Experts and users discuss catholicism, abortion, religion in society, religion and politics, roe v. wade: Can Catholics Vote For Pro-Choice Politicians?

Regarding Question

Can Catholics Vote For Pro-Choice Politicians?

quickening

Didn't the Catholic Church believe that life began at quickening and not conception at certain points in the past? The fact that the Church has changed it's views of "life" make me question the certainty of their views.

The other question is why is this "sin" more important than all the others. If Catholics can't vote for Obama due to this why can they vote for McCain who is an adulterer? Why can they vote for someone who supports the war in Iraq when The Pope has said that the war is a defeat for humanity!

I'm just looking for a little consistency. Surely a person that supports the war in Iraq does not value life if we take The Popes words into account in which he also made clear that the war is illegal and unjust.

- reckoner October 20, 2008 12:22PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Quickening and Other Issues
  
  Discussions of quickening or ensouling addressed the issue of when the soul entered the unborn child. Saint Augustine, without the aid of sonograms or the advances in embryology we have today, calculated that boys received their souls at 40 days after conception, girls at 90 days (apparently Speaker Pelosi's analysis of Augustine missed this point).
  
  However, the Church always viewed abortion as a great evil at any stage of pregnancy. Modern embryology now confirms what the Church knew all along --life begins at conception. That is a scientific fact, not a religious belief. At the moment of conception a human life has been created. That life may end before birth through miscarriage or abortion, but it was a human life.
  
  With regard to war, adultery and other types of sin, abortion and euthanasia are on their own level in relation to other transgressions. The intentional taking of innocent lives can never be approved by the Church.
  
  - BME October 21, 2008 10:56AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - life and other issues
    
    "Modern embryology now confirms what the Church knew all along --life begins at conception"
    
    This seems wrong on both counts. The Church did not know this all along, or they wouldn't have had the whole quickening thing. Second, sperm and eggs are living. The sperm is alive before conception so there is no "beginning" of life from non-life occurring. One could easily interpret the Bible in such away to believe that sperm and eggs have the same rights as fertilized eggs. After all, it's all based on the passage that God knew us before we were born.
    
    "The intentional taking of innocent lives can never be approved by the Church."
    
    So a Catholic couldn't vote for McCain either? He intentionally supported a war that the Pope has said is immoral, illegal, and a threat to humanity. Surely a threat to humanity is on the same level as a abortion.
    
    btw, how does one determine which sins are greater than others?
    
    - reckoner October 21, 2008 12:04PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Quickening and Just War Theory
      
      The quickening issue was discussed in the context of what penalty would be imposed on someone who caused a caused a woman to have a miscarriage, or in the case of an abortion. The penalty would be more severe if the quickening had taken place. However, there was never any doubt that the destruction of an unborn child at any stage was an act of evil.
      
      I do not understand what you are getting at regarding the sperm and egg. Human life does not begin until the two come together.
      
      I have searched the Vatican website and have found no statement by either Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI that the war in Iraq is "immoral, illegal, and a threat to humanity." That is not surprising in light of the fact that no such statement was ever made.
      
      John Paul II stated as his own personal opinion, and expressly not as Church doctrine, that he did not believe the invasion of Iraq was justified. The Church itself long ago developed the Just War theory because it acknowledged that under certain circumstances wars might have to be fought. Reasonable people could disagree as to when those circumstances existed, and Catholics have disagreed about the Iraq War. However, the Church has never stated as a matter of doctrine that the War in Iraq was not a Just War.
      
      The Church, through its teaching authority, talks about a hierarchy of sins. Since we are talking about abortion and war, lets look at some numbers. Since Roe v. Wade was decided 35 years ago, there have been approximately 50 million abortions in the United States alone. Are you aware of any war, anywhere in the world, where that many innocent lives were destroyed in the last 35 years?
      
      - BME October 21, 2008 1:05PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - more questions
        
        "Human life does not begin until the two come together."
        
        In your opinion.
        
        Regarding the war in Iraq.
        http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html
        http://www.americancatholic.org/news/JustWar/iraq/papalstatement.asp
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0 ,2933,80875,00.html
        
        "Just War theory because it acknowledged that under certain circumstances wars might have to be fought."
        
        Any honest reading of the Just War theory makes it clear that Iraq is an unjust war.
        
        "John Paul II stated as his own personal opinion, and expressly not as Church doctrine, that he did not believe the invasion of Iraq was justified."
        
        And you believe that your opinion of the war from a Catholic perspective is more relevant than the Pope's? How does one distinguish the Pope's personal opinions from those that are binding? What makes them substantially different?
        
        Let's throw out another comparison. Can a Catholic vote for a politician that supports the death penalty? Does the Church have an official stance on the death penalty?
        
        Lastly, I don't think your comparison of 35 years of abortion to the deaths of a single war is relevant. You'd have to account for 35 years of war and more than just the deaths of a war. What about all the people that are maimed by war, all that have suffered greatly due to the war, what about all the children that were burned over their entire bodies from napalm but did not die.
        
        I'm trying to understand the value of life from a Catholic perspective. Can you explain the way the heirarchy of sin is determined?
        
        "Reasonable people could disagree as to when those circumstances existed, and Catholics have disagreed about the Iraq War. "
        
        Isn't it also possible that reasonable people can disagree about when a life is a human life? clearly your statement about quickening reveals that the Church saw life before quickening as less than life after quickening!
        
        Let's do a hypothetical. A building is on fire and you rush in to save anyone inside. At one end is an 8 year old girl and at the other end are 10 fertilized eggs (it's a fertility clinic). You only have time to save one or the other, do you save the girl or the 10 fertilized eggs?
        
        In my mind it's clear that the eggs are not equivalent to the 8 year old girl
        
        - reckoner October 21, 2008 1:53PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Can Catholics Vote for a Pro-Choice Candidate
        
        The purpose of this argument is to discuss whether a Catholic can vote for a pro-choice candidate. You apparently are not Catholic and do not agree with the Church's position on various issues. That is fine and your right, but we are straying far afield from the purpose of this discussion. My purpose here is to argue that Catholics cannot vote for Senator Obama with a clear conscience.
        
        In any event, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has just released a statement at their website usccb.org that basically obliterates all of the justifications for the "Yes" position on this argument. I will be interested in seeing how the experts on that side explain the statement away.
        
        I also think the statement by the bishops will answer some of your questions raised in your reply to me.
        
        - BME October 21, 2008 2:12PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        understanding
        
        it's true that I am not a Catholic (or Christian), but I'm making a sincere effort to understand your point of view. I apologize if my questions are difficult, but my intention is to understand The Catholic position. I'm a logician and I like to test the consistency of things.
        
        Do Catholics really believe that 4 cells the size of a period at the end of this sentence are of equal stature to a living breathing 8 year old girl? Would they save 10 fertilized eggs over 1 girl if forced to choose?
        
        Are Catholics consistently pro-life? If they can't vote for a pro-choice candidate then why can they vote for a pro death penalty candidate?
        
        Maybe someone else can help me understand these questions if you find them too difficult or misunderstand my intentions.
        
        - reckoner October 21, 2008 3:15PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (3) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
      - What about...
        
        One thing that rarely comes up in the abortion debate is the high number of spontaneous abortions. It seems that God is the biggest inducer of abortions. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/MEDLINEPLUS/ency/article/001488.htm . An estimate of between 25 to 50% of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted.The figures on that are a guess because they happen before most women even know they are pregnant and don't usually get pregnancy tests done. Of the known pregnancies, about 10% are naturally aborted.
        How does that figure into the wonders of religion?
        
        - mangueken November 23, 2008 11:56AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        What about...
        
        I disagree with your basic premise that God causes spontaneous abortions, but will accept it for the purpose of responding to your comment.
        
        The problem with your line of reasoning is demonstrated by applying it to other "Acts of God." People are killed all the time by natural disasters. That does not make it okay for human beings to kill other innocent human beings.
        
        - BME November 24, 2008 8:27AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        I brought it up...
        
        to make a point of logical consistency.
        
        We all would be better off helping make sure that we educate people about sex and pregnancy so that we could reduce the numbers of unplanned pregnancies. But that would require us to teach our children about sex and contraceptives. It sometimes seems that people would like a particular result without being active in the solution.
        I also admit I was taking a dig at the religious belief that god considers every life special. It can hardly be true if god created a body which naturally aborts more often than others induce them.
        I agree taking other "innocent " human lives is wrong and that natural disasters are a terrible experience for all those involved. I try not to resort to worse case scenarios. I happen to think a woman or young girl is higher on the list of people who need support than a few cells starting to become a life and have a hard time understanding the religious point of view on abortion .
        It always appears to me that people know god's mind and I wonder how they know it. Did they ever think that god had a different plan for that woman of young girl other than raising a child? It seems to me if you are going to use the argument god works in mysterious ways you would have to conclude that among one of the mysterious ways he chose, abortion would be among those ways.
        If one proceeds along those lines, even as a Christian, you have to say that yes, a Christian could vote for a pro choice candidate because technically speaking no one knows the ways of god and god may not be that opinionated on the subject.
        
        - mangueken November 26, 2008 9:15PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Can Catholics Vote For Pro-Choice Politicians?

All women everywhere must be give choice - of whether to have unprotected sex or not.

If a fetus is killed by an attack on a pregnant woman it is considered murder. Obviously the same must apply in the case of willful abortion unless there are medical problems.

Why do liberals insist on choice prior to birth but refuse parents the choice of schools once the child is born?

- CharlieBravo October 20, 2008 11:46PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hard to Say

Generally I would have to say no. If they really are the most consistent ethically speaking (like with not allowing divorce, among other things), then I would have to say no.

If they are pro-choice they can switch to the UCC (Unitarians CONSIDERING Christ).

- F2XL October 22, 2008 8:58PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A Contradiction ...

I can only empathize with people who have to deal with secular problems with a religious foundation. Since our institutions and laws are completely (to the best of their ability) secular how should a religious person act?
All I say is I'm glad I don't have to deal with those contradictions I can make decisions with no moral conflicts. Atheism is great.

- mangueken November 23, 2008 12:10PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- A Contradiction
  
  There is an inherent moral conflict in the abortion issue, even if you are an atheist.
  
  The scientific fact is that a new human life is created at the moment of conception. A distinct human being has been created. The issue then becomes what do you do about that fact?
  
  If you are an atheist like Camille Paglia, you conclude that abortion is the taking of a human life, but feel there are countervailing interests that make it necessary to allow abortion.
  
  On the other hand, an atheist like Nat Hentoff vehemently opposes abortion.
  
  I do not know what type of atheist you are, but clearly abortion is not a simple issue for atheists.
  
  - BME November 24, 2008 8:48AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Since I'm not sure
    
    about the reasoning behind the two people you mention I will stick to my own thoughts. But In general it is an easier question for atheists. Saying I'm pro choice doesn't mean I think highly of destroying "potential" human lives but I do place a higher value on the women and young girls who are faced with this choice. I think we could spend our money and time in a much wiser way by teaching people how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and helping out on the contraceptive end which is, in my opinion, the best option.
    
    - mangueken November 26, 2008 9:23PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your religion shouldn't dictate how you think

While religion certainly influences your morals, you can always vote for whomever you want to. The bible can't overrule the Constitution.

- madninjamonkey December 16, 2008 9:17AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Photoboy

Interesting Topic. "Can Catholics Vote For Pro-Choice Politicians".
Fisrt Off, The only individual qualified to answer or have an opinion in such a matter should rightly be a Catholic. For it is he/she who knows the truth of the matter. Secondly, only a Catholic in good standing with the teachings of the Church should apply. Well then, that pretty well narrows it down a bit.
Throughout the ages mankind has fought against good and evil. Placing both at the forefront of the battle from which gain members.
To do evil is relitively easy. To do Good on the other hand, well now, thats another story, but it's one with a happy ending I assure you.
Religion has been with man from the beginning and man himself and by himself can not seem to agree when that happened either. That's another story.
For the most part, a mans religion has been a mans reason for living, for doing good deeds and for spiritual gratification. An inner growth in sorts. Man who becomes bored with doing good things will tend to drift toward a more distorted belief. An inward or selfward belief. One which promises nothing and will in the end, do much the same. This same man or individual will challenge any and all things that block his ability to waiver from the Truth. Much like an adolesent who so chooses to misbehave in the face of a supperior. He'll take on the Empire State Building, making claims to substantiate his opinion and stope low in order to win his point. A kind of sinister high, if you will. He's taken on authority from all corners of the world and when that wasn't challenging enough, he decided to take on God.
Thinking so highly of himself, he couldn't see the forrest for the trees.
We've seen this play out before and within the Catholic Church when certain individuals decided to place themselves above God. Most recently, this created a break in the Church with false promises to those wanting more, so called freedom from the teachings of the Church.
Of course like many people do, they decided to leave and start their own church with their own way of doing things and with their own beliefs, interpreted in their own way. Even today, within the Catholic Church, there are those who call themselves Catholic but hold their own personal views and opinions, far from the True Churchs Doctrin which has been handed down from the beginning. The Teachings have not changed, though the people have. It is one Teaching, that from God, which protects the Catholic Church, the one Jesus started some two thousand years ago. Over 33,000 new and improved churchs have popped up since the 1500's and continue to promise everything but the entire Truth. Those who wish to argue this can simply research it for themselves. I didn't make it up, I simply am providing you an extended version of why this topic can not be debated upon as though it were an opinon for cooking pizza. Oh it can I guess, but then you would be choosing to be on the right side or the wrong side. So proceed with caution. Somebodies life other than your own, might well depend on it.
A Pro-Choice Politician is just another individual who wants a vote. A True-Catholic cannot vote for an intrensic evil unless the options available provide a better result which would be supportive to Gods point of view which supports all life. Society today has watered down Truth as to it's true meaning from years ago. Today Truth still exist and it's a wonderful thing to have in a confused world. Like many topics, instead of trying to dissect our world into more suitable bites, can we not simply list all that is Good and all that is Bad, like too opposing teams and let the players decide for themselves? But then again, you would have to allow an oppertunity for the Truth to be known.

- Photoboy January 29, 2009 2:57PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why not?

Sure, why not? They have no problem cherry picking what dogma suits them enough to follow.

- Blue Linchpin May 1, 2009 11:15PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If this is the question, I have the answer.

The day it is decided that Roman Catholics can not vote for a pro-choice candidate, I, as a citizen, will make the demand that every baptized Roman Catholic legislator and every Roman Catholic judge will either resign from office or renounce the Catholic faith. If they can not be both Roman Catholics and believers in a civil society established upon the principle of freedom of, and from, religion , they must make a choice. If citizens do not demand that choice be made that day, our experiment in democracy is finished.

In the end, this has nothing to do with abortion . Something much more elemental is at stake.

- Joey Tranchina July 16, 2009 12:02AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Of course they can

Once they take the booth who they vote for is supposed to be secret.

- oneoldman July 19, 2009 1:52PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
why not

they do!

- countryboy July 26, 2009 12:17AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

Catholics Can Support Pro Choice Politicians in Good Conscience

- From Jon OBrien

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Out of Context

The rest of the citation so it is not taken out of context.

19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.

A Catholic who may think that there is room in Catholic theology for the "acceptance of policies that favor access to the full range of "reproductive health options", (on the contrary, are not healthy emotionally, physically or spiritually) you only need to read what the Church herself teaches on abortion and contraception. The conclusion is clear: There is no room in Catholic theology for the obvious disregard for human life.

- jmjtina October 20, 2008 2:04AM

Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Science can help though...
  
  Logic can be our best friend or our worst friend. Depends on the way we feel about the question being debated. First, if we recognize that the woman's human body naturally aborts a significant portion of conceived eggs than we can relax a bit on the question of induced abortions. Since they happen all the time we need not make a special case.
  Second, you presume that there is a soul. I don't and by the way you can never prove you or any one does have a soul. A conundrum, I know but it does swing both ways and so logical consistency would be in favor of no special case.
  You also seem to presume that you know god's mind (if such a mind does actually exist) which I will grant for arguments sake, but please inform me how you or anyone could possibly know all the mysterious ways of this god?
  Besides, I would argue that there is "no room in catholic theology for the obvious disregard for human life" presented in wars, or even in the holding of WMDs.
  We should strive to educate people about sex and contraception so that those who want to have a baby have them when they want them and not because of an accident.
  
  - mangueken November 26, 2008 9:41PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm not an expert, just an Insurance Agent

I'm grateful for the discussion that is allowed on this site. I dod not have time to read all the comments and debates. When speaking about the right to abortion because it is the law of our land, I also know that at one time, slavery was allowed in our land because it was the law of the land. What about all the issues surrounding the racial discrimanation in this land? Was that not at one time the law of our land? And what was that all worth? The cost of the ink and the paper which made it a law? We don't need human laws to know the law that is written into every human heart. We all know right and wrong and we don't need someone else to tell us. We just need to stop joking ourselves. Thank you for this chance to speak!

- JOB October 20, 2008 10:37AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Can Catholics vote pro-choice?

Joe O'Brien is ostensibly a very confused Catholic. In fact I would submit he is not a Catholic at all, not believing in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, & certainly is NOT a Roman Catholic. We are God's children. He created all of us, starting from the unborn. It is God's command to love each other as brothers & sisters. We cannot approve the murder of the unborn & love God at the same time. Those notions are incompatible.

- robsonwin February 2, 2009 9:27PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Catholics Can Go To Hell In Good Conscience

Nowadays,Catholics can do whatever they wish in good conscience. At least this is what they choose to believe. This is not what the Catholic Church, established 2009 years ago, believes or teaches, however. The rules were set down by the author of life and death, and to my knowledge, they are still in force. Jiminy Cricket misled many of us, and we need to forget that little bug's teaching about 'always let your conscience be your guide.' Our conscience can mislead us. It's wise to always let the Catechism of the Catholic Church be our guide if we care about pleasing our Lord and preserving our immortal souls. And certainly, don't let the current society trends be our guide. That's just plain foolish. Try to imagine how many trends have come and gone in 2009 years. What if the Church made silly changes to accomodate these trends every time one came along? Be thankful the Church stands firm on God's laws and obey them. Enjoy the treasures of the Church. We have them in abundance. Pray for all our brothers and sisters of other faiths. We are all one family in His eyes.

- stngray April 22, 2009 5:08PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Freedom of thought
  
  Yes, why should people use reason and logic to discover right and wrong when a priest can decide for them?
  
  - Blue Linchpin May 1, 2009 11:50PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
why not?

They do

- countryboy July 26, 2009 12:19AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

Abortion Teaching Does Not Meet the Definition of Infallible Teaching

- From Jon OBrien

Open Argument Go to this Argument

When the Pope speaks definitively on faith and morals...

When the Pope speaks definitively on fiath and morals, it is infallible. Many things have been declared infallible since 1870. The teaching barring birth control is one example. It was definitively declared by Pope Paul VI in the encyclical Humanae Vitae, which was written specifically for that purpose. Pope John Paul II wrote the encyclical Evangelium Vitae for a similar purpose--the bishops had asked him to clarify/codify Catholic teaching regarding life issues such as abortion and euthanasia. The Church's anti-abortion stance was also clearly published in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is approved and released by the Vatican undr the direction of Pope John Paul II to clearly lay out that which the Chiurch considers to be core Catholic teachings. The Church's teaching against abortion is indeed infallible. You are correct in your understanding of what constitutes an infallible statement in regard to codifying as doctrine matters of traditional belief, such as the Assumption of Mary. But definitive statements from the Pope in regard to issues of faith and morals also morally obligate all Catholics and are both infallible and unchangable.

- Debra C October 26, 2008 9:35PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No Latitude In Supporting ProChoice Politicians

In your reasoning you have stated that “a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” You also said that when the church cannot speak definitively on a matter, "the consciences of individual Catholics must be primary and respected. This leaves latitude for Catholics to support prochoice politicians."

Your reasoning is flawed for two reasons:

The church has taught on a matter of faith and morals that abortion is a grave and mortal sin. The church has also taught that supporting these policies are wrong. Therefore the church has spoken definitely on the matter.

Secondly, in your support of deferring to a person's conscience you have failed to mention what the Catechism speaks of in terms of malformed consciences. The church clearly teaches that this ignorance, which includes defiance of church teaching, is no excuse for sins commited. This is from CCC 1790 - 1792. I have provided an excerpt for reference:

Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin." In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

- tjboudreaux December 29, 2008 2:40AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

Church Has Never Declared its Position on Abortion to Be Infallible

- From Jon OBrien

Open Argument Go to this Argument

no need

The Church only makes a formal declaration of infallibility in extraordinary circumstances, and in particular, regarding matters of widespread doubt among the faithful.

The Church doesn't know when life begins? Really? I think the Church has access to the findings of science, just like everyone else...

- clayton October 21, 2008 2:29AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Catechesis Regarding the Teachings on Infallibility and Abortion

Mr. O'Brien appears to be attempting to muddle the definition of 'infallible teaching'. Church teachings are declared in one of three ways:

Papal 'ex cathedra' statements - Except for the errors stating that the declaration of infallibility itself was proclaimed via this method and the implication that it is the sole source of infallible teaching, Mr. O'Brien's characterization of this particular source of the deposit of faith is correct. (The dogma of papal infallibility was declared via the Extraordinary Universal Magisterium, specifically from the First Vatican Ecumenical Council - 1870.)

Extraordinary Universal Magisterium - Bishops united with the Pope at an Ecumenical Council. An infallible example here would be the dogma of Christ's Divinity. (First Nicea Council – 325)

Ordinary Universal Magisterium – Bishops dispersed throughout the world and united with the Pope being in agreement on one judgment or position to be definitively held. An infallible example here would be the reality of angels and demons as creatures of intellect and will.

Mr. O'Brien's assertion of a doctrine of primacy of personal conscience also selectively cites a partial portion of the Church teaching regarding conscience. Consider also paragraph 1783 of the Catechism which includes:

“The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.”

Although the Magisterium has a plethora of statements that are definitive authoritative teachings of the Church doctrine regarding the grave sin of abortion, perhaps the most succinct is from Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae who quotes Vatican II documents Lumen Gentium & Gaudium et Spes as well as Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae:

“By the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors, in communion with the bishops – who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine – I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium.”

- Joe Meakin October 22, 2008 7:03PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Evangelium Vitae

Have we not read our Popes' encyclicals? Pope John Paul II wrtoe the encyclical Evangelium Vitae specifically for the purpose of defining the Church's teaching on life issues such as abortion and euthanasia. The CHurch recognizes the Pope's authority to speak definitively on issues of faith and morals, and all Catholics are morally bound by such defining statements.

- Debra C October 26, 2008 9:41PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

Pope Benedict Says Yes - It's All about the

- From Chris Korzen

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Question....

You state that "At the end of the day, the bishops remind us, individual Catholic voters must use their own “prudential judgment” – or, moral common sense – when deciding which levers to pull. If after examining the facts, a Catholic truly believes that a “pro-choice” candidate will do more to promote the cause of human life than one who seeks legal prohibitions on abortion, her or she can vote for the pro-choice candidate with a clear conscience."

My question to Catholics out there is this: Are we examining the facts? If one candidate's record is more pro-life than the other (OnTheIssues.org is very helpful) how can a Catholic truly believe that a pro-choice candidate will do more to promote the cause of human life if his record is the opposite of pro-life in every sense of the word? Catholic or not, to ignore the facts, or worse, to have life issues at the bottom of your priority list, how can anyone vote with a clear conscience when defenseless babies being killed take bottom priority over the economy? If we can't trust the president to protect the most defenseless and innocent, what can we trust him with?

Bottom Line: Can Catholics Vote Pro Choice? The answer is no.

- jmjtina October 20, 2008 12:57AM

Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- what is pro-life?
  
  does the mantra of "life" apply to those already born? If so then is a person that authorizes torture pro-life (i.e. was Bush)? Is a person that acquiesced on torture pro-life? Is a person that starts unnecessary wars pro-life?
  
  In the end I'd find a person that is opposed to torture and unnecessary wars more inline with the mantra of life than someone who protects 4 cells as if it were a full fledged human being.
  
  - reckoner October 20, 2008 8:57AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Re: what is pro-life?
    
    Pro-life should mean not only preserving the life, but also working to improve the condition the life exists in.
    
    On both ends ( abortion and euthanasia ) life needs to be protected.
    In the middle we need to work to improve the conditions that everyone lives in. We need to provide at least basic health care . All people should have roofs over there head. There should be a minimum standard that all people should be provided. However, people need to give back as they can (not a welfare world).
    
    Torture is part of the middle ground. One thing that needs to be cleared up is at point do you cross the line between interrogation and torture? Is interrogation allowed? Is the line different for times of war and peace? Does Iraq or Afghanistan qualify as a war? Some Police forces have been accused of using torture, how do handle them?
    Abortion takes over a million lives every year (just in the USA); how many have died from torture?
    
    In the "war" do you just look at the number of American soldiers that have died, or the total number of persons that have died? Do we weigh the lives saved against the lives lost? The number of bodies found in the mass graves in Iraq has exceeded the estimates of how many people Saddam Hussein was thought to have executed.
    
    You use the term "full fledged human being". Please define this term. At what point does a person no longer rate "full fledged"? If I get into a car accident and can no longer take care of myself, would I no longer be "full fledged"?
    
    You did not mention the death penalty . This should only be allowed if needed to protect society . If a person can be kept isolated from society, then the value of their life needs to be respected. If the person can not be isolated from society, then the value of the many lives in society needs to have greater weight than the one person’s life.
    Abortion kills a known number of persons, while torture and war death tolls do not come close in quantity.
    
    - ENG Tech September 10, 2009 1:15PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It is morally illicit to vote for Barack Obama

In the abstract, it is morally permissible to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Just as in the abstract, capital punishment is morally permissible when there exists no other option to protect society. In reality, the abstract conditions that would make either voting for a pro-abortion candidate or utilizing capital punishment rarely exist. Unlike capital punishment, abortion is always wrong and is a non-negotiable principle.

Pope Benedict XVI is using the established moral reasoning prinicple of cooperation with evil to make his statement. Let us rigorously apply this principle to evaluate the current election:

I want to evaluate the action of voting for a pro-abortion candidate, specifically Obama, using the principles of cooperation with evil.

Let me first state my premises: Abortion is an intrinsic evil. It is never justified. It cannot be tolerated. Barack Obama supports abortion as is evidenced by his past senate votes and 100% NARAL rating, his endorsement by Planned Parenthood, and his promise to sign the radical Freedom Of Choice Act as one of his first official acts as president. An astute and very precise legal analysis of the dire ramifications of the Freedom of Choice Act can be found here. ( http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2008/10/a-focus-on-foca.html ) It can also be assumed that Obama will support US funding of abortions as part of foreign aid packages as well as the performance of abortions on military installations. In addition, it can be assumed that he will appoint Supreme Court justices who are sympathetic to Roe v Wade (in spite of the fact that many legal minds have denounced the legal thinking of this ruling). Therefore, the election of Barack Obama will cause the increased vulnerability to abortion of the unborn on a world-wide basis. This is an intrinsic evil.

The question is whether or not it is morally licit to vote for Barack Obama. The first step is to decide if a vote for Barack Obama is formal or material cooperation with the intrinsic evil of abortion. If one is voting for Obama specifically because he supports abortion it is formal cooperation. Formal cooperation with an intrinsic evil is always morally illicit. That was easy.

What if you oppose abortion? Does electing Barack Obama contribute an essential component to the increased vulnerability to abortion of the unborn on a world-wide basis even though that is not your intent? I suggest it does, because not electing him would make this dramatic increased vulnerability impossible. This would make your cooperation immediate material cooperation. Immediate material cooperation with an intrinsic evil is also morally illicit.

Let’s just say for the sake of argument, that electing Barack Obama is not an essential requirement for the increased vulnerability to abortion of the unborn. Though this will be the result of Barack Obama’s election, the voter does not intend this result. Therefore, such cooperation by electing Barack Obama would be considered mediate material cooperation. Such cooperation can only be tolerated if all four of the following conditions exist:

1. the cooperators act (voting for Obama) is itself morally good or indifferent
2. the cooperator does not intend the evil (making the unborn more vulnerable to abortion) of the principle agent (Obama)
3. the good effect is not achieved by means of the evil
4. the good effect is proportionate to the bad effect

It is condition 4 that makes the cooperation (voting for Obama) morally illicit. There is no proportionate reason to tolerate the increased vulnerability to abortion. You can see a very long list here ( http://www.wf-f.org/Bishops_Catholics_Politics2008-Present.html of all the bishops )who have spoken to this.

Therefore, using well-established principles of moral reasoning, I can confidently say it is morally illicit to vote for Barack Obama.

- Denise Hunnell October 20, 2008 5:30AM

Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- you're missing the other half
  
  speaking specifically of Obama can only make sense when compared to the other option. Why is it that pro-life seems to only value the life of the unborn and not the born? Can a catholic vote for someone who authorized torture if they "value life"? What about someone who supports unnecessary wars?
  
  - reckoner October 20, 2008 9:00AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - The less equal half
    
    You are correct in pointing out that the pro-life ethic must take into account the full spectrum. However, you can not equate issues of the quality of life (poverty, hunger, torture) with issues of life itself (abortion, euthanasia). Yes, we do fight against torture because it is bad. But all issues are not equal. Some issues are life and death issues. We value the life - both of the born and unborn. However, when given a person who is being tortured, a person who is homeless, and a person who is going to be killed - my priorities, my biggest fight, is going to be for the person about to be killed. This does not mean the others are going to be ignored, but is a basic understanding that not everything is equal.
    
    Voting for a candidate is not a full endorsement of their entire platform. It is a vote for the best candidate. This does not mean they are perfect, and I don't know if such a candidate has ever existed. We must vote for the candidate who "values life" the most, and when comparing someone who endorses murder (aka abortion) on demand, the choice is fairly easy.
    
    - DominicSavio October 25, 2008 10:13PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Applying Mr. Korzen's Argument

Let's apply Mr. Korzen's "do more to promote the cause of human life" standard to a President Obama and see how that works out.

President Obama will receive the Freedom of Choice Act from a Congress dominated by Democrats soon after taking office and will happily sign it. Federal funding would be used for abortions here and overseas and parents would be deprived of notification of, or consent to, their underage daughters having abortions. The number of abortions will obviously increase. Any argument to the contrary is delusional.

Some Catholics for Obama try to excuse their vote by claiming Obama will do more to help the poor, which is clearly a goal of Catholic Social Justice. However, reasonable people can disagree about which candidates' policies will do more to help the poor.

What cannot be disputed is that it does not promote the cause of poor people to encourage them to destroy their unborn children through federal funding of abortion or deprive them of the right to know that their underage daughter wants to have an abortion. Such a result cannot be in accord with the Church's goal of promoting human life.

- BME October 20, 2008 2:05PM

Reply to this Recommend (3) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

Making Abortion Illegal is not the Only Option

- From Chris Korzen

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Choosing to Do Good is Not Enough

The statement issued yesterday by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is available at usccb.org, expressly rejects Mr. Korzen's argument that as long as we think that a candidate will help the poor, we can ignore the candidate's appalling record on abortion.

The Bishop's statement makes clear that Catholics must try to help the poor, but must always fight against the intrinsic evil of abortion.

- BME October 22, 2008 11:19AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If there is nothing wrong with abortion....

I have one simple question:
If there is nothing wrong with abortion, then why do we need to reduce its use? The Democratic Party has time and again defended not only the right to abortion, or rather the right to choose as they state, but have stated that abortion is not murder, but just another medical procedure.

If this is true, then why all the work to reduce abortions? If they truly believe that there is nothing wrong with it, what is the purpose of this new dedication to reduction?

I think it is just an attempt to placate voters and appease certain members while still raking the millions of pro-abortion donor dollars and glowing endorsements from the major abortion providers and backers.

- DominicSavio October 25, 2008 10:26PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- A thought...
  
  He mentioned that many people who lobby for the pro-choice movement tend to be extremists, as is the pro-life movement. But most of us are somewhere in the middle of these extremist views. Just because the pro-life movement states that it is "just a medical procedure", doesn't make it any less heart-wrenching to those who get an abortion, therefore the pro-choice movement tries to reduce them.
  
  - TwentySomethingAndSmiling October 29, 2008 12:27PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Continued Abortion is not an Option

You are absolutely correct that making abortion illegal is not the only option. In fact, I would argue that it must not be. If we were simply to overturn Roe v. Wade and immediately pass a no exceptions federal ban on abortions now, the results would predictably look much like the days of Prohibition with disastrous results for countless women and babies. However, though I freely admit this point, to use this as a means of justifying continued unrestricted legal abortion is a cop out. As Catholics, our end goal should be no more abortions.

Since we agree that simply passing legislation is not enough, then we have our work cut out for us. First, it is important for each of us to understand that this fight is not about women's rights as the pro choice advocates claim. Rather it is about whether or not a human life, even an unborn one, is deserving of protection as a person under the law. To deny one group or another personhood, as Roe v. Wade does the unborn child, means they can be disposed of with impunity for any reason and by any means whatsoever. Allowing this to continue sets a dangerous precedent by which many people may be deemed nonpersons and disposed of. It is a person's humanity, not his utility, that should guarantee rights and protection under the law. These are the very principles our nation was founded on. It can be found clearly stated in the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

This said, one must also be concerned for these mothers who find themselves in desperate situations which might drive them to choose abortion. Obviously, as a nation we have failed these women. We have not provided them adequate support. That must change. If we are to turn the tide against abortion, these women need compassionate support, adequate health care, and options that enable them to continue their lives in dignity without putting their child to death. Many Democrats and Republicans, pro choice and pro life activists alike, have been working to engage in these kinds of services. However, this alone is also not enough.

So long as we deny the unborn child personhood, the unmitigated slaughter will continue, and we as a nation are guilty of grave sin. These little lives deserve the same protection as the rest of us, and it is here in the fight against abortion that we have the opportunity to guarantee the protection of law to all human beings, be they big or small, healthy or disabled, young or old. Anything less leaves us at the whim of judges, politicians, or the popular vote to decide who lives and who should die, a breeding ground for the likes of Hitler's Germany where large groups of people were targeted because of race, religion, genetic abnormality, and even such simple things as a less desirable hair and eye color. This cannot be allowed. We protect the lives of our pets, even stray animals, but offer nothing for our own children. Though other options can and even must be pursued, abortion must be made illegal, just as it is illegal to murder, to steal from others, or to beat and torture another because you disagree with his ideas. Directly causing his death is most certainly more a violation of the child's rights than carrying the baby to term could ever be for his mother.

- Debra C October 27, 2008 11:41AM

Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
why make it illegal

No not for now it's need.

- countryboy July 26, 2009 12:23AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

Pro-Life Means All Life

- From Chris Korzen

Open Argument Go to this Argument

The Right to Live is Fundamental

You are correct that prolife means all life. HTe ideologies of both political parties falls woefully short in comparison to the whole of Catholic social justice teaching. And while all these issues are of great importance, the right to live is the abosolute and fundamental foundation of all Catholic socail justice teaching, and as such, must take precedence over other concerns.

The crux of Roe v. Wade is that it denies personhood to the unborn child. We can argue this way and that way about when "life" begins. But the truth is, regardless of faith or anything else, it is scientific fact that life begins at conception. We can have theological debates about how and when a soul enters the body, whether we have a soul at all, etc. But we know that all human beings begin as a single complete cell when egg and sperm unite to form a new and unique human DNA chain. We know that this cell is alive. It takes in nutrients and disposes of biological waste, and it immediately sets about reproducing itself in an attempt to form the human person its genetic instruction tells it to become. This is the beginning of human life. It is inarguable, biological fact.

The question that remains before us then, is when does it constitute a person that should have protection under the law? IF you broadly interpret the intentions of our nation's founding fahters when they wrote those opening words to the Declaration of Independence, it is the moment of conception. INdeed the Church's teachings on social justice and life issues hinges on this point: It is our humanity, not our utility or sentience, that should determine rights and protection under hte law. And if we do not have the right to live and breathe, universal health care is an absurdity, for it cannot be universal. The alleviation of poverty becomes moot, for those impoverished can simply be disposed of rather than fed at the crack of a gavel on a judicial bench. The ideals of personal freedom, the right to free speech and the practice of religion become an farce, for there are those who have not been allowed to choose. Life is the fundamental right from which all other freedoms and our dignity as human persons flows. If we do not take steps to universally guarantee it, then the only freedom we have is pure fantasy. Therfore, the protection of the right to life must take precedence over all other issues in Catholic social justice teaching, for without it, all else is meaningless.

- Debra C October 27, 2008 12:40PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

The Ghost of Elections Past

- From Chris Korzen

Open Argument Go to this Argument

The 2004 Election

John McCain is not George Bush, and Barack Obama is not John Kerry.

Obama is the most pro-abortion (yes, pro-abortion, not pro-choice, which you could concede to Senator Kerry for the sake of argument) candidate who has ever run for President. His fervent support of the Freedom of Choice Act, along with his opposition to key provisions of the Democrats for Life sponsored Pregnant Women Support Act, clearly refute any contention that Senator Obama is pro-choice.

There will be more abortions in this country if Barack Obama becomes President. Anyone who looks past the rhetoric to Obama's actual record knows that is the truth.

Mr. Korzen and other Cahtolics like him who ignore Obama's record and vote for him in an unreasonable belief that the number of abortions will be reduced cannot claim they cast their vote in good conscience.

Finally, while one can never guarantee how a Supreme Court appointee will turn out (see the abysmal Anthony Kennedy) you can be certain that a President Obama will not appoint any justice who has even the slightest chance of becoming a Roberts or Alito. A vote for Obama is a vote for the appointment of two or three justices who will be hostile to all attempts to limit abortion for decades. Long after Obama leaves office, those justices will be striking down pro-life initiatives.

- BME October 21, 2008 11:40AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

Two Deep Flaws in Arguments Made By Conservatives

- From Catholic Democrats

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Inconsistency

The partial birth abortion procedure is a rather gruesome one. The fetus's is "partially born," with the exception of the head, and then scissors are jabbed into the fetus's head at the back of the skull, followed by a vacuum being inserted into the incision so that the brains may be removed. Then, a dead fetus comes out of the womb. When would there be a situation where the health of the mother would depend on this procedure?

- Anthony Keiser October 19, 2008 11:01PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No Common Ground

We can find NO common ground, even to the point of notifying parents that their underage daughter is getting an abortion.

In a country where you need parental notification for taking cold medicine and taking them on field trips, it seems that getting an abortion with parent notification is not even common ground for us. This is utterly ridiculous that Obama is not willing to let a family decide what is best for the child that is underage and pregnant. (voting NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.) What kind of president would not allow the parents decide how best to help their child? That is one huge flaw.

- jmjtina October 20, 2008 1:39AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Beg the rapist???
  
  So a child (remember that nowadays 10-year-old´s can become pregnant) who has been raped by her father should be forced to beg him for an abortion ???
  
  In Brazil it was the stepfather (who was a legal guardian until he was put into jail) and she girl 9.
  Is this the "Pursuit of Happiness" in the US???
  
  Note: I chose my name from personal experience, at that age I found out that "THE HORRIBLE" would soon force me to have children myself, and never be able to leave the abuse family; and have fought off ANY touch since then - and it was absolutely exhausting.
  
  - prochoice May 6, 2009 8:48AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The FOCA Will Become Law if Obama is Elected President

Senator Obama has promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act if elected President. With the majorities the Democrats will have in both houses of Congress, that legislation will certainly arrive on President Obama's desk and he will certainly sign it.

With the stroke of his pen, abortions will be paid for, here and abroad, with federal funds, and the reasonable parental notification and consent laws that have widespread support will be swept away.

So, in fact, this election will be a referendum on FOCA.

- BME October 20, 2008 1:02PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Rights are Rights

Everyone knows that God has given us something we call free will. You are able to do whatever you please, but of course there are consquences. If you cannot make your own choice on who to vote for then there no longer is free will. There is only one ruler we must answer to and VOTE for and that is the Jesus himself. We have always be able to make our own decisions but your conscience tells you what is right and wrong. So in election time there will be no right man in God's eyes because he is the only one. Your choice i your choice. The only one you have to answer to his him. Voting for anyone who believes in the death penalty is also wrong if you want to put it into cases as this. Like my pastor says God doesn't believe in any type of death. From the WOMB to the TOMB

- mzreid317 November 26, 2008 5:14PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Forced to pay???

WE are forced to pay for born-unwanted´s,
WE are forced to pay for slow and painful dying still,
so - why should the faithheads NOT be treated equally and pay for what THEY do not want (or never need, if male!!!)?

But am I talking to the enthusiasts of the penal law here?
If there is any "common ground" on personal matters, it can only be NO penal law, everyBODY decides over his or her OWN body, and health insurance pays for a limited amount of the most costly decisions (like IVF), but all of the not-so-expensives seen in the long run.

- prochoice May 6, 2009 8:41AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

Three Points are Worth Considering

- From Catholic Democrats

Open Argument Go to this Argument

FOCA

There is nothing "unlikely" about the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act if Senator Obama is elected President. That Act will reverse the Hyde Amendment and will strike down parental consent/notification laws throughout the country.

The Congress is going to be controlled by Democrats, who will certainly pass the Act, and Senator Obama has promised pro-abortion groups that the first thing he will do as President is sign the Act into law.

- BME October 22, 2008 10:48AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

The Key Deficiency in the Conservative Argument

- From Catholic Democrats

Open Argument Go to this Argument

The Statement by the USCCB

The statment released yesterday by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops directly refutes this argument by Catholic Democrats. Catholics who want to see what the Bishops have to say on this issue should go to usccb.org for the statement.

It should be noted that the statement was issued under the names of Cardinal Rigali, Chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop Murphy, Chairman on the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development. Catholics must fight for Social Justice and fight against abortion.

As set forth in the first paragraph of the statement, "Unfortunately, there seem to be efforts and voter education materials designed to persuade Catholics that they need choose only one approach: either opposing evil or doing good. This is not an authentic Catholic approach."

- BME October 22, 2008 10:59AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

Reasons Not to Vote for Obama

- From Deal Hudson

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Deal Hudson, thank you!

I loved your post! The clear and simple answer is, No, Catholics who claim to seek the view of God cannot vote pro-abortion. God is not as confused by this topic as people, who have the strange ability to justify whatever they choose. If God condemns the taking of life, we must also. There are no reasons other than self-defense (including justified military actions which defend the safety of our nation, or a nation we are aiding). God knitted that life together in the womb. God knew that person before they were conceived. Let's not be that nation, like in the Old Testament, that sacrifices their children on the alter of "choice" and convenience. "Self" has become the god of the day, and we will sacrifice anything, rather than our own desires. The God who forms life, is certainly pro-life.

- TexasMom October 22, 2008 7:36AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Boo Radley.
  
  Let me first just thank for a highly repetitive post, with pretty much 1 reason you couldn't vote for Obama.
  
  Who then, can you vote for? None of these men - and none of the women - hold Christian values. Oh there's lip service... but then, most people who claim to be Christian do little but go to church. So voting based on your religious views is sillier than believing in the tooth fairy.
  
  Let me just point out to you that Obama's plans as a whole are decidedly more in line with the ideals of Christ. And indeed, if the whole of the Congress voted according to their Christianity which they claim to express there would be no Iraq war, nothing in Afghanistan, universal health care, free food for the homeless, shelters, and so on and so forth. Things McCain is dead set against - as are most Republicans. Yet giving to those who have nothing, and shunning the materialistic impulses are Christian values.
  
  Speaking of Christian values, is this why the Vatican is so rich? Because it's money that gets you into heaven? Or the way you vote?
  
  Or maybe it's your own individual actions....
  
  Because the only reason you can come up as to not vote for Obama as a opposed to McCain was abortion . Because that's the one issue that would help more people.
  
  Good job. Obama won... and this probably upset you because of the ONE reason you could think of.
  
  - SocialistBetty January 11, 2009 6:23PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Atticus Finch
    
    You make a strong point. There is not doubt that a non-citizen subject of a powerful and often cruel superpower, a wandering, illiterate hobo in ancient Israel, certainly would support universal healthcare, free food for the homeless, shelters, etc., but is that the kind of guy you really want to advise you on policy? There were a thousand reasons to vote against Obama, the policies that you mention are just a few of them. Abortion is another. His involvement in the corrupt Chicago political Machine is another (look into Alice Palmer's story if you don't believe me, she's just one example) His associations with Reverend Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko, and many others, are another. Statements he and his wife has made both in public and in his writings provide countless more. His inexperience is yet another. His foreign policy plans are another. I can go on all day, but I'm not going to. In the end, you are right. On January 20, Obama will be sworn into office, he will become the Commander-in-Chief, and, even though I am opposed to almost every single thing about him, I still intend to give him far more respect and common decency than was given to the current President.
    
    P.S. The Vatican is rich because it has many dedicated and usually wonderful supporters who make it so, and it does a great deal to spread the wealth around. Targeting its wealth is a low blow.
    
    - richardsonkr January 13, 2009 9:39PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Below the Belt?
      
      I wrote in for Ron Paul, so don't tell Me what's crappy about Obama because I don't like him. I like him like this much better than I like McCain. As for the current president - well. Bleh.
      
      I was just pointing out that Jesus Christ would be laughed at. If he came down out of the clouds and sat at the right hand of Nancy Pelosi and espoused the same views... the very same "Christians" sitting in congress would laugh at him. If he wasn't shot first. Because Christ would tell them to feed the hungry, give their coats to those who were cold, let strangers sleep in their homes - or at least their garages (?) - and to give away whatever they didn't need. These policies are more closely matched by Obama. So if you're going to use your "Christian" (as if that means anything) views to vote, why would you vote for someone whose policies are better for the richest people and crappiest for everyone else? Makes absolutely no sense. Yet time and time again, people will vote not for policies that more closely resemble their beliefs, but for the candidate who claims the loudest and fiercest that yes, they too, are Christian.
      
      The "Christain" values that politicians profess are meaningless because you're exactly right - we can't run the world on them. The hypocrites who run things can pick and choose which so-called sins (so called because they're only sins if you're a religious type), but that doesn't mean a jellified thing. A "Christian" would do what they were told to do... and that is the exact opposite of what happened the past. Well. FOREVER history of politics and politicking.
      
      As for the Vatican having more money than Davy Crockett (never did get that line from Forrest Gump), that wasn't a low blow.
      
      How much harder is it for the rich to get into heaven? Doesn't their very own Christ supposedly say that? So how exactly is it a low blow to point out the hypocrisy of a religion that professes to be the conduit between God and men? They have a frikken POPE! A Pope that wears gold rings and chains and carries a scepter and everything. They should be like Schindler...
      
      How many people could be clothed, fed, sheltered by the worth of that ring alone? The gold? The money?
      
      That's why it's hypocritical. That's hardly a low blow. It's the truth. Crappy? Maybe if you're Catholic. But it's entirely the truth, so targeting the wealth of a religion that supposed to shun it isn't hitting below the sacremental belt at all.
      
      Anywho.
      
      - SocialistBetty January 13, 2009 11:55PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - I like you, you're fun.
        
        First off, I'm not a Christian, or anything even resembling a Christian, so please refrain from saying "your" Christian values, and from assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is a mindless zombie who supports whichever candidate has Jesus. Secondly, I have another list for Ron Paul, but fortunately nobody cares about him, so I don't have to get into it, and your little "bleh" in reference to the current President of the United States, is exactly what I was talking about in the previous comment. As for the image of Jesus skipping through a field holding hands with San Fran Nan, it's a hard image to defend. While Jesus and Pelosi do have similar views on taxation, (give to Caesar what is Caesar's) the poor, (Beatitudes, Second Coming, more parables than I care to count) healthcare, (Pelosi does seem to belive in miracles) and possibly a shared passion for halucinogens, I don't think Jesus was much for sexual deviants. While he did often times seek them out, it was almost always to try and reform them, not support them, as opposed to Nancy Pelosi, whose city has earned its reputation.
        
        As for you attack on the Vatican, which I maintain is a low blow, you seem to be referring to the infamous "camel through the eye of a needle" verse. It is believed that the "eye of a needle was a gate in the wall of Jerusalem that was very difficult to get a camel through. You would either have to unload the camel (fitting, given the metaphor) or it would have to crawl through on its knees. (Also fitting) As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, it continues to "unload" a great deal of its wealth on people worldwide. It is one of the largest global charitable organizations, and sends missionaries and educators through much of the Third World. It also does a good job of crawling on its knees. The Church, as a whole, is very humble, though there are individuals who are not. Humility is one of the highest virtues espoused by the Church. The wealth that is not given to people around the world is reserved for the glorification of their god, a duty that is not to be ignored. When a disciple of Jesus tries to annoint him with expensive perfumes, the apostles upbraid her, with the same argument you are using now, that the perfume should have been sold and the proceeds used to help the poor. Jesus stops them, however, and says that she was right to do what she did, for she did so to glorify "god." (I'm not sold that Jesus is a god, thus the quotation marks, but from the Catholic standpoint this makes sense.)
        
        - richardsonkr January 15, 2009 7:13PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Valid, but Pointless

While everything that Mr. Hudson says is accurate and valid, and are a part of the reason I and many other Americans voted against Obama, they have no bearing on the issue at hand, that being, can Catholics vote Pro Choice? How Obama made his way into the debate is beyond me. The simple answer is that any American, regardless of creed, color, or sex may vote any way he or she wants to. Of course, whether they can truly call themselves Catholic after supporting an issue that the Vatican and the overwhelming majority of Catholics, clergy and laypeople alike, are vehemently opposed to, remains up for debate. As someone who is not Catholic or even a Christian, it is not my place to say. I can say, however, that as someone with many close Catholic friends deeply committed to the faith and actively invovled in the Church, and as someone with a great deal of knowledge if not faith in Catholocism (As people who combine a love of learning with 12 years of catholic tend to be), abortion and Catholocism seem to me to be totally incompatible.

- richardsonkr January 13, 2009 9:17PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

The Catholic Church Has Held a Position on This Subject for Centuries

- From Deal Hudson

Open Argument Go to this Argument

By the Philosophy of the Vatican...

...no, they can not be Pro-Choice.

The Catholic Church is very strict. According to its own self-proclaimed, self-appointed duty, it is the conduit between Man and God. It's rules - it's laws - are God's rules - God's laws. If you're truly Catholic you accept everything the Vatican says without question. It is God's word.

If you call yourself Catholic and believe you can be Pro-Choice, you're delusional. I consider Catholics who believe this to have "selective faith." They follow the rules of the Vatican that are convenient for them, using the principles of Christianity as fire insurance. "As long as I ask for forgiveness, I will be saved."

- m46607 September 4, 2009 5:21PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

I Cannot Vote for a Man Who Would Choose Judges Based on "Empathy"

- From Deal Hudson

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Be the first to comment.

Regarding Argument

“Pro-Choice” is a Euphemism for a Very Grave Sin

- From Brad Miner

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Be the first to comment.

Regarding Argument

The Catholic Church Insists That Life Begins at Conception

- From Brad Miner

Open Argument Go to this Argument

so you say

thats not so any more

- countryboy July 26, 2009 12:25AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

No Faithful Catholic May Vote for a Pro-Abortion Candidate

- From Brad Miner

Open Argument Go to this Argument

faithful

faithful catholic are there still any?

- countryboy July 26, 2009 12:27AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who is faithful?

A study was done on the voting record of Catholics in Congress. The pro-life congressmen voted with the church against abortion but on nothing else. The pro-choice congressmen voted with the church on everything except on opposition to abortion. Now who is the good Catholic?

- mike1948 July 28, 2009 11:25PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

No Proportionate Reason to Vote for a Pro-Abortion Candidate

- From Brad Miner

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Be the first to comment.

Regarding Argument

No in Every Circumstance I've Seen

- From The American Papist

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Be the first to comment.

Regarding Argument

What have the Bishops Said Recently?

- From The American Papist

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Be the first to comment.

Regarding Argument

My Reason for Answering "No" is Not Partisan

- From The American Papist

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Be the first to comment.

Regarding Argument

A Brief Comparison of Platforms Through Catholic Eyes

- From The American Papist

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Be the first to comment.

Email a Friend

Experts and users discuss catholicism, abortion, religion in society, religion and politics, roe v. wade: Can Catholics Vote For Pro-Choice Politicians?

Can Catholics Vote For Pro-Choice Politicians?

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Catholics Can Support Pro Choice Politicians in Good Conscience

- From Jon OBrien

By Jon O'Brien - President, Catholics for Choice

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Abortion Teaching Does Not Meet the Definition of Infallible Teaching

- From Jon OBrien

By Jon O'Brien - President, Catholics for Choice

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Church Has Never Declared its Position on Abortion to Be Infallible

- From Jon OBrien

By Jon O'Brien - President, Catholics for Choice

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Pope Benedict Says Yes - It's All about the

- From Chris Korzen

By Chris Korzen - Executive Director, Catholics United

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Making Abortion Illegal is not the Only Option

- From Chris Korzen

By Chris Korzen - Executive Director, Catholics United

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Pro-Life Means All Life

- From Chris Korzen

By Chris Korzen - Executive Director, Catholics United

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

The Ghost of Elections Past

- From Chris Korzen

By Chris Korzen - Executive Director, Catholics United

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Two Deep Flaws in Arguments Made By Conservatives