? I have not found a study that breaks out one city. Between 2014 and 2017 New York State saw an 11% drop in abortions


One study shows a breakout “black v white”, however, these numbers are from 1975 - 1978. That does not represent current numbers.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.72.8.809

Abortion has decreased in the US during the tenure of President Obama by a significant rate.

 
MiserereMeiDei said:
Some do indeed support this and are trying to convince others to do just that. Just as, I assume it’s what you were thinking of, the Chinese penchant for doing the same to females. If fourth wave feminism were to be anything like coherent and potent, it’s possible, but it would also be short lived as sane people would out-breed those who select for sex…or anything else for that matter.
Click to expand...
Oh dear Lord. I was just creating a hypothetical based on the tendency of our modern society to say, in essence, “two X good, one X bad”. God forbid it would ever come true.

That would make an interesting bumper sticker.
 
Last edited:
I think it’s important to remember, that just because a party has one position, does not mean the candidate for that party holds it. Rudy Giuliani is not pro-life, and Dan Lipinski of Illinois does not support the “right” to abortion. I think it’s a better idea to vote for people and not parties.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
I think it’s important to remember, that just because a party has one position, does not mean the candidate for that party holds it. Rudy Giuliani is not pro-life, and Dan Lipinski of Illinois does not support the “right” to abortion. I think it’s a better idea to vote for people and not parties.
Click to expand...
That is true. At the end of the day, I vote for the person and not the party.

However, in the real-life situation we find ourselves in, the Democratic party is not just pro-choice, but totally pro-choice — no restrictions beyond those enumerated in Roe v Wade, and doubtless there are those who would like to go even further than that. There are a very few pro-life Democrats — Dan Lipinski, John Bel Edwards, Joe Manchin (to some extent), and so on. But they are in opposition to their party on this, and the Democratic party does not like opposition. It has to be pretty much a total “buy-in”. That is one reason I am not a Democrat.

The Republican party has, by default if nothing else, become the “pro-life party”. They do not have the ideological litmus test that the Democrats do. Pro-choice Republicans are a bit of an aberration but, as far as I have ever been able to tell, they are tolerated and not hindered in any way. “They are what they are” and nobody thinks any less of them — in a situation where they are running against a pro-choice Democrat, they know they will get Republican votes because, well, they’re Republicans.

That’s just the way it is in American politics today — less than perfect but it’s the best we’ve got. As for myself, I vote for Republicans (generally) to keep the White House, the Senate, as much of the House as possible, and because of the potential Supreme Court appointments and, to a lesser extent, the federal judiciary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top