Archbishop Says It's Immoral to Vote for Pro-Choice Candidates

EWTN News ^ | October 29, 2002 | EWTN

[fatguy]

DENVER, Oct 29, 02 (CWNews.com) -- In his second blunt message in as many weeks on the responsibilities of Catholic voters, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver has insisted the issue of abortion should provide a clear-cut choice.

"I will vote for no candidate Republican, Democrat or third party -- who is actively 'pro-choice,'" the archbishop wrote in his regular weekly column for Denver's archdiocesan newspaper.

Archbishop Chaput dismissed the argument that abortion is only one among many issues to be considered in an election year. He explained: "abortion is separated from other important social issues like affordable housing by a difference in kind, not a difference in degree. Every abortion kills an unborn human life -- every time. No matter what kind of mental gymnastics we use, elective killing has no excuse. We only implicate ourselves by trying to provide one."

In this respect, the archbishop drew a distinction between the abortion issue and other political questions, on which reasonable people might differ. The difference, he said, is that "every abortion is a grave act of violence."

The archbishop repeated his complaint that proponents of legal abortion are seeking to silence Catholics, and others who are opposed to the practice. "The only way to stop this coercion is to send the right men and women to Congress," he said.

Voters cannot remain neutral on the issue, Archbishop Chaput continued. He reasoned: "No violence is ever private. That includes abortion. What we choose to allow, we choose to own."

[blondekates]

So basically what you are telling me is that since the unborn have souls, it is in their best interest to kill them while in the womb? Your case is getting weaker and weaker. Tell me, when exactly does your respect for life begin? When is that exact point when you can say that the fetus is human and has God-given rights? Surely you can't say when it passes through the birth canal. It has a beating heart and a functioning brain before that. You can't say that it is when these vital organs appear, because you don't know that exact moment. Growth is an ongoing process. Just because it doesn't look like a human, it's not a human? So if some extremely deformed child was a burden to it's mother, the mother has the right to end it's life? The point is, that baby has a DNA structure of it's own. It is not the mother's, and it is not the father's. It is a separate entity. A living growing human. Any respectable doctor will concede to that.

I am astounded that you are still defending the animals. Let's take a hypothetical situation. Let's say that all animals (including humans) did not kill for the purposes of food. Are you aware that it is a scientific fact that insects would infest all of our crops because spiders and other predators would not eat them, and they would be too great in number for the crops to regrow in time to be harvested by us? Therefore we would have no means of sustenance. Therefore all life would die out. Now explain to me how that is better than keeping the natural balance of the food chain.

[Risste]

-Using the example of eating as a comparison to sex is a fundamentally flawed argument. Food provides daily sustenance and nutrition that we as humans need to survive. Sex does no such thing. One can not live much longer than a fortnight without food; one can live a lifetime without sex. Sex has no manifest daily importance in our lives. We do not die if we do not have sex. Thus, the urgency that some people apparently feel for sex may not be unfounded, but it can not be in any way compared with the urge to eat, which is roughly on par with the urge to live. Hey, sex may seem really important to you. But I don’t know of many great men who died saying something like: “Well, at least I got lots of action.”

-I don’t think you have any basis for saying a fertilized seed is the same as a fertilized human egg. That is lame and totally ignorant. Heck, you can’t even defend that in a utilitarian sense, dropping all morality.

-You know, this argument that a fetus is not human and therefore open to termination reminds me of other historical viewpoints. That African Americans were not human, and thus subject to the [“superior”] white man. That the Untermensch were somewhat lesser than humans and so could be cast aside and erased from the earth to make room for the rest of us. You will no doubt dismiss this comparison as ludicrous. But then after all, did the Germans react any differently than you when people like me stood up for those they oppressed? Did the plantation owners? You have all the “modern” science you need to convince you that no, you are in fact justified this time around in calling our subject less than human. But one day soon your science will be that of an ever-more-distant past. And so far my side of this argument has two victories, while yours has none. The question, I think, is are you prepared to be on the wrong side of history?

[End The Hypocrisy]

Blondekates says: >>>Are you aware that it is a scientific fact that insects would infest all of our crops because spiders and other predators would not eat them, and they would be too great in number for the crops to regrow in time to be harvested by us? Therefore we would have no means of sustenance. Therefore all life would die out.<<<

Why couldn't there be cloning of plant or meat cells, so that there'd no longer be a need to kill plants & animals for our food? It's the height of hypocrisy that the folks who pretend to care about life get in the way of protecting it by whining whenever cloning technology is pursued here. Fortunately the USA is merely one of hundreds of nations, and cloning is being pursued full throttle abroad. Overseas they laugh at how our nation lets Bible-thumpers who have never perused any other books nevertheless slow our progress.

>>>Just because it doesn't look like a human, it's not a human? So if some extremely deformed child was a burden to it's mother, the mother has the right to end it's life? The point is, that baby has a DNA structure of it's own. It is not the mother's, and it is not the father's. It is a separate entity. A living growing human.<<<

Apes have DNA that's around 98% the same as that of humans. I don't see right to lifers fighting to protect ALREADY BORN apes from poachers, or inhumane conditions in zoos, or potential extinction though. Again, more hypocrisy. For it, the Republican Party's potential progress will be hindered today at the ballotbox.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>The question, I think, is are you prepared to be on the wrong side of history? <<<

Are you? You might find my reply of moments ago to Blondeskates to be quite relevant to your inquiry.

[blondekates]

I don't even know where to begin. Your line of thinking is so far removed from reality that it is getting nearly impossible to even understand the point you are trying to make. Cloning? I don't understand why you are attempting to prove that I am a hypocrite using this argument. Cloning involves many scientific processes and testing on animals. Do you think that is humane? Plus you are comparing "cruelty to animals" to satisfy a basic need such as eating to an act of convenience, abortion.

Apes have DNA that's around 98% the same as that of humans.

Exactly right. 98% not 100%. I never said that I thought that inhumane treatment of animals was acceptable, but given the case at hand, I believe that there are more important issues to sort out dealing with our own species. Killing of our unborn should take precendence over hurt animals.

[Risste]

As I remember, the 98% DNA similarity number has been refuted recently by geneticists at Perlegen Sciences in Mountainview, Ca and at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. The real number is currently hypothesized as at or below 95%. And differences in 5% of genetic code translate to enormous differeces in species. Also, this statistic is not for apes in general, but for chimpanzees, the most closely-related primate to man. (The DNA comparisons by the human geneticists matched perfectly with those by the chimpanzee geneticists, I'm sure.;)

Are you aware of the percentage of DNA strands found different from human to human? In fact, according to the scale used to determine the difference between chimpanzee and human DNA, humans are assumed to have perfect similarity in DNA structure. I suggest you check it out and compare that statistic with the 5% difference between chimps and humans before you go acting like a 5% difference is so small.

I am perfectly prepared to be on this side of history, whether it is the right or wrong. Notice how I don't answer your question with a question to cover my discomfort with answering.

[MHGinTN]

Interesting comeback. Thank you for the lesson as I lurk on the sidelines.

[Iron Eagle]

>>>And yet you, yourself, condone and even sponsor the killing of actually born (and definitely feeling) living creatures that aren't of our species, merely for your own culinary pleasures.<<<

That's what we used to call, apples and oranges. Using your logic, tortured as it is, are you suggesting to avoid hypocrisy we should eat these kids too?

Just to clear this up for you, since you dodged the topic and went down a path only you understand. Killing and eating other animals is natural. On the other hand, no known species, other than humans, aborts their own kind pre-birth.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>no known species, other than humans, aborts their own kind pre-birth.<<<

Some species intentionally destroy their young AFTER they've been born, including rodents such as gerbils.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>I am perfectly prepared to be on this side of history<<<

As am I.

Meanwhile, as for the 95% figure, that's why I said "around 98%". I had read that article, and I commend you for having read it as well. Simos would be pleased :-)

[End The Hypocrisy]

I thank you for admitting that you consider other animal species to be of lesser importance than the human animal one. Maybe that can be food for thought for you as the years progress. Our technology continues to improve regarding understanding animals' thoughts, and even communicating with them. I don't know if you saw Star Trek IV ("Save the Whales"), or Project X (Apes that communicate with sign language), or Day of the Dolphin (a George C. Scott movie about dolphins with which we can communicate), but I did. Meanwhile, Japan is developing technology enabling folks to communicate better than ever with cats and dogs. Laugh all you want but slaveholders centuries ago laughed when told that blacks might someday be able to do advanced mathematics.

As for: >>>Cloning involves many scientific processes and testing on animals. Do you think that is humane?<<<

If it enables us to produce animal flesh for consumption without killing, of course. The make-up or other cosmetics that you use caused considerable pain to animals during its developmental stage, but perhaps you aren't phased by that fact. For some reason, you are much more concerned with the fetus of a species which already has 6 billion living & viable representatives on this planet. It's unfortunate that you feel that way, but I've raised the issues and shall leave it at that. However, if you had been born an animal or if you had instead emerged as a basically still nonsentient & unborn fetus, which would you prefer to be judging from how they're treated on this planet? At least the fetus's soul goes to Heaven if exterminated, according to your beliefs. Meanwhile, I have no memories of what I endured even during my first year of life, let alone when I was a fetus. Living animals go through hell for our vanity and if anything warrants right-to-lifers' sometimes impressive energies and fundraising efforts, I think it's God's OTHER creatures.

As for what percentage of the 65% of Republicans who are PRO-CHOICE care more about born animals than unborn fetuses, I don't know the data on that. But I do know that pro-life platforms are serving as liabilities for the Republican Party's politicians, although I encourage us all to wait and see how today's elections go before we potentially resume with these discussions.

[blondekates]

For some reason, you are much more concerned with the fetus of a species which already has 6 billion living & viable representatives on this planet.

Yes, and you are obviously much more concerned with all other species. That makes up a much greater number of life on this planet than humans alone. You can not justify killing of children by saying that their soul will go to heaven anyways.

Laugh all you want but slaveholders centuries ago laughed when told that blacks might someday be able to do advanced mathematics.

This is not even comparable. Black people have the same DNA as all other humans whether caucasian, hispanic or asian. They are of our species.

If it enables us to produce animal flesh for consumption without killing, of course.

Why is it justifiable to put animals through the inhumane treatment of scientific testing for our consumption purposes? Who is to say these animals will not die during the experimental phase? Therefore perfecting cloning of animal flesh, will be more inhumane IMO because not only will we kill the animals, but also put them through torture beforehand. Sounds a bit to me like Nazis experimenting on Jews in concentration camps if you want to compare the animals to humans.

Meanwhile, I have no memories of what I endured even during my first year of life, let alone when I was a fetus.

Levels of pain are not measured by how much one remembers. It is a proven fact that the fetus feels pain when it is aborted just as animals feel pain when killed for food. However I'm sure the animals aren't being killed by their own mother by having its brains sucked out only because she finds it to be a nuisance to her. We, humans, are omnivores. We are biologically made to eat meat. If nature's plan was to have every animal live, and not eat another, then we would not be designed the way we are. Your arguments clearly state that YOU are the hypocrite. You are so concerned about the animals, but could not care less that parents are murdering their children. You obviously do not have a respect for all life as most humans do. Eating does not constitute having a disrespect for life no matter how you attempt to construe it to be so. Also, what do you eat? Obviously cloning is not a reality right now. Do you eat dirt? You can't eat animals, that is wrong. You can't eat plants, they are living beings. How do you know THEY don't feel pain? The point is, you can not compare killing animals for food and killing babies for convenience.

I thank you for admitting that you consider other animal species to be of lesser importance than the human animal one. Maybe that can be food for thought for you as the years progress.

Is that what you wanted to hear? Yes, I will gladly admit that I strongly believe we are the dominant species. We have a duty to OUR species before any other. Every species has a natural instinct to protect it's own before another. Unfortunately you seem to have been born into the wrong one.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Being from Georgia, you'll allow me to savor the irony of this statement, won't you? Shall I assume you reside somewhere "up North?"

Grammar flub! Should be:

Since I'm from Georgia...

[Trailerpark Badass]

Agitprops like 'end the hypocrisy' are hypocrites from the start, coming to FR as closet serial killer champions, masquerading as reasonable debaters.

But she's seen Star Trek and Day of the Dolphin! She has so much to teach us! If only you will "free your mind" and let the healing begin!

[Risste]

Ok. Apparently the natural system that you believe in is a disneyesque, communism-of-the-kingdoms-styled world, where all species have an equal right to exist and all share in a universal balance with each other. Unfortunately, that system has never and will never exist on earth. Balance itself is exactly the opposite of what the natural world is based on.

The fact is, when one species gains an evolutionary advantage over another, that species thrives because of its advantage, and its population expands as the others who compete with it shrink. The system then moves back towards equilibrium through occurrences like starvation, because when a species expands too quickly its food supply usually does not, and also through higher predators, whose populations expand with those of their prey. This tendency for the system to suddenly change, and then to rebalance itself is the hallmark of a competetive, dynamic system. In such systems the competitors who have the greatest advantage and talents will thrive. Others, with less advantages and in competition with the superior competitors, are either eliminated or reduced until they develop new advantages.

The right to life is a right that exists inside human society, not in the natural order outside of that realm. Any belief in equality of the species, i.e. "all animals are created equal" is a direct contradiction of the natural order. Make no mistake; the right to life is a right of mankind and not a universal animal principle.

Look, I know you can feel their pain and all, but there is neither a scientific nor a religious principle you can cite in saying that an animal has the same right to live as you or I.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Look, I know you can feel their pain and all, but there is neither a scientific nor a religious principle you can cite in saying that an animal has the same right to live as you or I.<<<


Hopefully you'll never kill a cow in India, for example...

[Risste]

>>Hopefully you'll never kill a cow in India, for example...<<

India, the land where to paint ones picture is to steal ones soul...

Go far enough and I'm sure you can find me a place that worships ants, as well. Just don't expect me to give them any credibility.

[End The Hypocrisy]

Oh I see...it's your religion uber allis. Not surprising. That sort of intolerance has cost the Republican Party some significant political races today. Oh well...

[pray4liberty]

That means that according to this bishop, over 4 out of every 5 Americans is evil. Is there something wrong with this picture, perhaps?

Evil is a very strong word. The deed (abortion) is evil. What this means is that 4 out of every 5 Americans have been lied to, and are subsequently deluded and blinded to the truth.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>What this means is that 4 out of every 5 Americans have been lied to, and are subsequently deluded and blinded to the truth.<<<

Maybe so, but they resent such intolerance so much that an awful lot of them voted for the Democrats yesterday despite their fondness for President Bush's fiscal conservatism. We needed over 60 Republican Senators to be able to get past a fillibuster, and we missed it by a LONGSHOT. Meanwhile our biggest state (which could have been a real media ally) remains in Democrat control. Like Maryland and Georgia, California might have made the shift if it hadn't been for the staunch pro-life stance of Simon. I really do believe that if the "choice" issue were completely removed from the Republican platform, we'd get far more new votes from presently Democrat fiscally conservative social moderates, than we'd lose from the scripture invoking community. If the latter opted to rally behind Pat Buchanan again, as an Independent (so's not to tarnish the GOP), I would wager that they'd get no argument from most Republicans (who would enjoy significant electoral gains in the aftermath).