Prolife Progress

[Maggyie]

It would be meaningless as a declaration of a California court, except to the millions of people living in California. I fear we pro-lifers tend to overestimate pro-life sentiment across the country. People are pro-life in principle (when taking a phone poll) but when it comes to changing laws... not so much.

[MichaelFilo]

Yes, but on a base level it will disassociate the foreign policy issue with the life issue. I know many Catholics who are more anti-war than anti-life but they favor the anti-war stance over the pro-life stance. This maybe a southern phenomenon, but we'd go a long way by separating the two.

[havok579257]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287505616' post='2180708']
It is not absolute as that, but I agree.

If there was a candidate who supported abortion in the case of rape and wanted peace with other nations vs a candidate who supported nuking the middle east but was against abortion we might rightly be justified to vote for the former. I know it hasn't come up in our politics, but you understand it isn't so absolute.

But I really like the idea that we vote pro life because they are pro-life. But what about the third option, the option to remove that right to decide from the federal government and return it to the state. There are many libertarians, for instance, who want to give women the right to murder their own babies in the womb, but would be strongly against imposing it from Washington. Would it be OK to vote for them?
[/quote]


this idea does not work. the libertarians in this scenerio support abortion. that is wrong. they believe people should be able to murder unborn babies. there is no way around that. it is wrong on all levels, most of all to a catholic who adhears to the catholic church teaching. the ends do not justify the means. we as catholic know this. so voting for a pro abortion libritarion who could reduce some abortions but still make them possible and legal is wrong. plain and simple.

[havok579257]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1287537616' post='2180865']
as fio said, it's not as absolute as this. at least, it's not the official stance that it is this absolute.
it's not unreasonable to say "it's like trying to justify the means with the end", but then we get into situations, at least hypothetically, and probably even realisically similiar, where two percent of the population thinks Roe is wrong or who are prolife, and yet we're required to vote that way anyways?
it's actually a lot more complicated than this, even, cause we start seeing how trying to make absolutes such as havok is doing, starts leading to all kinds of weird results. (i can start forming other hypoheticals that make the point) if you are interested, i can dig that thread up where this debate occurred.
but for most practical purposes, it's a limited view to folks like havok, and not even most catholics who are 'good catholics', and not even the official view of the catholic church, that one "must" vote for the prolife candidate, despite any other possible condition or context.
[/quote]


show me a candidate who has advocated nuking the middle east and then i will revise my statement. until then, voting for a pro abortion candidate in america is wrong. i don't care what else they advocate. if they advocate ending homelessness but still advocate killing unborn babies it is wrong for a catholic to vote for them. if they advocate world peace and never being involved in war but advocate killing unbron babies, then its stil wrong for a catholic to vote for them.

the catholic church holds the sanctity of life extremely high. catholics who follow the catholic churchs teachings must have the same respect for sanctity of life. voting for a candiate who supports abortion goes against that very basic idea.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1287584480' post='2180998']
this idea does not work. the libertarians in this scenerio support abortion. that is wrong. they believe people should be able to murder unborn babies. there is no way around that. it is wrong on all levels, most of all to a catholic who adhears to the catholic church teaching. the ends do not justify the means. we as catholic know this. so voting for a pro abortion libritarion who could reduce some abortions but still make them possible and legal is wrong. plain and simple.
[/quote]

He would ban the federal level dictating this issue. There is no Catholic principal that says a ban on abortion must be a federal level issue. For long term sustainability of an abortion free society I would argue that the federal level must NOT be where it is banned. It will be 40 years now that we have not been able to repeal Roe VS. Wade. The Federal government is largely insulated to popular opinion on this issue.

[quote]show me a candidate who has advocated nuking the middle east and then i will revise my statement. until then, voting for a pro abortion candidate in america is wrong. i don't care what else they advocate. if they advocate ending homelessness but still advocate killing unborn babies it is wrong for a catholic to vote for them. if they advocate world peace and never being involved in war but advocate killing unbron babies, then its stil wrong for a catholic to vote for them.

the catholic church holds the sanctity of life extremely high. catholics who follow the catholic churchs teachings must have the same respect for sanctity of life. voting for a candiate who supports abortion goes against that very basic idea. [/quote]

This is my point, human life at any point is sacred. You must protect the person who advocates for the most human life. Sometimes going to war might kill more people than abortion. Now, I realize to date this has not been the case, but it can be that case. You would be forced to defend the greater number of people. Being pro-life does not automatically translate into a vote. I would say blindly following religious precepts without reasons is dangerous but this isn't even a religious precept.

Edited October 20, 2010 by MichaelFilo

[havok579257]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287584905' post='2181001']
He would ban the federal level dictating this issue. There is no Catholic principal that says a ban on abortion must be a federal level issue. For long term sustainability of an abortion free society I would argue that the federal level must NOT be where it is banned. It will be 40 years now that we have not been able to repeal Roe VS. Wade. The Federal government is largely insulated to popular opinion on this issue.
[/quote]


there is a catholic principle that says that abortion is wrong. by supporting a pro abortion candidate you are supporting abortion. you are promoting scandel which is a sin. the church teaches abortion is never ever ok. to vote for a candiaite who support abortion is not ok. that candiadtes agenda is to make abortion legal. be it legal on a state level or a federal level, it is still wrong. a catholic can not support abortion, plain and simple. voting for a pro abortion candidate is supporting abortion. there is no wiggle room, its black and white.

[MichaelFilo]

There is a utilitarian principle here that you are ignoring. Catholics cannot support abortion, obviously, but if I am interested in making sure there are the least abortions over the longest period of time then I don't see how a system where the federal government that is in control by popular vote is a good mechanism for keeping it illegal for any long period of time. Rather, I am convinced that if we can separate the abortion issue from the foreign policy issue we will have a whole lot less abortion.

Furthermore, the Catholic church teaches there are lots of things you can never support, illicit war being one of them. You cannot support gay marriage. You cannot support a whole slew of things, why does abortion hold it's head the highest. This is a a matter of reason, where the Catholic must find the best means to have the least abortions possible over the longest period of time. The problem with the federal system is two fold:

Since the winds on a national level change quite often on the abortion issue, sometimes in just how you phrase a question, we will have many places where abortion clinics will exist when it is illegal to have abortions and offer other services, but will keep their abortion related equipment. If it is banned in states, rather, than abortion equipment and doctors trained in abortions will be removed in a more permanent manner (states don't sway like the nation as a whole does on most issues.) State level bans are more effective at destroying the abortion infrastructure because of it's more permanent nature. There is that practical issue.

Secondly, if there was a pro-war candidate that was against abortions but wanted us to go to war with.. say China, and there was a candidate that was anti-war but only approved of abortions in cases of rape and incest then we can be assured that the first candidate will be responsible for more illegitimate deaths than the anti-war candidate. This is the reality. You cannot, with all the zealotry in the world, support the pro-war candidate on some principal that does not make sense and will actually lead to more deaths. That would defeat the purpose.

[Maggyie]

[quote]Since the winds on a national level change quite often on the abortion issue, sometimes in just how you phrase a question, we will have many places where abortion clinics will exist when it is illegal to have abortions and offer other services, but will keep their abortion related equipment. If it is banned in states, rather, than abortion equipment and doctors trained in abortions will be removed in a more permanent manner (states don't sway like the nation as a whole does on most issues.) State level bans are more effective at destroying the abortion infrastructure because of it's more permanent nature. There is that practical issue.[/quote]

Hmmm. I don't think the winds change at all very often at the national level. Abortion has been legal at the federal level ever since Roe v Wade, with no interruptions :mellow:

[quote]There is a utilitarian principle here that you are ignoring. Catholics cannot support abortion, obviously, but if I am interested in making sure there are the least abortions over the longest period of time[/quote]

This is the argument that Catholic Democrats who are pro-choice sometimes use. The idea being that if we offer enough social support through program expansions, fewer women will choose abortion b/c they have the economic support they need to continue the pregnancy.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1287588926' post='2181009']
Hmmm. I don't think the winds change at all very often at the national level. Abortion has been legal at the federal level ever since Roe v Wade, with no interruptions :mellow:[/quote]
Roe vs Wade is not a reflection of public opinion. Unfortunately, you cannot just vote a pro life law to counteract it. You would need it overturned by a court. So, it is insulated from the vote. Public polling shows something quite different.

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1287588926' post='2181009']
This is the argument that Catholic Democrats who are pro-choice sometimes use. The idea being that if we offer enough social support through program expansions, fewer women will choose abortion b/c they have the economic support they need to continue the pregnancy.
[/quote]

Catholic democrats have no concept of economics. Welfare programs from the govt will not cure the problem. Also, democrats enact specifically anti-life legislation. For instance, Obama overturned the Mexico City policy as soon as he got in. I am not interested in anyone using anti-life means. I only mean that a libertarian would remove the jurisdiction from the federal government and you could pass a law that nullified the court on that basis. You cannot pass a pro-life law on that basis, because the court has decided that women have certain rights. All you can do is make their ruling null by declaring it outside of their jurisdiction.

Also, pro-choice democrats want to use evil means for good ends. A libertarian candidate would have no concern with supporting programs abroad that support abortion because he would be against supporting programs abroad. I want to achieve good ends, the end of abortion, with good means, by restricting the courts and federal government's jurisdiction.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Constitution provides for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
I think that's in the declaration of independance, not the constitution. pretty big difference there

[dairygirl4u2c]

"show me a candidate who has advocated nuking the middle east and then i will revise my statement. until then, voting for a pro abortion candidate in america is wrong"

maybe as a practical matter, in today's world, it's wrong. but one cannot say that it's wrong, no matter what.

all candidates have something intrinsically evil about. i was throwing out lots of examples. but i'll make it simple-- A wants to teach and hand out contraception and promasturbation, everywhere as standard. he is prolife though. B is prochoice but is perfect in everything else. there's a liklihood that abortion will change, at less than 1%. if the prochoice candidate wins, contraception will not be handed out and taught in colleges everywhere.
is it wrong to vote for the prochoice candidate here?

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1287604125' post='2181087']
"Constitution provides for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
I think that's in the declaration of independance, not the constitution. pretty big difference there
[/quote]


The declaration is not independent of the Constitution. The Constitution sought to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and property) by creating a system of checks and balances. Reading the federalist papers, which were the letters by Hamilton John Jay and Madison(I think was the last) will tell you that these were indeed the principals that they sought to protect in the constitution. It's true, the document never states it, but it creates the system for which those individual rights could be protected.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1287604125' post='2181087']
"Constitution provides for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
I think that's in the declaration of independance, not the constitution. pretty big difference there
[/quote]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287610982' post='2181118']
The declaration is not independent of the Constitution. The Constitution sought to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and property) by creating a system of checks and balances. Reading the federalist papers, which were the letters by Hamilton John Jay and Madison(I think was the last) will tell you that these were indeed the principals that they sought to protect in the constitution. It's true, the document never states it, but it creates the system for which those individual rights could be protected.
[/quote]

Agreed. When you read most speeches from Statesmen that mention the relationship between both documents or rather simply quote both documents, it is never that they are opposed or in anyway disagree with one another. Rather, the Declaration is often looked at as the animating principle behind the bare bones structure that is the Constitution. To suggest a great distinction or gap between the way one reads or views or even approaches the Declaration and the Constitution is sophistry and does not approach the situation for what it is.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i would agree with that, that we should read into the constitution things like 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

what principle though allows this? i realize that not all conservatives are 'if it's not there, it can't be counted'. but isn't that 'being activist' at least according to traditional conservatives? the only way i know how to read somehting like that into it, is through the 'fundemental rights' doctrine of the 14th amendment, and some vaguer doctinres in the articles. anytime a judge uses these, conservatives cry foul. what should we make of this?

[MichaelFilo]

Well the Constitution and the bible were not documents in vacuum. To understand them we need historical context. I cannot imagine I could read the new Testament and have the same understanding as I would have if I read it and the Church Fathers. Protestants do the same, by introducing the understanding of Luther or Calvin (which obviously has some chronological and temporal issues, but you get the idea.) It is not enough to just read the constitution, but luckily we have many documents of intent written to clarify it's meaning.

[havok579257]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1287604424' post='2181090']
"show me a candidate who has advocated nuking the middle east and then i will revise my statement. until then, voting for a pro abortion candidate in america is wrong"

maybe as a practical matter, in today's world, it's wrong. but one cannot say that it's wrong, no matter what.

all candidates have something intrinsically evil about. i was throwing out lots of examples. but i'll make it simple-- A wants to teach and hand out contraception and promasturbation, everywhere as standard. he is prolife though. B is prochoice but is perfect in everything else. there's a liklihood that abortion will change, at less than 1%. if the prochoice candidate wins, contraception will not be handed out and taught in colleges everywhere.
is it wrong to vote for the prochoice candidate here?
[/quote]


niether are pro life. don't vote for either.

[MichaelFilo]

It just isn't effective, the way you think. It is less likely to end abortions or reduce them. Any reduction in immorality is good. If both candidates are pro-choice but one advocates gay marriage and the other doesn't, you'd vote for neither because both are pro-choice?

[havok579257]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287677268' post='2181318']
It just isn't effective, the way you think. It is less likely to end abortions or reduce them. Any reduction in immorality is good. If both candidates are pro-choice but one advocates gay marriage and the other doesn't, you'd vote for neither because both are pro-choice?
[/quote]

i would vote for the candidate who is pro life. in almost all elections there iare numerous candidates :

examples-

republican
democrate
reform
libretarian

show me a true example of no pro life candidates instead of your hypotheticals.