Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The political obligation of Catholics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The political obligation of Catholics

    A couple of hypotheticals:

    1.) An election has a Klanner who is 100% pro life pitted against a candidate who is moderate but believes abortion should not be made illegal What is the consciencous Catholic to do?

    2.) If abortion were outlawed but the number of actual abortions only dropped slightly, and the drop was matched by an increase in deaths of women at the hands of abortionists?

    I thought about placing this in the Christian only section of Tweb, but thought it should be opened to others by the slightly altered scenario of two unpalatable choices.

  • #2
    Originally posted by simplicio View Post
    A couple of hypotheticals:

    1.) An election has a Klanner who is 100% pro life pitted against a candidate who is moderate but believes abortion should not be made illegal What is the consciencous Catholic to do?

    2.) If abortion were outlawed but the number of actual abortions only dropped slightly, and the drop was matched by an increase in deaths of women at the hands of abortionists?

    I thought about placing this in the Christian only section of Tweb, but thought it should be opened to others by the slightly altered scenario of two unpalatable choices.
    Well you are the Catholic. What would you do?

    Comment


    • #3
      George Yancey (a prominent Christian sociologist) was discussing something similar to scenario #1 on Facebook today. He suggested the 1992 Louisiana governor election, where David Duke (pro-life for white children) ran against Edwin Edwards (pro-choice for all). He concluded that the damage that the pro-life movement would have taken had they coalesced around Duke would have outweighed any marginal gains they could have made in that case.
      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by simplicio View Post
        A couple of hypotheticals:

        1.) An election has a Klanner who is 100% pro life pitted against a candidate who is moderate but believes abortion should not be made illegal What is the consciencous Catholic to do?

        2.) If abortion were outlawed but the number of actual abortions only dropped slightly, and the drop was matched by an increase in deaths of women at the hands of abortionists?

        I thought about placing this in the Christian only section of Tweb, but thought it should be opened to others by the slightly altered scenario of two unpalatable choices.
        #1 is much as KingsGambit described it. There is no way vote 'pro-life' in that case.


        #2 is perhaps the more problematic, but maybe not. If the number of deaths stays roughly the same, then I think you would need to just leave it as is in that some of those abortions are at a stage where there is no mind, no person there yet, but the women killed all have a mind, they are all persons. The other side of that coin is the innocent vs guilty (those getting the abortion are 'guilty' per se, not innocent as one would ascribe to the child), but I'd argue that the ambiguity about the personhood of the most early stages, but not the person having the abortion, also impacts the assignment of innocence, and that pushes it clearly towards leave the law as it is assuming the prescribed outcome.

        #2 is also very contrived. There is no way to ever actually know if changing the law will create a precise balance of deaths.
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 02-05-2020, 02:50 PM.
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • #5
          I happen to have an old acquaintance from high school who is now a Catholic blogger with a fairly sizable following. He is theologically conservative and I enjoy reading his perspective. His general take, which he says is in accordance with canon law, is that one can cast a vote for a candidate who is not pro-life if one believes that as a whole their candidacy will save more lives, but one cannot vote for a candidate *because* they are pro-choice. I generally defer to what he has to say on what Catholics actually believe.
          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by simplicio View Post
            A couple of hypotheticals:

            1.) An election has a Klanner who is 100% pro life pitted against a candidate who is moderate but believes abortion should not be made illegal What is the consciencous Catholic to do?

            2.) If abortion were outlawed but the number of actual abortions only dropped slightly, and the drop was matched by an increase in deaths of women at the hands of abortionists?

            I thought about placing this in the Christian only section of Tweb, but thought it should be opened to others by the slightly altered scenario of two unpalatable choices.
            What if the extent of how rampant #2 is is just a myth, or a fearmongering lie to justify legalizing abortion? That sounds more plausible to me knowing how dishonest the left is in trying to endorse their political agendas. I also find it highly unlikely women would go to extraordinary lengths to seek a risky abortion because they bypassed the much simpler method of contraceptive.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by seanD View Post
              What if the extent of how rampant #2 is is just a myth, or a fearmongering lie to justify legalizing abortion? That sounds more plausible to me knowing how dishonest the left is in trying to endorse their political agendas. I also find it highly unlikely women would go to extraordinary lengths to seek a risky abortion because they bypassed the much simpler method of contraceptive.
              It would still be fairly widespread (as it was nearly a century ago) but I highly doubt it would come even close to the current number of abortions. So I don't think it's a strong point myself.

              The actual question is how many states would outlaw abortion, and how many people would thus be unable to travel to a state that did not. Most likely it would mainly deter teenagers and poorer people in the South though there would still be a reduction for sure.

              There are billionaires who feel passionate about legal abortion. I would predict that well funded "charities" would set up daily or weekly bus trips from some of the biggest cities in Texas over to clinics just over the border in, say New Mexico to offset some of this.
              Last edited by KingsGambit; 02-05-2020, 06:57 PM.
              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                A couple of hypotheticals:

                1.) An election has a Klanner who is 100% pro life pitted against a candidate who is moderate but believes abortion should not be made illegal What is the consciencous Catholic to do?

                2.) If abortion were outlawed but the number of actual abortions only dropped slightly, and the drop was matched by an increase in deaths of women at the hands of abortionists?

                I thought about placing this in the Christian only section of Tweb, but thought it should be opened to others by the slightly altered scenario of two unpalatable choices.
                Well, the "official" guideline for Catholics regarding voting, at least in the US, is this:
                http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-acti...ship-title.cfm

                So I guess you could try to figure it out with that.

                Though if this is posed more specifically for Catholics, wouldn't it make more sense to ask this on a place like Catholic Answers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  #1 is much as KingsGambit described it. There is no way vote 'pro-life' in that case.


                  #2 is perhaps the more problematic, but maybe not. If the number of deaths stays roughly the same, then I think you would need to just leave it as is in that some of those abortions are at a stage where there is no mind, no person there yet, but the women killed all have a mind, they are all persons. The other side of that coin is the innocent vs guilty (those getting the abortion are 'guilty' per se, not innocent as one would ascribe to the child), but I'd argue that the ambiguity about the personhood of the most early stages, but not the person having the abortion, also impacts the assignment of innocence, and that pushes it clearly towards leave the law as it is assuming the prescribed outcome.

                  #2 is also very contrived. There is no way to ever actually know if changing the law will create a precise balance of deaths.
                  The number of deaths of women at the hands of abortionists were deliberately grossly exaggerated by the pro-abortion crowd in order to garner support for it as the co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) and one time director of New York City’s Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, Bernard N. Nathanson, revealed after he repented his pro-abortion views after the advent of ultrasound technology. Nathanson confessed that he and his fellow travelers constantly fed the media the lie that 10,000 women a year died as a result of botched illegal abortion when in fact it was but a tiny fraction of that (in 1972, the year prior to Roe v. Wade, 28 deaths were reported from illegal abortions). And of course the MSM dutifully and unquestioningly parroted these numbers.

                  The Washington Post gave the president of Planned Parenthood 4 Pinocchios last year for continuing to disseminate the lie that thousands of women died each year before Roe.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                    Well, the "official" guideline for Catholics regarding voting, at least in the US, is this:
                    http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-acti...ship-title.cfm

                    So I guess you could try to figure it out with that.

                    Though if this is posed more specifically for Catholics, wouldn't it make more sense to ask this on a place like Catholic Answers?
                    It came straight from an interview with Archbishop Chaput. I had thought about how to frame it, and decided on using the title of the article, since the Catholic Church has oodles of statements and pronouncements on the topic, the possibility of drawing in more comments, and it diverts away from the difficulties of dealing with hypotheticals.

                    The document you linked to lists four principles on social teaching: human dignity, subsidiarity, solidarity, common good; but participation in public life demands a well formed conscience, while recognizing that public participation is a virtue and an obligation.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      The number of deaths of women at the hands of abortionists were deliberately grossly exaggerated by the pro-abortion crowd in order to garner support for it as the co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) and one time director of New York City’s Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, Bernard N. Nathanson, revealed after he repented his pro-abortion views after the advent of ultrasound technology. Nathanson confessed that he and his fellow travelers constantly fed the media the lie that 10,000 women a year died as a result of botched illegal abortion when in fact it was but a tiny fraction of that (in 1972, the year prior to Roe v. Wade, 28 deaths were reported from illegal abortions). And of course the MSM dutifully and unquestioningly parroted these numbers.

                      The Washington Post gave the president of Planned Parenthood 4 Pinocchios last year for continuing to disseminate the lie that thousands of women died each year before Roe.
                      This would seem to confirm your statistics:

                      https://www.guttmacher.org/perspecti...r-legalization

                      Source: above

                      It is easy for Americans to forget that illegal abortion was common before the 1973 Supreme Court decisions that legalized the procedure across the nation—and that denying women access to legal abortion does not prevent them from having abortions, but just increases the likelihood that they will resort to an illegal abortion carried out under unsafe conditions. In a 1976 article, researchers from the Center for Disease Control examined national abortion data from the three years surrounding the rulings and estimated that the number of illegal procedures in the country plummeted from around 130,000 to 17,000 between 1972 and 1974. The number of deaths associated with illegal abortion decreased from 39 to five in that same time period; women who died as a result of illegal abortions typically were black, were more than 12 weeks pregnant and had self-induced in their own community. The researchers concluded that abortion services need to be improved and available more widely, especially for women at high risk for seeking illegal abortions, because “any actions which impede their access to legal abortion may increase their risk of death.” More than 40 years later, their words are a potent reminder of the dangers of restricting abortion access.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      the 4 pinnichios article is paywalled:

                      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...th-misleading/

                      but a report on it can be found

                      https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pla...safe-abortions


                      One takeaway is that abortions in large numbers will continue regardless of the change in the law. Pre wade values (1972 value is 180 per 1000 live births) are about 1/2 the post wade value(max 359 per 1000 in 1980) , though they are significantly down at the present time, only slightly above the pre-wade values in 2016 (186 per 1000).

                      (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti..._United_States)

                      Care has to be taken with mortality statistics because medical care is generally better now that pre 1970, so charges that illegal abortion mother mortality would go up to a pre-1970 level with a repeal of roe-v-wade are low. But 'back ally care' would be guaranteed to be worse and more traumatic (and expensive) to the mother.

                      So one thing to keep in mind is that a repeal of abortion laws is not particularly likely to significantly reduce the actual number of abortions that take place. Not that I'm arguing for abortion, it's just what the reality is - and a legitimate (in that it is not the sort of lie you are talking about) argument that can be used to garner public push back against such a repeal.


                      Nathanson has been on both sides of the debate, the Washington Post article can be found:

                      https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-efbe21a73726/
                      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 02-06-2020, 11:09 AM.
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                        A couple of hypotheticals:

                        1.) An election has a Klanner who is 100% pro life pitted against a candidate who is moderate but believes abortion should not be made illegal What is the consciencous Catholic to do?

                        2.) If abortion were outlawed but the number of actual abortions only dropped slightly, and the drop was matched by an increase in deaths of women at the hands of abortionists?

                        I thought about placing this in the Christian only section of Tweb, but thought it should be opened to others by the slightly altered scenario of two unpalatable choices.
                        This simply supports the belief that people shouldn't be "single issue" voters.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I have a question: why are more and more people saying "that" in place of "than" -- "Care has to be taken with mortality statistics because medical care is generally better now that pre 1970."

                          I've been noticing that lately and it bothers me for some reason.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                            A couple of hypotheticals:

                            1.) An election has a Klanner who is 100% pro life pitted against a candidate who is moderate but believes abortion should not be made illegal What is the consciencous Catholic to do?

                            2.) If abortion were outlawed but the number of actual abortions only dropped slightly, and the drop was matched by an increase in deaths of women at the hands of abortionists?

                            I thought about placing this in the Christian only section of Tweb, but thought it should be opened to others by the slightly altered scenario of two unpalatable choices.
                            I have beef with your hypothetical 100% Pro-Life Klanner... Mostly because any White Supremacist (WS) I've encountered, IRL or Online, is only 100% Pro-Life insofar as White Folk are concerned (which is not technically 100% Pro-Life). I'm curious... are there records of WS types that are 100% Pro-Life regardless of whether the unborn's skin has more melanin content than the mayonnaise complexion of their supporters?
                            Have You Touched Grass Today? If Not, Please Do.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by seanD View Post
                              I have a question: why are more and more people saying "that" in place of "than" -- "Care has to be taken with mortality statistics because medical care is generally better now that pre 1970."

                              I've been noticing that lately and it bothers me for some reason.
                              I'm guessing it's from people posting from their phones and getting mauled by autocorrect.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              175 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post One Bad Pig  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              53 responses
                              411 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              114 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              198 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              84 responses
                              383 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Working...
                              X