Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

[Ridgerunner]

Law journal articles are meticulously prepared. In top-flight schools, they do not contain errors or inadvertences. Every page is reviewed by at least two editors, as well as the author or authors. The Ginsberg journal article had two authors. There is no expression of different opinions on the part of either of them.

It is the job of the particlar editor (for this one it would likely be the Assistant Editor or the Lead Articles Editor, usually the second and third-ranking students in the class, varied only when someone else has demonstrated extraordinary research and writing skills.) It is not only the job of such editors to correct, e.g., grammar or spelling (usually handed to jounal staff lower on the pole) but to review content, flow and expression. It is not at all unusual, when something inexplicable or puzzling appears on the proofs, to call or write the author and ask, e.g., “did you mean this?.. It looks like you are saying…Wouldn’t you want to add?..Do you agree with this citation in toto?..Do you want to distinguish…?” In fact, it is the duty of the editors to do this, in order to avoid not only publication errors, but potential embarrassment to the author. When the intermediate proofs following clarification have been reviewed, they are sent to the author for final review, and any further corrections, additions or deletions are made. At the very minimum, Ginsberg deliberately left an inescapable mental query unanswered. Normally, legal writers do this when they want to imply, but not directly state, their approval. Failure to disassociate from an obvious bombshell portion of a citation carries this implication. Things like this are clever, but they not accidents.

But the reader can judge for himself.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

I don’t know, but I always find it disturbing. The comparison itself devalues human life. Once attrocities reach a scope beyond true human comprehension, simple arithmetic proves nothing besides a lack of understanding of the tragic loss of each individual human life. How can we claim to understand that we are each a unique creation of God, who can and does love us infinitely, if we insist on making inane arguments like ‘killing 1,000,000 x infinity for 30 years is worse than the lose of 45,000,000 x infinity over 4 years’ (global WW-II related losses)?

I dont’ think anyone is trying to devalue the lives of the Jews slaughtered by Hitler, or trying to say abortion is worse than the holocaust. It’s just a way of pointing out the hypocrisy of rightly saying that Hitler was pure evil and what he did was almost beyond something Satan himself could think up, but then saying that the millions of lives lost to abortion is no big deal, or worse, an actual civil right and “good reproductive medicine”. You can’t have it both ways, the slaughter of an entire class of people is the slaughter of an entire class of people, neither should be ignored, but abortion is actually celebrated in some circles of our society, (and not just the wacko fringe like neo-nazis), and that’s just sickening .

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Ridgerunner]

Perhaps Valke will forgive me for the following, as it is also a historic reference, and perhaps a tiring one.

I might be excessively impressed by the work, but I think there is a lot to be learned from Solzhenitzyn’s three “Gulag” volumes. He makes a great deal of the importance of Lenin’s proclamation concerning the removal, from society, of “harmful insects”. By “harmful insects” he meant opponents of the regime of all kinds. Possibly Solzhenitzyn overemphasized the dehumanization of others this encouraged in his follow revolutionaries, and spread like a cancer throughout Soviet society. But certainly, dehumanization progressed from Whites and real capitalists, to people who simply disagreed. Ultimately, it was applied simply to the unfavored or even the unlucky. Ultimately, disfavor alone sufficed to justify the eradication of some person or group, or those caught up and destroyed in the "lottery of 1938 just because of…well just because.). He does trace the development of this dehumanization from the shots of the cruiser Aurora to the post-Stalin period, and the applications that way of thinking has in ways other than homicide. That “progress” is intensely disturbing to anyone who reads with attention, and I could not recommend it more highly.

It is easy to think it impossible to even contemplate shooting a 9 year old while looking him/her in the eyes, knowing the child understands exactly what is going on. It is not so difficult to contemplate giving just a bit too much morphine or insulin to a semi-comatose 90-year-old. It is even easier to contemplate “removal” of “the products of conception” in a gleaming, ceramic-lined “clinic”. And viscerally, those distinctions are not difficult to make. But the Church teaches us there are no such distinctions to be made. We are free to accept that or to reject it, but we must admit to ourselves that we are in disobedience when we reject it. If we accept that, there can be no comparison between that and rather narrow issues of, e.g., economic policy.

Solzhenitzyn traces the corruption of souls, on a massive scale, that resulted from regarding people as “harmful insects” and the destruction that followed that dehumanization. He traces how that “freed the wills” of so many. Ultimately, he opined, almost nobody was untouched by that corruption unless he announced to himself “Here is the line. I will not cross it, say what anyone will. Do what anyone will.” Such a person, he opined, acquires immunity from the far-too-easy descent into inhumanity, and he knew many such people. Such people, he felt, were the only “free” people in a nation of slaves; and not slaves to the Cheka/NKVD/MVD/KGB only, but to their own worst selves.

The U.S. today is not the Soviet Union. We do not have commisars deciding who will die based on some clipped ear of wheat or a lost spool of thread, or mere suspicion or whimsy. We have no one who decides who, among the fit, is an “insect”. But we do have entymologists of a milder, subtler sort. We do have people who declare that this life is lacking in a “quality of life”, measured by their own thoughts about it, and thus unworthy of continuing. We do have people who declare that that life is a “bit of tissue”, not worthy of the consideration given to a human being who might be a few months more advanced. We do have “doctors” who declare, tacitly at least, that “no, you’re right, your life is not worth living, so I can now give you the chemicals with which you may end it”. Those things don’t seem particularly corrupting to those of us who are fit and whole and born. It’s just how some person, clothed in the garb of expertise and authority sees it. Nobody says “insects”, using more benign terminology when conceptually expelling some from the human race for the purpose of ending their inconvenient or, to them or us, unattractive lives. Certainly, those measures do not seem as corrupting as looking the 9 year old in the comprehending eyes and shooting him or her. But the Church tells us that they are not different things. So, we are left with a moral dictum that runs contrary to our visceral reactions. But then, so do many moral dicta, and the question is whether we accept them as part of our religious and moral principles or not. Do we accept the “line we shall not cross”, or not? Some would call accepting it “simplistic” or “single issue” or “bigoted” or worse. Solzhenitzyn, for one, and I am persuaded I should join him in it, called it “freedom”.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Is there some sort of scientific explanation as to who two christians can’t get together to discuss abortion without comparing it to hitler and the genocide of Jews?

It’s prevalient in our socioty isin’t it?

Iran’s President(can’t even begain to spell that) is the new Hitler, Iraq is Vietneam all over again, Obama is the new Kenedy.

etc.

I don’t think it’s necessairly specific to abortion and the holocaust, I just think it’s easy group events together, accuracy is tedious.

“The Present King of France is bald”,

is much less accurate than Russell’s break down,

“There exists at most one present king of France
There exists at most one present King of France
All Present Kings of France are bald”

But the former is much simpler and convient

The Holocaust is a well known mass murder, it is one of the major killing sprees that we have no link to, and it is emotionally charged

“Abortion is even worse than Indonesia’s genocide in East Timor!” Just dosen’t have the same charge.

I agrea it’s bad though, and if I were Jewish I’d find it, if not blatantly offensive, at least highely annoying.

 

[SoCalRC]

I dont’ think anyone is trying to devalue the lives of the Jews slaughtered by Hitler, or trying to say abortion is worse than the holocaust. It’s just a way of pointing out the hypocrisy of rightly saying that Hitler was pure evil and what he did was almost beyond something Satan himself could think up, but then saying that the millions of lives lost to abortion is no big deal, or worse, an actual civil right and “good reproductive medicine”. You can’t have it both ways, the slaughter of an entire class of people is the slaughter of an entire class of people, neither should be ignored, but abortion is actually celebrated in some circles of our society, (and not just the wacko fringe like neo-nazis), and that’s just sickening .

In Christ,

Ellen

Actually, several people in these forums have stated, unequivocally, that aboriton is worse than the Holocaust. To them it is, in fact, an argument of simple math.

To me, it devalues life, because we each have infinite value in the eyes of our creator, but that is just my opinion.

Comparisons like you suggest are somewhat meaningful. For example, Hitler did not commit the Nazi war crimes by himself. Similiarly, abortions say a lot about our society as a whole, not just the women procurring them. In fact, they are, for the most part poor. Half are already mothers.

This does not excuse the act, but I cannot help but think of Matt 25 and the judgement of the Son of Man on nations. Our failures in those areas almost certainly contribute to our culture of death.

Peace

 

[SoCalRC]

The U.S. today is not the Soviet Union. We do not have commisars deciding who will die based on some clipped ear of wheat or a lost spool of thread, or mere suspicion or whimsy.

We aren’t? With the Warner Defense Reauthorization Act and Blackwater’s Pinochet thugs operating on US soil, the distinction seems pretty thin to me.

The White House contends that the President has the right to indefinately detain anyone (including US citizens) without due process.

We also have reached the point were we torture/crucify suspects, or beat them to death inside a sleeping bag, without so much as disciplinary action.

Just because it is ‘benevolent rule’, being used against ‘bad’ people does not make it any less dictorial in nature.

 

[Valke2]

Too many big words here for me. Social Justice good. Social Injustice bad. Proceed accordingly.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Originally Posted by Valke2
Is there some sort of scientific explanation as to who two christians can’t get together to discuss abortion without comparing it to hitler and the genocide of Jews?

Do you consider it inappropriate to compare a Holocaust that has killed almost 50 million innocent victims to one that killed only 12 million?

 

[Dale_M]

Is there some sort of scientific explanation as to who two christians can’t get together to discuss abortion without comparing it to hitler and the genocide of Jews?

My first thought is to say Godwin’s Law, but as originally formulated it only applied to internet discussions.

I think the comparison to the Holocaust is invoked because it is a concrete example. If you believe that human personhood begins at conception, then abortion is an unimaginable atrocity - millions killed every year. If you do not believe this, then abortion has no particular meaning - so pro-life advocates mention the Holocaust because it gives a concrete comparison.

Another possibility regards the truism that 10 killed is a tragedy, 1000 killed is a disaster, but one million killed is a statistic. Again, a comparison to the Holocaust brings abortion into a concrete frame of reference.

I think those are the reasons the Holocaust is mentioned, but agree that it is overused. Abortion, as an issue, should be able to stand on it own.

 

[Valke2]

Do you consider it inappropriate to compare a Holocaust that has killed almost 50 million innocent victims to one that killed only 12 million?

See, I always get nosebleeds when I sit that high on my horse. I don’t go around saying “the crucifixion of Jesus was bad, but how can it possibly compare to the Holocaust?”

If you want to go around saying 50 million abortions or whatever, do so. Why do you have to drag the near extermination of my people into it on nearly every thread?

 

[wow]

These words are just my opinion. I’ll admit these opinions do not make me feel good and often cause me to pray to the Lord our God for forgivness for my judgemental thoughts for it is not possible for me to see what is in other’s hearts. If it’s not possible for me to see in others hearts I don’t see how anyone can see what’s in mine or another’s heart. I am writing this so some have some food for thought because I do interpret hurtful wording in some posts that seem to be lacking in charity, hope or compassion.

Most comparisons I’ve seen, seem to have malice associated with them. It seems some take advantage of these comparisons in order to throw out words like “Nazis” intended to strike against those with opposing views. I’ve seen words like communism, socialism, evil and many other negatives, too many to list and to be honest I don’t want to remember them all.

Some prefer to use condescending wording to make those of an opposing views feel belittled or worse.

It seems there is so little care about the effect these words have on others. Others who maybe truly seeking a righteous path to the Father. Others who maybe close to coming around and yet are delayed in changing their views when treated this way. Some are weak and I would hate for anything I’ve said to cause one to despair and slow down their seeking the truth or even worse and give up the search.

Our words and attitudes may be interpreted as a win in a debate when in all actually it might have set someone firmly in a wrong belief and caused them problems in their own search for salvation. Just because someone does not continue an argument does not mean we have beaten them. It could very well have meant we lost our battle.

For all have sinned and need the glory of God. The effect of sins against God cannot be measured by men. We cannot think wholly like God.

As our Church teaches us, we should seek to change evil with an all encompassing love. Because of this I pray and beg that we consider our words carefully and pray before hitting the “Submit Reply” button.

As I’ve stated, this is food for thought and I truly mean no offense to anyone with what I have written. I confess, I am a sinner and need the glory of God. I truly wish to imitate the life of Christ and will admit, it’s not always easy.

I’d like to share a portion of a prayer I try to say daily, “Put your love in my heart that I may magnify your tenderness and compassion to all, even those that seem unlovable”. I don’t know who authored the prayer but I find this part meaningful in my seeking the love of God.

If I’ve offended anyone with this post, I beg your forgiveness and prayers.

I love you all and I pray for all of us.

We truly live in difficult times.

 

[Valke2]

These words are just my opinion. I’ll admit these opinions do not make me feel good and often cause me to pray to the Lord our God for forgivness for my judgemental thoughts for it is not possible for me to see what is in other’s hearts. If it’s not possible for me to see in others hearts I don’t see how anyone can see what’s in mine or another’s heart. I am writing this so some have some food for thought because I do interpret hurtful wording in some posts that seem to be lacking in charity, hope or compassion.

Most comparisons I’ve seen, seem to have malice associated with them. It seems some take advantage of these comparisons in order to throw out words like “Nazis” intended to strike against those with opposing views. I’ve seen words like communism, socialism, evil and many other negatives, too many to list and to be honest I don’t want to remember them all.

Some prefer to use condescending wording to make those of an opposing views feel belittled or worse.

It seems there is so little care about the effect these words have on others. Others who maybe truly seeking a righteous path to the Father. Others who maybe close to coming around and yet are delayed in changing their views when treated this way. Some are weak and I would hate for anything I’ve said to cause one to despair and slow down their seeking the truth or even worse and give up the search.

Our words and attitudes may be interpreted as a win in a debate when in all actually it might have set someone firmly in a wrong belief and caused them problems in their own search for salvation. Just because someone does not continue an argument does not mean we have beaten them. It could very well have meant we lost our battle.

For all have sinned and need the glory of God. The effect of sins against God cannot be measured by men. We cannot think wholly like God.

As our Church teaches us, we should seek to change evil with an all encompassing love. Because of this I pray and beg that we consider our words carefully and pray before hitting the “Submit Reply” button.

As I’ve stated, this is food for thought and I truly mean no offense to anyone with what I have written. I confess, I am a sinner and need the glory of God. I truly wish to imitate the life of Christ and will admit, it’s not always easy.

I’d like to share a portion of a prayer I try to say daily, “Put your love in my heart that I may magnify your tenderness and compassion to all, even those that seem unlovable”. I don’t know who authored the prayer but I find this part meaningful in my seeking the love of God.

If I’ve offended anyone with this post, I beg your forgiveness and prayers.

I love you all and I pray for all of us.

We truly live in difficult times.

Beautifully said.

 

[SoCalRC]

Do you consider it inappropriate to compare a Holocaust that has killed almost 50 million innocent victims to one that killed only 12 million?

I object to the word “only”, it would be offensive to you if we were talking about a rape torture murder and it was “only” your family.

I also object to the sloppy numbers. Tens of millions of people died globally as a result of WW-II, all in a very short period of time. Nearly two million soviet prisoners of war died in a single winter. To compare that to a flippant statistic, pulled over a stretch of time, shows little regard for the true scope of human suffering that each reflects.

It is far too easy for us to devalue human life, even life we claim to revere. I learned this first hand in Vietnam. I served with the highest casualty bat in USMC history, well over 90% kia in 47 months of deployment. I had to decouple myself from my humanity to simply function. It wasn’t until I returned and had a dear friend lost in his A-6 (MIA, later reclassified KIA) right at the end of the war that I rediscovered what a massive whole the loss of a single life can leave. His young wife, his young daughter, an uncertainty that drove his mother to an early grave and tore at the fabric of the family he left behind.

I have to agree with wow, these sorts of comparisons are generally intended to score points in verbal sparing. At a cost, I fear, of truly embracing our fundemental right to life teaching.

 

[vern_humphrey]

See, I always get nosebleeds when I sit that high on my horse. I don’t go around saying “the crucifixion of Jesus was bad, but how can it possibly compare to the Holocaust?”

If you want to go around saying 50 million abortions or whatever, do so. Why do you have to drag the near extermination of my people into it on nearly every thread?

Be careful you don’t bump your head when you fall off your high horse.

Twelve million people died in the Holocaust, including six million Jews and three million Polish Catholics. So don’t tell Catholics we have no right to talk about the Holocaust.

 

[Pong]

So don’t tell Catholics we have no right to talk about the Holocaust.

I didn’t see where that poster told Catholics to stop talking about the Holocaust. I think he or she was only asking for the faulty comparison of abortion to the Holocaust to stop. And I agree.

 

[Valke2]

Be careful you don’t bump your head when you fall off your high horse.

Twelve million people died in the Holocaust, including six million Jews and three million Polish Catholics. So don’t tell Catholics we have no right to talk about the Holocaust.

I wasn’t telling Catholics any such thing. I was commenting on the apparent inability of prolife people to talk about abortion without dragging the holocaust into their arguments.

 

[stringbeanduck]

I was watching this thread a little around page 12. I haven’t read the last 12 pages yet. I think I’ll jump in and say 2 cents. No I don’t think a Catholic can morally vote for a pro-choice candidate. The fate of unborn children is not 1 issue to look past. I will not look past the issue of abortion just because some1 claims they’ll make a better America. I know some will argue “what about the war in Iraq”. Children die there too. I think that’s a lousy excuse to justify why they want the pro- abortion candidate into office. I know these some1s don’t support abortion(least I pray they don’t). They are obviously are against the war and would that’s probably why they would go for a pro abortion/ pro-choice candidate. They are willing to overlook the issue of abortion so they can get some1 into office that will end the war. And there are some who just don’t research a candidate and go for him or her because of some crazy reason. I had a girl tell me she like one of the pro abortion candidates because her birthday falls on that candidate’s birthday. Remember she doesn’t even think or probably know this candidates stance. Wow thats very deep ( I wanted to say).

It can get to be very illogical to bring the “but what about the children in Iraq” into this debate because obviously we have different views upon war. I will say however, you shouldn’t listen to the common media about the war. lol even if you did now you probably wouldn’t hear much about it. I wonder what that means hmmmm. Ok that’s me going off track. As I said one of the main reasons a Catholic might vote for a pro- abortion candidate would be to end the war. But while doing so they are overlooking the matter of abortion. To continue with such a debate we’ll have to set aside our views of war. This is not about what some1 thinks of the war. Catholics and the war in Iraq is a different issue. Technically its war on terror. Most are familiar with “war in Iraq” I just use that term.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I wasn’t telling Catholics any such thing.

Then why did you post that outrageous comment on a Catholic forum?

I
I was commenting on the apparent inability of prolife people to talk about abortion without dragging the holocaust into their arguments.

Do you have a better example of the mass slaughter of innocent human beings? With deliberate de-humanizing of the victims?

 

[Valke2]

Then why did you post that outrageous comment on a Catholic forum?

Do you have a better example of the mass slaughter of innocent human beings? With deliberate de-humanizing of the victims?

I don’t need to provide you with an example. You could just as easily make your arguments without referencing the Shoah. Instead you take a tactic that demeans the genocide of my people. That is how I and many other’s preceive it.

 

[fix]

I don’t need to provide you with an example. You could just as easily make your arguments without referencing the Shoah. Instead you take a tactic that demeans the genocide of my people. That is how I and many other’s preceive it.

I am not trying to be argumentative but could it not be said your taking offense demeans all those aborted innocents?