Prolife V. Prochoice

[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

[dairygirl4u2c]

i tend to think the catholic church contradicted itself on the teaching of 'no salvation outside the catholic church'. and there's lots of smaller issues ive listed before that id think they contradicted on (sometimes i make the objection and realize i was mistaken, though, or just misunderstood it). we could rehash those threads at some point, but it seems that's another thread or time than here.

-
the personal issues i have are complicated in nature.

-

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.

i could be bias having grown up within the catholic church

Edited October 21, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[MichaelFilo]

Well, I've done my hijacking, although I feel like any sense of contradiction you may have should be validated by at least some other group. IE, to ascertain it is not a fault in your reasoning, you should be reasonably capable to find others with the same position. Of course, that does not make your belief true, but it is a good way to know the issues you have are not just your own. I don't know your issues, although I would love to have you put them up for debate, individually if possible.


Anyways, in terms of the topic at hand, I suppose the real issue is position and ability to influence end results. For instance, I don't care if my sheriff supports or opposes abortion. I would argue that there is a different moral decision one makes in regards to a federal congressman and the president. The president has real individual power to affect abortions (Mexico city policy and judge appointments, for example.) In that regard, a president who is pro-choice has direct consequences that lead to death (IF AND ONLY IF HE INTENDS TO ENACT PRO-CHOICE POLICY.) A congressman has less of an effect on that decision. Rather, a congressman would have more relative effect on war, social welfare programs, definition of marriage and the like. A pro-life senator is more important than a pro-life representative (because of his ability to accept or reject judges.) So, there is a myriad of issues, taken within context, that matter.

Again, your sheriff's pro-life stance doesn't matter very much. Your president's does.

[havok579257]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1287671095' post='2181270']
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.
[/quote]


don't all candidates have something intrinsically evil they support? uh, only if you live in fantasy land. there are many candidates who don't support intrisically evil things, they are just third party candidiates. politics is not just democrat vs republican, you do know that right?

its not that hard to find a candidate who is pro life and does not support intrinsically evil things. what is so hard about this?

[MichaelFilo]

Where is the Catholic morals party in the US, so I may vote for it?

[havok579257]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287674234' post='2181293']
Where is the Catholic morals party in the US, so I may vote for it?
[/quote]


research "ALL" the candidates who run for office, not just the republicans and democrates.

[MichaelFilo]

I do. Not one holds up to the high esteem of Catholic morality. Then we are left with a decision.

Now I can run and hold up those standards, it is not impossible. Simply, that there are no candidates for that office with Catholic morals, so I must employ reason and discernment.

[havok579257]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287674812' post='2181300']
I do. Not one holds up to the high esteem of Catholic morality. Then we are left with a decision.

Now I can run and hold up those standards, it is not impossible. Simply, that there are no candidates for that office with Catholic morals, so I must employ reason and discernment.
[/quote]


so there was not a single, not one single candidate who represents moral views?

lets just say that is true, for sake of arguement. then write somoene in.

[MichaelFilo]

All the moral views of the Catholic Church? Why, tell me about those in your locale.

[dairygirl4u2c]

per getting others to have a say in the matter. it's ironic, the issues i have against the catholic church, and started forming them, per academic and intellectual arguments. after i started realizing what my position was, i started seeing others who have similar views, who are more reputable. infallibiilty? look at what the orthodox argue. and cardinal newman sympathized with. 'no savation contradictions'? look at what tradictionalists argue, along with other points they have per contradiction.
given contradictions are my biggest beef, i suppose i could get independent people to analyze the situation with me. i do know traditionalists are known for overreaching in their beefs against the catholic church. there are of course, tons of people who'd independantly affirm what i say, but i'll admit i dont go out cornering people to the 'all the ins and outs' of the arguments here.

Edited October 22, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

no reputable person says the catholic church clearly says you cannot ever vote for a prochoice candidate. the popes clearly say you can when a proportionate justification exists. we can debate what that means, but it doesn't mean what havok says it means only. we see fio with a standard, and others with a standard.
i suppose one could say 'only if the candidate says something like bomb the middle east into a fire ball which is worse than abortion' but that's yet another standard. and getting way to shaky given the popes have been as vague as they have.
they would have been more clear if it was something as ludicris as what havok says.
it doesn't have to be what i say, sure, ie proportionate reasons. but it's got to be more than that.

Edited October 22, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c