Prolife V. Prochoice

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

Edited October 20, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[MIKolbe]

A is not prolife.

[ardillacid]

maturbation?

Edited October 20, 2010 by notardillacid

[dairygirl4u2c]

A might not be 'prolife' as a matter of semantics. but, the point is about abortion.

i also could have, and maybe should have, made the issue something else that's intrinsically evil, but not abortion or something typically thought of as 'prolife'. that would show the point that 'prochoice' and abortion related issues, are not the only issues on the agenda.

[the third issue is about prudential judgment to some extent. i'll leave it at that, without getting into catholic teaching at this point]

Edited October 20, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1287605247' post='2181098']
A might not be 'prolife' as a matter of semantics. but, the point is about abortion.
[/quote]
wrong.

being prolife is more than just a stand on abortion, imho.

[mcts]

A fails at being pro-life, since being pro-life is about much more than being anti-abortion.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

If A is Dairygirl will she make more than three threads about being infanticide in a short amount of time?

Edited October 20, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1287608063' post='2181106']
wrong.

being prolife is more than just a stand on abortion, imho.
[/quote]

i agree.
i was being unclear. A might not be prolife, as he promotes contraception and masturbation, but that's only semantics in my mind. even if it's not semantics, though, my point is about the instrinsic evil v. anything prolife related (abortion, contraceptives etc)

[dairygirl4u2c]

i should have clarified that the genocide in africa is a lot smaller than hte genocide of abortion.
yet, one would think we have to take the effective intrinsic evils into account- ie, abortion is bigger, but as a matter of what can be effectively changed, even smaller genocides must be dealt with.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10).

JPII said these are all intrinsic evils. and fornication. and blasphemy. the list goes on.
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/intrinsic_evil.html

maybe i should have said, "A politician will legalize theivery against whites. He's prolife. B won't legalize theievery against whites. he's prochoice, but ohterwise perfect. the change of abortion change occuring is one percent". what do we make of the sins or not of voting for B?

-----------

also, im giving way too much benefit to catholcis who say ya can't ever vote for someone who is prochoice. obvious intrisinc evils must beat prudential judgment, but that's only, id argue, when there's an effective chance the intrinsic evil voting would make a difference. if not, as hte popes say the issue is about 'proportionate" justifications.
i argue all this in my link on hte issue, in that other thread.

Edited October 20, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[havok579257]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1287614439' post='2181131']
i should have clarified that the genocide in africa is a lot smaller than hte genocide of abortion.
yet, one would think we have to take the effective intrinsic evils into account- ie, abortion is bigger, but as a matter of what can be effectively changed, even smaller genocides must be dealt with.
[/quote]


a catholic can not vote for a pro abortion candidate just because he believes abortion will not be changed, so its a null matter. morals do not work that way. morals are not subjective. they can not be discarded just because the chances of changing a law to reflect moral law is minimal.

[havok579257]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1287616539' post='2181144']
"Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10).

JPII said these are all intrinsic evils. and fornication. and blasphemy. the list goes on.
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/intrinsic_evil.html

maybe i should have said, "A politician will legalize theivery against whites. He's prolife. B won't legalize theievery against whites. he's prochoice, but ohterwise perfect. the change of abortion change occuring is one percent". what do we make of the sins or not of voting for B?

-----------

also, im giving way too much benefit to catholcis who say ya can't ever vote for someone who is prochoice. obvious intrisinc evils must beat prudential judgment, but that's only, id argue, when there's an effective chance the intrinsic evil voting would make a difference. if not, as hte popes say the issue is about 'proportionate" justifications.
i argue all this in my link on hte issue, in that other thread.
[/quote]


if both candidates support intrisically evil morals, then vote for niether of them. vote for another candidate, its not that hard. don't vote for candidiates who support evil morals.

[dairygirl4u2c]

don't all candidate have something intrinsically evil that they support?

do you think your position on the matter is the - clear- teaching of the catholic church? (I know Fio would disagree)

----

also, im giving way too much benefit to catholcis who say ya can't ever vote for someone who is prochoice. obvious intrisinc evils must beat prudential judgment, but that's only, id argue, when there's an effective chance the intrinsic evil voting would make a difference. if not, as hte popes say the issue is about 'proportionate" justifications.
i argue all this in my link on hte issue, in that other thread.

havok's tone seems to suggest 'it's not that hard' and other things he's said, that he's taking the positions based on his need for a clear answer, not as a respect for truth so much. i could and probably am reading too much into his psychology. i'm sure his approach is more reasoned, too, but, i'm just not seeing it yet.

Edited October 21, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[MichaelFilo]

this is a thread hijack, but when do you plan to convert, Dairy? You've been here for 6 years, as far as I can tell, since I've been here.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, i've considered being a catholic with a strange liberal/orthodox twist. i also really like the orthodox church, and am wondering if my hesitation is more because the standard mental frameworks psychology is that that's just random, or because it's not something i should do. my issue is with papal infallibility. as you might guess, i have authority issues. not just personal issues, intellectual as well.

Edited October 21, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[MichaelFilo]

Well, you understand the limitations of it. It should hardly pose any problems for you.

And is that exclusively the problem, or does it include any of the other things?

Do you regularly post on an orthodox site? I only ask this one because if you don't, then it simply is a refusal of assent, rather than a love for the orthodox Church, or so I presume.

[dairygirl4u2c]

actually- it's a fact that havok's stance is mistaken, at least if we are looking at it as an official teaching of the catholic church. the popes say that a catholic *can* vote for a candidate who is prochoice, or per a instrinsic eviil, as long as there's a 'proportionate' reason to. (we can argue about what that means, sure) that means to take havok's approach of never being able to vote for someone who supports an intrisic evil, is mistaken. at least if he's thinking that's the teaching that is taught by the catholic church.

Edited October 21, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[MichaelFilo]

I agree with you one hundred percent, but what about infallibility bothers you?

I do disagree with your percentage equations. No way to know there is a 1% chance.. it's just not quantifiable, but I agree with you in this regard.

[dairygirl4u2c]

to be clear, when i say 'intellectual' reservations, i think they contradicted themselves, or at least my hunch is so. and you can probably dig up lots of threads where i'm arguing points in that regard.

i do understand the limitations of it. and when there's an issue said to be infallible, and all understand it as such, and i disagree with it personally, what do i make of that? i also tend to think there's contradictions in teaching, so why should i assent to it?
so yes, take any issue i have personally, which of itself isn't reasoned i agree, and then combine that with my reservations, and we me not wanting to be catholic. so yes, you could probably surmise that personal issues do play a role in it, to some extent.

i post at orthodox site, sometimes, albeit rarely. i post enough to get a feel for how accurate i am in my understanding of authority structures within that church, and their understandings of the catholic church. i also post there to get a feel for other issues i really like within their church. i post here mostly, just out of habit. there's other more knowledgeable catholic sites, but i like this one a lot. i occasionally break my habit and post at other sites, sometimes with more elaborate responses, but the bottom line is usually the same. i stay informed, cause my continual curiosity for catholic stances.... ive not rule out that the catholic church isn't infallible, for sure, and it's a respectable entity in any case.

i have 'gut' feelings that go either way per hte catholic church. im someone always curious how other folks within their religion have gut reactions to their religion, and how similar or not it is to the catholic reactions. part of me wants to say that the catholics have a more 'gut' reaction that more definitely reflects the truth of the matter, part of me says everyone got their gut reactions. i dont know how to utilize my gut reaction other than to align to what seems to be the best intellectual response.

Edited October 21, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

right, the 1% thing is just to make a point. id argue if there's a decent chance abortion would change, even if it were 33%- again to make the point- you have to give abortion priority.

Edited October 21, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c