Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com Spanish translations by Vélez Translations, www.veleztransl...
Banning abortion is immoral and is instrumental in keeping half the population in slavery and servitude. The government has no right to interfere with a woman's right to choose. It's her body, it's her choice. Period.
Abortion aside, public healthcare, public education, public wellfare etc which were listed as positive things sound awful to me. Coming from an Argentinian, who has those things and knows how much they suck🙃
I didn't meant to suggest that I think they are all good. I was speaking to those who assume they are good which is why they choose candidates who support them over candidates who oppose abortion.
Hola, Milagros. Espero que vayas bien. Please may you explain to me why these things suck in Argentina? Here in Great Britain, these things are often held up as wonderful examples of a caring society, and as provision being made for those who couldn't afford it otherwise.
I get that the first concern is to respect LIFE as a fundamental right for everyone. The problem is that every time an election approaches Republicans raise the issue...until the elections are done. After that you won't hear it again until next elections. Republican party was 8 years in the Government with Bush and now 4 with Trump...and abortion is still there. This is the sad reality, unborn people has no one to truly defend and fight for them. In the 21 century Abortion should not even to be a matter to discuss about in a considered first class country...Legions of cowards, immoral, ignorant, evils...
Abortion isthere because the supreme court was packed by Dems previously. Now because we have a Republican president, we now have a conservative Supreme Court with the possibility of finally overturning. You have to think this fully through not be so emotional in your argument. Clearly you’re by biased by your leftist views
When Jesus instructed us to tend to the poor He did not mean to do it by way of the Roman spear, He clearly meant personally not via covetous taxation of others
Just trying to figure this out for myself, why doesn't the same apply to abortion? From my understanding, murder wasn't even necessarily illegal if you go far enough back in history, except to those who subscribed to a religion that specifically banned it. God gives us free will, shouldn't we focus on what we can do as individual Christians before we take the speck out of our neighbor's eye?
@@maybudha I recently listened to a pod cast of William Lange Craig, who was talking about the conservative VS liberal party, except he meant them more general than American politics, and he used the term socialist instead of liberal. He argued that the big difference between the two is approach in how to handle situations like poverty. The conservative wants people personally choosing to invest in helping the poor, where as the "socialist" wants to organize a governmental movement to invest in helping the poor. "“You see, conservatives tend to emphasize personal giving and charity in order to illay society’s ills. You support private charities to help the poor and the disadvantage and the ill and so forth. Whereas for the socialist the way in which these problems are to be addressed is through government, through society, and adopting public policies that will promote it."
@@binsworth I'm not sure this is a good wording but in one case you are intervening to prevent a active harm to a neutral party in the other you are actively harming a neutral party to try and help a different one. The difference would be preventing an active sin which may save the sinner and prevents the harm vs forcing an act of charity at which point the force stops it from being charity and it loses all moral value and becomes theft by the majority from a minority to help a different preferred minority
I'm sorry but I don't think so... I really like Brian by the way, but when he states voting is complex, his answer is too simplistic. Can you for exemple conceive that a catholic might not vote for Trump PRECISELY because he is pro-life and wants to save unborn lives? I guess no... We agree killing unborn children is worse than not giving to the poor and polluting. But now that we admit it, we must honestly ask serious ourselves : - Do we want to save lives, or do we want a law? Can a legal law really operate without not a change of culture? - What kind of culture that candidate or that party actually encouraging? - What strategies have really helped to counter abortions in other countries (see the Hungarian model). What do the statistics show about abortion rates (ex : why do abortion rate lowers faster under democrats presidency?) - Will Trump leave a country where a young mother of any kind (poor, uneducated, color, ...) has more chances to keep her unborn child? A country where the sacredness of every life is acknowledged and celebrated? - What will be the long-term impacts (legacy or backlash) that Trump might have on the pro-life movement? I personally fear Trump's administration PRECISELY because of the issue of the unborn! Most people won't even try to tackle these questions. But if doing so, someone choose any of the candidates, I think he made a good conscious vote. If instead, we choose to avoid those questions and secure ourselves with simple thinking, then it shows our faith is weak, cause a strong faith is not afraid of critical thinking. I suggest you to read this article about how a catholic should vote : churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/holding-your-nose-how-to-vote-like-a-catholic/
@@ajpdeschenes Yes! I agree with your comment so much. I think a lot of people think simply banning abortion by law will fix the abortion problem, but its going to take a lot more then that.
It’s certainly not “single-issue” voting to vote against a pro-choice candidate, because to be pro-choice in the first place is an indication of one’s inability to think critically, morally, and with clarity-so that single issue represents how they can be wrong about a host of other issues.
@@calebvaughan587 I appreciate your point, and agree (that it’s an issue with paramount importance and weight on its own). I’m just saying that such an issue must also point to and predict the likelihood of other wrongs and evils that would exude from such a candidate.
Interesting point. I have seen this for myself. I'm not saying that I must be right about everything because I'm right about the sanctity and dignity of life from conception but that is a very important thing to be right about. If you can't get that, then everything else is in question.
Really because being "pro-life" does not stop the vast majority of Republicans from being pro-death penalty, for torture, and always ready to go to war. Regardless of your whether you thought the Central American migrants deserved asylum or even a serious effort by our government to give them due process being pro-life, pro-family Christians didn't stop the Trump administration from treating these people like they were sub-human and ripping apart their families.
Mr Holdsworth I'm always amazed.... Not only at your fantastic thoughts and the way you articulate them, but at how you manage to hit every point in depth, in only about 10 minutes.
I think a good metaphor to respond with, when someone says that, is to ask them the following: “If you saw your neighbor abusing their child, would you try to help the child, or at least call the police for help? Or are you saying because it’s their child and not your own, it’s their choice? How are the unborn any different?”
I don't think it's that easy Brian. Even when you admit the situation is complex, you make the solution too simple. We agree killing unborn children is worse than not giving to the poor and polluting. But now that we admit it, we must honestly ask ourselves : - Do we want to save lives, or do we want a law? Can a legal law really operate without a change of culture? - What kind of culture that candidate or that party is actually encouraging? - What strategies have really helped to counter abortions in other countries (see the Hungarian model). What do the statistics show about abortion rates (ex : why do abortion rate lowers faster under democrats presidency?) Since we're talking about American politics, I'll be more explicit : - Will Trump leave a country where a young mother of any kind (poor, uneducated, color, ...) has more chances to keep her unborn child? A country where the sacredness of every life is acknowledged and celebrated? - What will be the long-term impacts (legacy or backlash) that Trump might have on the pro-life movement? (I personally fear Trump's administration PRECISELY because of the issue of the unborn.) The Church's teaching is more nuanced than that of many Catholics on this issue. Benedict XVI : “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” Pope Benedict XVI, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles Francis: "Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection." Pope Francis, Gaudet et Exsultate, 101. I like the tone of your video, you invite people to use their intelligence and follow their consciousness. But I invite you to think further with the same attitude. If by asking those questions, someone decide to vote for Trump anyway, because he believes he will create a better longing culture which will help mothers and the whole society to welcome any new life, than it's ok. If someone just dismiss those questions... I think it's dishonnest and weak. A strong faith can tackle hard questions.
The argument fell apart for me when you mentioned healthcare; I can’t justify standing by and watching a sick person die because they could not afford their treatment; just as much as I can’t justify abortion. In both cases, an innocent life is lost due to lack of mercy. Health is central to all life and well being. If a political party claims to be pro-life; that includes health care or else we’re dealing with serious hypocrisy. It’s interesting that you bring up genocide in reference to abortion; but political policies surrounding foreign affairs support genocide in certain countries. Voting exclusively based on abortion laws does not guarantee any moral high ground.
Exactly. I’d say take everything he says with a grain of salt. He’s not an American, but he’s been plagued with that American evangelical nonsense mentality when it comes to politics at least.
The problem I see with your analysis is that you seem to say abortion is worse then social issues but I would argue that according to Jesus when He separates the sheep from the goats the issues that divide the two are social. I was hungry and you feed me I was in prison and you visited me... As much as you did to the least of these you did it onto me. Some Catholics are obsessed with abortion so much they forget that murder begins in heart as the Lord when we hate our brothers and sisters. With Abortion the finger is pointed mostly at the women and doctors who go ahead with it but what about the men who's responsibility the pregnancy is? The are not held accountable enough and it's not right at all.
@@jwil4286 you won't see that done publicly because it is already officially done through section 2272. Canon law is called into section 2272 which means the excommunicated must seek reinstatement through their bishop. The Church doesn't make a big deal about public excommunications. Look up Nancy Pelosi's trip to the Vatican. The Pope refused to meet with her in public because she was excommunicated. He wanted no "photo ops" or discussions of their meeting in the press. When she had a press conference later to say that the Pope was open to many of her Pro-Choice views, the Vatican came out the next day in their publication and pretty much called her a liar! ...publicly!
@@jwil4286 Robert Green is correct. Biden is "Self Excommunicated" and it is official per Canon Law. Jesus told the first Pope that "what you bind on Earth is bound in Heaven" (Matt 16:19).
Killing someone because you are disinclined to gain weight, or delay college, or lose a movie role, means you want to commit murder for the sake of convenience but you don’t want that to be CLEARLY stated. Everything else is obfuscation.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 How a woman gets pregnant is not a mystery. Catholics also believe in abstinence until marriage. If you are unable to care for a child then perhaps you should control yourself and not have sex. Taking a life because you just couldn't resist a few moments of pleasure is ok? A baby gets dismembered so someone could have an orgasm? We're not animals; we are capable of controlling our desires. A woman who wants to commit suicide, or engages in cutting or self mutilation would be considered mentally ill and would immediately be sent to receive help, that actually is her body her choice, but a woman who decides to have her baby killed is applauded and considered empowered. You see no problem with this? The ONLY reason abortion is legal is because it is a multi-million dollar industry. Anyone with a brain knows it's horrifically wrong.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 Obviously their lives matter, every life matters, that's the point. The difference is that the woman is making choices. She is choosing to have sex, she is choosing a dangerous procedure. Unfortunately, every choice has a consequence that must be faced. If I choose to go rock climbing, I know there's a good chance that something could go very wrong. I could fall and become paralyzed or die, it's up to me to face those consequences. Life isn't always easy and sometimes we just have to face what our choices have handed us, and often it turns out to be a blessing in disguise, a lesson that we needed to learn. We live in a world where people have been taught that they don't have to deal with anything that is remotely uncomfortable and that you should live a life free of responsibilities. The sexual revolution turned what was meant to be sacred, into a free for all. Do whatever you want as long as it feels good and then take the quickest, easiest route to undo what you did. The fact that you disagree with what I said doesn't make it any less true. Abortion is legal because people get rich from it. As for birth control, it doesn't always work. Doesn't it seem a little suspicious that so many women who get birth control from Planned Parenthood end up getting pregnant anyway and then return to have that baby aborted? Selling something that is ineffective sounds like a good way to keep business coming. In addition to that they receive federal funding. Rather than giving money to Planned Parenthood why are we not setting up programs to support women who end up with unplanned pregnancies and to help defray costs for families who want to adopt? Isn't that more logical? The reason it doesn't happen....we're back to, abortion is a multi-million dollar industry. No one gets rich from actually helping these women. All these choices have created a society where life only matters when it's convenient and profitable. Women who get abortions are forever scarred and broken. Children in our society are taught that they're a burden rather than a blessing. They hear celebrities and protesters say their lives would have been ruined with a child and the only way they were successful was by getting rid of that child. Is there any wonder childhood suicide has increased so drastically? They think that they're burdens and their lives don't matter. The legalization of abortion isn't just a few people making a choice about their bodies. When we live in a world that says the most innocent lives are worthless, it touches every aspect of society. There is no longer any respect for ANY life.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 Yes. Well said. Drives me nuts about how some people boil this entire issue down to "it's all about personal responsibility & just don't have sex." They never, ever consider what it is truly like to feel utterly trapped and helpless as a, say, 19 year old poor black woman.
@@littledrummergirl_19 : with all due respect it’s just as disturbing. He’s a man and to give anyone the authority to be the “absolute truth” is in an old fashioned word, idolatry.
I really like your videos Brian. You seem like a very faithful Catholic and explain things so well, so lovingly and so convincingly (not that I need convincing!). I wonder if you shouldn't be sorry for being 'graphic & inflammatory' though re describing the realities of abortion...just reading Tim Gordon's Rules for Retrogrades where he makes a great case for not using euphemisms and never apologising for defending the truth.
Agree 100%. When we adopt the terminology of the opposition, with its wiggle terms and asides, we are merely rearranging the seating on the proverbial sinking ship.
How do you not have 100k subscribers by now, Brian?! I am constantly sharing your videos! And I even used them in class when I was teaching theology at a Catholic high school. Keep up the good work, brother! And thank you for adding such nuance and insight to the preeminent right to life argument.
Seems like pro life people are concerned about the birth.....but no so much for anything afterwards. I feel like at the very least, if YOU make someone have a baby-YOU should pay to raise it.
Wow Brian I used to watch your videos a lot but I think this video is a drastic oversimplification on "Democratic" pro-choice policies. Policies like birth control and healthy sex-ed (both supported by "Democratic" pro-choice policies) have actually been proven to statistically decrease number of abortions, while republican states where abortion restrictions are greatest tend to have the greatest number of abortions. Hence, I think your analogy is quite literally, completely not justified or parallel to the true complex nature of abortion. I also think abortion, itself, in a Biblical context is more nuanced than you make it out to be and I wish you touched upon the Biblical side (aside from crafted in your mother's womb) a little more.
Hi Phoebe, you raise interesting points. It seems like you're saying that Democrat support of pro-choice policies including increased contraception use, increased sex-education, and increased access to abortion lead to less abortions. A few issues I find with this are: 1) Contraception is a grave moral evil, and has been considered to be so by the vast majority of Christianity until the 20th century (the Catholic Church hasn't changed it's teaching on this). A Catholic cannot advocate for contraceptive use. 2) Sex-education ranges in complexity throughout different education systems, and it can have vastly different styles. Some styles are much more controversial. If the end goal of sex-ed is "safe sex" (i.e. sex without responsibility), then we have failed our children. A Catholic cannot teach or advocate for sex without responsibility/outside of marriage (i.e. fornication). 3) Committing a gravely immoral act (i.e. increasing easy access to abortion) in order to bring about a greater good (i.e. less abortions) is based on a *philosophy of ends-justify means.* This is another untenable position for a Catholic to hold. 4) How is abortion nuanced in the Bible? What passages support or justify it? I'd like to hear your thoughts on these points. I hope I have not misinterpreted your post
A naive argument given by a Canadian with a generous social safety net including a single payer healthcare system that won`t leave you bankrupt if you or your family get sick. Catholics are human too and need a functioning government that uses their tax dollars to help them unlike the situation we have now in the states. Poverty kills , lack of healthcare also kills,we can end abortion by simply not participating in it and the cultural habits that lead to it. And yes ,I`m a Roman Catholic who lives in the U.S. and I see a lot problems here that will have to be solved with works as much as prayer.
I agree, I wouldn't trade my healthcare system for yours. That said, the admonition to end abortion by not participating it is like saying, they could have ended the holocaust by not participating in it. Unfortunately, they had to actively fight against it and sacrifice their own welfare to do so.
Your analogies seem flawed, the democratic party would be addressing problems that result in situations where you have to make such a decision. The republic party, as far as their actions have shown, have only sit back and enforce unfair laws without providing any infrastructural support. That is not an ideal government it's just a lazy dictator. Choosing a bad candidate who can result in so many avoidable deaths during a this epidemic doesn't seem justified. Whereas choosing a candidate who addresses causes of a genocide and hence would be able to prevent it seems more reasonable, don't you agree?
Brian is usually on point, but this video is glaringly ill-considered. There are two areas where he does apply the equal analysis: 1) Yes, abortion kills people, but other things kill people as well. 2) No, the Democrats may not actually fix the problems they claim they will, but the Republicans may not fix abortion either. It would be great if the situation were as clear cut as Brain makes it out to be, but it simply is not. Re (1): Captial punishment kills people. Racism kills people. Police violence kills people. Lack of healthcare kills people. Pollution kills people. Climate change kills people. Downplaying a pandemic kills people. The list goes on. Unfortunately, the major anti-abortion party in America is often quite supportive of killing people in other ways or opposes policies that would save lives. The choice here is not at all obvious. Re (2): While there are some things that elected officials can do to counter abortion in America, abortion policy ultimately comes down to the decision of supreme court justices. The anti-abortion Republicans have appointed 14 of the last 19 new justices, yet there has been no significant curtailment of abortion rights over that time. There is no guarantee that the court will ever overturn the right to an abortion. What is more, the next president and congress may not even have the opportunity to appoint a supreme court justice. Unfortunately, the anti-abortion party in America has very little ability to prevent abortions, and what little ability they do have has been wielded ineffectively. The choice here is not at all obvious. I don't want to vote for anyone who supports abortion. It is always wrong to support abortion. The trajedy of the American politics is that the politicians do who oppose abortion most often have little power to do anything about it, often fail to use what little power they do possess to prevent abortions, and often vigorously support other policies that kill people or oppose policies that save lives. The choice here is not at all obvious.
@@erikkollar66 In many ways, the American system of government was specifically designed to not be democratic. The founders did not view pure democracy as an unalloyed good and sought to temper its potentially ill effects.
@ You are absolutely correct that there is a difference between people dying and people killing people. There is also a difference between people dying unavoidably--everyone dies, afterall--and people dying when we know how to prevent it and have the means to do so. I'm not saying that anyone should feel morally compelled to vote one way or another; you have no idea who I am voting for. I'm simply saying that this video arrives at a clear cut conclusion via unequal analysis of the choices, and that a full assessment reveals both major parties to have major moral failings that greatly complicate the decision placed before voters. Support whomever seems best to you; just be as honest about their flaws as you are about the flaws of the people you don't support.
Having sat through all 10 minutes, I have noticed a glaring omission. There is no mention of preventing unwanted pregnancy, which is the truly effective way of ending abortion. Ending unwanted pregnancy can be achieved by comprehensive sex education and access to birth control, including sterilization. If development of male birth control beyond condoms is achieved, this will further improve it. As long as there continues to be unwanted pregnancies, there will always be abortion, legal or not.
Also, the drop in abortion rate may have to do a drop in the unwanted pregnancy rate, which is achieved by the aforementioned sex education and access to birth control.
@@happilyabortedfetus5805 Just based on correlation, the need for abortion didn't exist the way it does now prior to widespread availability of contraception and "sex education". People use abortion because no contraception works 100% of the time. Condoms, for example, are only 98% under the absolute best circumstances (which is rarely the reality). So even at maximum effectiveness, 2 out of 100 instances of sex with a condom result in a potentially unplanned pregnancy. Add since the parties in question obviously did not want that outcome, they'll seek an abortion. Nobody explains that in the, so-called, "sex education". We're promised consequence free sex, which is a lie, and then when it turns out to be a lie, we are shocked and amazed that we have to rely on abortion. Abortion is the safety net for the fallacy of contraception. This is why the high and noble aim of governing your own choices can never be replaced by a magic pill.
@@BrianHoldsworth Wrong. In the USA, abortion was legalized in 1973 and the birth control pill was introduced in 1960, which led to the sexual freedom movement. But in 1930 there was already 1 abortion for every 3 births, so it was illegal only on paper with no birth control involved and no sexual freedom culture.
Don't fornicate, and be open to creating life when having sex in a marriage. It's simple. The Catholic teachings are consistent. Also sex education is a way of sexualizing innocent minds at younger and younger ages. We are seeing the Satanic logical conclusions of that nowadays with drag queen story hour.
To be pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. I regard abortion as a grave sin but doubt we should give the state power over our own bodies. God gave us free will it is not for the state to compel us to do God's will.
I don't disagree with what you say about the relative importance of abortion. However, I wonder about the following things: 1) What if a voter does not believe a candidate will do as he says? Reagan appointed four justices two of whom later voted to uphold Roe v Wade. Kennedy actually wrote the decision to do so in Casey v Planned Parenthood and later the Oberkfell decision. The two Bush Presidents also appointed four justices two of whom have disappointed pro-life hopes regarding overturning Roe. If Trump best fulfills the promise re Supreme Court appointments is will be ironic because he was pro-choice until quite recently. This does not make supporting a pro-choice candidate permissible, but may excuse supporting otherwise objectionable but ostensibly pro-life candidates. 2) I am skeptical that social welfare programs reduce abortions in fact, but programs providing support for parents and children such as those created in other countries where they want to increase the birthrate could do so. 3) Could Christian support for someone pro-life but otherwise morally objectionable be counter-productive because it makes people who might otherwise listen to pro-life arguments cynical about Christian hypocrisy? Some Catholics have criticized me because I have voted for pro-life third party candidates in Presidential elections. I don't think (then) Cardinal Ratzinger emphasized the likelihood of winning.
There is a larger meta-motive behind the Christian concern for the individual, the family, the contract of marriage and of all intra-personal human relationships than merely the protection and defense of helpless and innocent human life - though that is not a minor issue. It's that human life shouldn't be regarded as a commodity, a conceit or a constraint on the glory and potential of our own beings. To be used, brokered or discarded where expedient or advantageous. That's the sacredness of human life, an injunction upon us not to treat ourselves and each other as mere things...... If we give this up we not only turn against God, we render all assumptions of modern society concerning human rights, law and the proper order of justice incoherent. Then there is no logic or rationality governing our human interrelationships, there is only will. We have returned to a world innocent of Christendom - and we won't know it different from Hell.......
Sorry, this argument is falling on my deaf ears. Maybe you do have to be American to see what's at stake in this election. But returning to Constitutional normalcy outweighs a vote that nominally supports pro-life policies. Abortions will continue no matter the law. The challenge is to convince people to examine their conscience freely. And this election is about restoring the democratic safeguards that ensure the exercise of a free conscience.
My dad makes your argument as well. In order to make the claim that trump will destroy democracy entirely involves some fairly substantial evidence apart from a few “anti-democratic” leadership decisions made by trump. The system can handle a trump and won’t fall apart even with another 4 years of him.
As a Pro-Life and practical Catholic, I struggle with the question of who to vote for in the USA- this election especially. Both party candidates have patterns of dehumanizing rhetoric, but one seems to have made it the core tenet of their platform. This candidate is nominally Pro-Life, despite a personal history of espousing Pro-Choice views. Sure people can change, but when they change so frequently to whichever position benefits them personally and politically, I doubt their sincerity on the single issue I “agree” with them. I usually enjoy your arguments, but here you argue mostly against one candidate (with straw men) and imply the “enemy of my enemy...” To use use your hyperbole: Do I trust the one “murderer,” or the other? Your other argument is that I should pick the candidate of the better political party, even if he personally, least embodies its ideas. That rings hollow to me. But, properly, I should not vote for either candidate, for (to me) obvious reasons. Should I vote for the evil they have done, or the evil they intend? If I must vote (for evil), then I guess it collapses to a tit-for-tat game where I’ll vote out the incumbent until they merely do evil I can tolerate. This is theoretically, the only way to peacefully (and internally) improve such a fundamentally corrupt system. One that produces such candidates as these. That and prayer- lots of prayer. Please pray for me, but mostly, please pray for my country.
So sad that many of our bishops don't have the courage to say the same thing. There are so few of them that act like they actually believe Church teaching these days. I suspect it may because the Church in the states is on the government teat for half their income. I recall some words about God and mammon and millstones...
One thing you haven't brought up is whether or not voting "Pro-life" will actually result in pro-life policy? I would find the "single issue voter" position would have more strength if I thought that voting Pro-Life would actually result in pro-life policy. Here in Canada, we have had a "Pro-Life" party at the helm for MANY years and have yet made any progress on that front. Even Trump with all his actions on pro-life issues are only temporary and have already been eroded. You ignore the capacity of that vote to actually make a change on the issue of abortion. Voting Pro-Life, I am afraid, has no affect. I wish it did, for it would help me make my choice easier. As it is, every time an election comes around, I feel like I my choices are between Satan or his brother.
Brian, honoring your request to not make this video an argument about abortion. Some quibbles about your argumentation on being a one-issue voter: 1) Nazis - You went down that road awfully fast. Just remember the Nazis carefully studied the Jim Crow American South in order to develop their final solution. America provided a wealth of information on segregation. 2) These are not "normal times" and this is not a typical election. It is perfectly acceptable to vote for the pro-choice candidate when the opponent is a narcissistic sociopath and a proto-fascist. I would think you'd realize that one needs a functioning democratic government in order to truly manifest your pro-life values. Voting for a candidate who is truly an aberration of humanity will only lead to a dystopian "Handmaid's Tale" theocracy. I'm pretty sure you said you don't like fascists, right? 3) Your comments about the democratic cities being led poorly demonstrate an unfair bias and lack of nuance; they also lack historical context. By FAR, the most critical influencer in why many major cities have poor living conditions in the inner-city is the historical practice of red-lining. Minorities who live in deteriorating communities are living EXACTLY where white America put them! The next major contributing factor, which continually gets overlooked, is the drug war, started by REPUBLICANS in the1970s. And third is the Crime bills of the 80's which BOTH sides approved. It's a long, complicated history of oppression that put people in urban ghettos. To blame democrats alone is preposterous.
Please don't make an idol out of the *legal status of abortion*. We should exhort women not to think it's a good choice whether it's legal or not. Adultery is one of the top 10 sins as well and I don't recall seeing many pro-life Catholics calling for laws outlawing adultery. In fact, many of them threw their full-on support behind a confirmed, unrepentant adulterer on his "3rd" marriage with multiple porn star scandals following him. We have no idea how many abortions Mr. Trump led women he fornicated or committed adultery with to. Be careful when you present things as so black and white.
It's important to note that the ideas of abortion and paying for healthcare/education/etc. aren't separate issues, these are both the spawn of the same ideological demon: liberalism. The branch of liberalism that the Democrats subscribe to is one where an individual's autonomy is the most important thing, and when two people's autonomies would conflict, deference is given to the one who suffers from the most "oppression" be it historical, systemic, etc. With the exception of climate change and Covid policies, you can predict just about any progressive standpoint on any issue given those two principles. This is why when pro-life people talk about the issue of abortion, we argue about the right of the child, but when pro-choice people talk about the issue it's always about "autonomy". They quite literally want to be free from the reality of sex itself. In the same way, liberals also want to be free of the financial stress of paying for healthcare or college, free from the constraints of traditional marriage and a traditional understanding of sex and gender, etc. Progressivism correctly understood is essentially an emotional argument against the truth of our existence.
I know where you're coming from, but it's not a black and white issue. It's not only about whether the Democrats are more concerned about poverty or social issues. Thinking only about the pro life issue (not only abortion) the Democrats fight against capital punishment (Republicans support it) church teaching goes against it but we don't like to take it that seriously. Republicans support gun access for everyone, thanks to that there's lots of murders in the states and millions of weapons travel into Mexico and end up in the hands of drug cartels. Being pro life is not just being against abortion, it's caring for life in all stages and we seem to forget that. Maybe así Catholics we should Bastián frontera voting when all options go against our beliefs, nota just choose the least awfull option.
I voted for Barack Obama over Paul Ryan because of Paul Ryan's stance on cutting Social Security. Another Catholic video stated that you cannot for a candidate BECAUSE they a pro-abortion. Sorry - if you want to rob seniors or the disabled you don't get my vote. How do you know the pro-life candidate will work diligently to end abortion? I will vote for Trump again, but he is pro-life and pro Social Security, because he has morality.
People always like to say that pro choice people kill babies. This is simply false, there is a huge difference between a born baby and a still in the womb non developed fetus. It can't even think, if the mother thinks they cant take care of it that's her choice to make and not yours. Sure the fetus never asked to die, but did it ask to be made? Honestly, faith should be taken out of this to as a topic as serious as this should have real facts and evidence to support it.
Those who support abortion are simply just wrong. The woman's right to chose exist but not after they have chosen not to use protection during intercourse.
The way I’ve thought about it is like this: I try to cast my vote such to minimize human death and suffering. I weight all the issues based on their potential change to current amount of human death and suffering. When I do this, the single issue with the greatest positive potential impact is abortion.
Brian has omitted to address the response to these prickly elements by any pro- abortionist: None of these succinct points, that Brian makes, would make it past the first breath of being presented to a pro-abortionist. The immediate, spring loaded, retort would be..... a woman’s right to chose how to manage the autonomy of her own body!! If rational discourse were the norm in discussing any of our societal or political issues, we’d be in a totally different place. Just sayin...
All modern liberal movements are based around critical theory. The oppressed vs the oppressors and covers every aspect of race, feminism, LGBTQ, etc. These movements all share the following: 1. They dislike the other's agenda if it doesn't relate to them. 2. They are willing to work together in the meantime as they want to overthrow the current society. 3. They are pro-choice. At the heart of the above there is no compassion, no love and no tolerance. Plus the wish for the oppressed to be saved from the oppressor is not really the desire at all as they all support abortion which is the ultimate in the innocent being oppressed by the strong. In reality those who understand critical theory want to become the new oppressors Anyone who cognitively supports any form of critical theory is lacking morality to a significant degree.
Brian, my disagreement with your position is that much of the opposition to the Republican party is not based on policy, and much of the support of the Democratic party is, again, not based on policy. Also at stake are issues of leadership vs. abdication, integrity vs. hypocrisy, honesty vs. dishonesty, conciliatoriness vs. bellicosity, unity vs. factionalism, etc. These are not policy issues, but they are matters of stance or posture, and they are absolutely vital to the soul of our nation. As for myself, I cannot support this "pro-life" party here in America because it fails at leadership. It isn't a matter of policy. I believe they are gaining their policy victories at the price of their leadership, and when that leadership fails, the policy is not going to save us. I'm not alone in thinking this. Senator Ben Sasse said something very similar to this recently in a now publicized phone call with some constituents. Perhaps the difference is, I now refuse to vote for this party, while others like Sasse remain committed to it. I fear what happens when we sacrifice leadership for policy, even on the issue of abortion.
Could you be more specific as to how the Republican Party is failing in leadership? The Democratic party is the party for abortion up to 9 months. I mean... the murdering of innocent babies it's pretty specific and a failure by my standards.
@@devon6294 From 2017 to 2019, the Republicans had every lever of power. They had the Presidency, both chambers of Congress, and the Supreme Court. They had the power they needed to change the country’s abortion laws. But they didn’t. They used that power to gut environmental regulations, bust the federal budget with a massive tax cut we couldn’t really afford, and have a complete leadership meltdown over Obamacare. The GOP was in the same position between 2005 and 2007. And then, they passed another big tax cut that wasn’t offset by spending cuts, they undermined the efficacy of the postal service by blowing up their pension program, and they made it harder to sue people and companies that recklessly sell guns to dangerous people. When Republicans have power, abortion never makes it onto the docket. When they conveniently don’t have power, they all make promises they have no intention of keeping to get Christians to donate to their campaigns. I really don’t care if the Republican platform is officially pro-life. If they never actually do anything to stop abortions, they are no better than the Democrats. Additionally, the stated pro-life policy goals of the GOP wouldn’t actually do much to reduce the number of abortions in the US. They don’t support any kind of legislative action on the issue, instead opting to try to install federal judges who might overturn Roe. But that hasn’t yielded anything close to positive results. And overturning Roe wouldn’t actually save many lives. That would punt the issue to the states. So even if we overturned Roe v Wade, any woman who could travel to a blue state could still be able to have an abortion. At best, the a Republican plan is to make abortions cost a little more for women in some parts of the country. That’s an incredibly weak policy position. additionally, we’ve seen time and time again through the war on drugs and attempts to restrict gun ownership that banning things doesn’t actually stop them from happening. Even in red states, women who couldn’t afford a plane ticket would still be getting abortions. They’d just be getting them in a shady guy’s basement instead of a clinic. By banning abortions, the government would just give up its ability to ensure that those procedures were carried out by trained doctors in sanitary conditions. If the GOP actually cared about reducing the number of abortions that occur in this country, they would relentlessly pursue a legislative agenda that combats the reasons why women feel like they need abortions. Make diapers, car seats, bottles, etc. covered by TANF, SNAP, and WIC benefits. Give people guaranteed paid family leave. Have a plan for universal affordable childcare. Invest in shelters and programs that give resources to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. Make it cheaper and easier to adopt children, and provide more opportunities for biological parents to exercise agency in the adoption process. Provide housing assistance for young families in crisis. Make it easier for people to access addiction treatment, mental healthcare, and non-abortifacient methods of birth control. Improve the foster care system so no one can rationalize abortion as an act of mercy, protecting their child from becoming a ward of the state. There’s a ton of achievable, popular, common sense policies that would reduce the demand for abortions that the Republicans refuse to pursue. If neither party is ever going to actually ban abortions nation-wide, it makes sense to vote for the party who is doing the most to reduce the number of abortions that happen. When the Republicans have power, they do nothing. When the Democrats have power, they expand the social safety net in such a way that pregnant women in crisis might feel more confident in their ability to raise a child instead of aborting them. There isn’t a “good” choice. It’s definitely a lesser of two evils situation. But action beats empty rhetoric, even if I agree with what the people doing nothing say.
@@devon6294 Sure. Firstly, I highly recommend listening to Ben Sasse's phone call. It sums up a lot of my feelings about Trump. The one thing I would add about Trump is that he has continually refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. That, right there, is absolute no-go for me. But let me give a non-Trump example. There is no way I can look at Lindsey Graham and not see a bald-faced hypocrite. Four years ago, in refusing to even consider Merrick Garland for the court, he told the American people that he would do the exact same thing under a Republican president. Then he further said the American people could use his own words against him if he did not live up to his commitment. Well, here it is, four years later, and of course, Lindsey Graham's words have proven to be empty. So, my thing is this. I can understand arguments that abortion needs to be the #1 policy consideration. But what good are your policies if you only win them at the price of hypocrisy? Is that a long term strategy? When the Democrat party says that Republicans don't care about babies, they are only interested in controlling women's bodies, don't we kind of prove them right every time we resort to a political stance that associates our pro-life position with hypocrisy and a "might makes right" attitude that currently runs through the Republican party? I've recently finished Jordan Peterson's book 12 Rules for Life. Peterson often talks about life as a game. It's not sufficient to adopt a strategy that wins you THIS game. You need to adopt a strategy that also improves your chances at winning future games. I've been thinking a lot about his rules, and one of my takeaways is that, when we allow falsehoods to corrupt our speech, we give lie to any truth we fight for. We win the game at the cost of the future. We get the policy, but we provide evidence against the policy.
@@justgettingby7725 I listened. It was mostly conjecture. And I thank you for your opinion. We are not going to find perfection in any one party. I will continue to vote for those that will get us closer to overturning Roe versus Wade, which has a viciously prayed upon the most vulnerable. The unborn belong to God. Each one of us belongs to God. We are made in His image.
The secret truth is everyone has an issue that they won't compromise on. Now that issue might not be in the spotlight right now but everyone is a single issue voter when it's their issue. Mine happens to be pro-life
Just a generation ago or so, in my own church (as much as I respect this channel, I'm certainly not catholic), a top leadership figure openly said that you cannot be a faithful member while being a democrat. That holds more true today than ever before. Though it's painfully noticeable that current leadership has started using some of the language of the left, some, but at least they denounce the riots going on, and at least they aren't the current Pope who's chin deep into leftism as though the left will EVER accept catholics, even as they attack ACB / the new Justice for being catholic. Make no mistake that the Democrats and left in general *despise* you, they despise Christians, conservatives, anyone to the right of themselves and anyone with actual moral fiber. Supporting them in any way is supporting your own execution or exile, and that of your friends and family who don't defect.
@@binsworth It's hard to say. He says he is, but he supports (or at least is willing to compromise on) abortion and was fairly racist in the 90s. He was even denied the Eucharist/Communion last year for his stance on abortion. I wouldn't presume one way or the other -- I don't know him and there are mixed signals, so I don't know if his faith is genuine or not. I will say that the Democratic party is comprised of many people, a large portion of whom are anti-Christian. One only need look at the TFP (a Catholic student action group with videos here on TH-cam) to see college campus's reactions to the Catholic Church's position on the 'Sexual Revolution'.
@@PianoForte9096 3 things 1 Jesus says that only God can decide who is righteous and who is not. Therefore, I'm not sure we have any business determining who's Christian and who isn't. 2 Even if we did have business determining who's Christian and who isn't, I would say that if you're basing your vote on who supports Christian values, one candidate seems to have a far less Christian lifestyle than the other. One candidate teargassed protesters and clergy in an Episcopal Church just to do a photo op. One candidate has had multiple divorces. One candidate is openly disrespectful to women. The other is Joe Biden, whose party does not support reversing Roe v Wade. I dislike both, but I think it's a little ridiculous to say Joe is a bad Catholic but Donald is a good one. 3 People get so hung up on abortion, but there are so many other atrocities that are happening that the pro-life camp seems to forget. There are children locked in cages, and we can't find their parents. There are political parties who aren't condemning white supremacy, even when it's on the rise. We have a leader who bungled the COVID response so badly that thousands of people died. None of these seem like even remotely Christian values, and I can't figure out why these are all put to the side so we can focus on one single issue. What I'm saying is that even if abortion was legal, nobody will ever force you to get one. The government's actions through our current administration are, however, forcing people into other terrible situations that they don't have a say in.
@@binsworth 1. I don't remember this teaching, would you mind pointing out the passage? As for a good reason, if we were not allowed to discern who is Christian and who is not, we risk being influenced by masquaraders: " For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. 'Purge the evil person from among you.' " (1 Cor. 5:12-13, ESV). 2. I'm inclined to believe you -- you've reasoned well. If looking at lifestyle, it's quite obvious that Trump isn't a Christian himself, but attaches himself to things for political gain. I'm just not sure if Biden does the same thing or not.
@@binsworth 3. As someone looking to become Catholic, I'm becoming increasingly aware that neither political party truly aligns with Christian values. There are children locked in cages, there are thousands living in tents in Californian cities. I actually think that Trump condemned white supremacy (www.voanews.com/usa/amid-growing-criticism-trump-condemns-white-supremacy), but Biden refused to recognize the violence attached to ANTIFA, calling it a mere idea. I actually don't think that Trump did too badly with COVID-19; he closed the country early enough to be called racist against China and his constituents wouldn't be compliant either way. I've seen this all go down from Japan (which has had a relatively good COVID response), and I've seen how people on both sides -- anti-maskers who I just can't understand and the thousands of protestors in June violating social distancing rules while cathedrals couldn't have more than a dozen people inside (see San Francisco) -- not be true to the cause. I was raised in a military family, so I follow instructions from leadership wherever I can and recognize that I can't control anyone else. I'm not enthusiastic about Trump, but I am willing to defend those who have received inordinate media backlash (but not legitimate backlash). Back to the original point from OP -- the Democratic Party is not aligned with Catholic values. It supports abortion, the destruction of the family, and the normalization of evil. You've also pointed out that the Republican Party is not aligned with Catholic values. It refuses to support environmentalism and the general social welfare, and it also supports the normalization of a different kind of evil. Fair enough. Ultimately, the message of Christ supersedes all politics, and hopefully you can agree with that if nothing else.
It's a good argumentation, Brian. On the Democratic side, the argument from Catholic social teaching is that, for example, climate change poses an equal or greater danger to life (and the unborn) than abortion; therefore, abortion should not be the single deciding factor that should sway Catholics to vote Republican. In my opinion, this is more "weaponised ambiguity" if I may so quip. Have you considered this perspective: that while all political parties will always be imperfect, from a Catholic point of view, the Democrats have adopted an extreme secularising worldview that is outright hostile to the opposition, and that has put state-given rights over God-given rights. In this case, even if they opposed abortion (Hitler strongly opposed abortion for Aryans), voting for them would still be an evil choice, because their underlying philosophy is contrary, let's not say to Church teachings, but to the idea of God itself.
A large portion of society, and those in the pro choice stance dont see the unborn fetus as a person. There is a difference between life and personhood, and youd have to make a case for how personhood is defined
Brian, the Catholic church identifies some issues as non-negotiables, such as abortion, euthanasia, use of deliberately killed bodies for experimentation or drugs. I think you see the point. All other issues are negotiables, eg, taxes, healthcare, environment. The Church also says you must give critical weight to a candidate's position on the non-negotiables first and must vote pro-life. Further, even if the pro-life issue is the only thing you like about a candidate and hate his negotiables issues, and love the negotiables issues of the pro-abortion candidate, you must vote the pro-life candidate. Further still, if in such a position, you cannot choose not to vote (eg, vote for neither), but are obligated to vote pro-life as long as you can vote at all, or else you are helping the pro-abortion candidate via your inaction. So, who said Catholic precepts on moral choice were going to be easy?
First, your analogy limps because I am unaware of any party, politician or candidate that advocates for mandatory, compulsory abortion. Secondly: you do not address the phenomenon of the politician who states he/she is pro-life and may sincerely be so, but who then also advocates and promotes social and economic policies which may put more pressure on pregnant women in tough situations to resort to abortion. We need social and economic policies that make abortion unnecessary. In other words, the problem may not be the legality of abortion, but the simple fact that our present societal structure and values de facto requires abortion. It may be prudential to vote for a person who is prochoice but who, on other ancillary issues would help foster economic and societal conditions that would actually decrease the necessity of abortion and actually foster a more pro-life society. Perhaps we should focus on creating a prolife society rather than try to legislate prolife laws.
If a society can't defend the more innocent of their own, then don't expect for your rights to be protected later in the line. You shouldn't sell your vote nor your soul for material things.
"By their fruits you shall know them"? The fact is that the policies conservative parties oppose lead to LESS abortions. It is an observable fact that increased sex education, access to sexual health resources and contraception REDUCES the amount of abortions. Therefore a vote for republicans is a vote for MORE abortions.
Proverbs 24:11-12 Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death, Do not stand by and watch them die. Do not try to disclaim responsibility by saying that you did not know, for GOD, who knows all hearts, knows yours, and he knows that you knew, and he will reward each person according to their deeds.
I'm Catholic and I oppose abortion. Early/Unwanted pregnancy = consequences of your actions Rape victims = I sympathize with you, yet one must still not sin, Blessed are those who suffer, but still oppose sin. . 1 Corinthians 10:24 24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. . Mark 9:35 35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.” . Philippians 2:5-8 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature[a] God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[b] of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death- even death on a cross!
There is no fence sitting according to the words of J ESUS S. A Catholic who votes for abortion, is no different than those in th e Roman colliseum who gave the thumbs up to see the Christians being torn apart by hungry lions. We will be held accountable for how we cast our vote
You are passionate. That is good. This is a difficult issue. It is. Brian-your statistics from 2011-2017- include 5 years of Mr. Obama's term (a Democrat). Abortions went DOWN during Mr. Obama's term. The abortion issue isn't going to be solved by voting for a political party. It is a heart issue. It is an access issue. It is contraception issue. It is a jail rapist for raping issue. I am in a RCIA class. This issue may prevent me from moving forward. I believe wholeheartedly that it is a woman's decision, left between her, her God, and her partner. Abortion will not end if Roe vs Wade is overturned. The states will then legislate it. Liberal states will have few restrictions and Conservative states will likely attempt to ban it. Abortion occurred before January 1973, and the Roe vs. Wade decision, it will not end by me voting for a political party.
Hey Steve. The Catechism gets into moral acts being judged to be good or evil by object, circumstance, and intention - all must be good to make for a good act. If not by circumstance or intention, all the life issues (euthanasia, abortion, etc.) are evil by object - evil meaning there is a privation of goodness which is from God. No doubt intention is good for most life issues, but intention alone doesn't make an act good. This is just good philosophy, which is why the Church embraces it (thought it's also supported by revelation). Don't let your erroneous thinking on this one topic prevent you from taking steps towards Christ -- we all struggle with Church teaching at one time or another.
Maggie DeWitte's letter in the Des Moines Register: OBAMA DIDN'T CAUSE DROP IN ABORTIONS Contrary to Danielle Burmeister’s Oct. 2 guest essay, evidence does not suggest that abortion rates are reduced under Democratic presidents. Just the contrary. In fact, even Snopes calls this false: “At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama’s administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation.” So what is the cause of the decline of abortion rates between 2008 and 2016? In fact, the cause is specific. Most of the pro-life strides come at the state level. During Barack Obama’s presidency, the Democrats suffered their largest drop of power since the Eisenhower years. When he came into power, his party controlled both chambers of 27 state legislatures, but only 13 when he left. In all they lost 816 state legislative seats, plus 13 governorships. Obama’s lack of coattails allowed pro-life representation to soar at the state level, resulting in a smorgasbord of life-saving legislation. In other words, any honest assessment of the data, as Snopes makes clear, needs to look at cause and effect, not just effect. The cause: more pro-life legislators elected at state levels; the effect: a decline in human abortion. - Maggie DeWitte, executive director, Iowans for Life God will bless our nation when we end the legalized murder of human life in the womb with a constitutional amendment (i.e. slavery). By God's grace this will happen..."If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14. Steve, I agree it is a "heart" issue but with prayer and fasting, God's love and mercy will convert many hearts! I will pray that you continue with your RCIA class. God bless you!
Steve Chapman You should probably put RCIA on hold to further study and pray over Catholic belief. To be Catholic one must fully give their mind and will to Christ's Church. For example, the root cause of abortion is artificial contraception. Prolife married couples do not practice contraception and they do not kill their preborn children. If one cannot accept this very obvious truth, how much less can they accept the sublime reality of Holy Eucharist. Think about it.
I sense there is something funny going on about abortion incidence numbers. So, when their (like PPfA) revenue goes up but then abortion incidence goes down. And then, when there's a Republican in charge abortion goes up but when a Democrat abortion goes down. In all situations one condition stays true, reporting abortion numbers is not mandatory.
Anti abortion isint As pro life as you might think! Most country with bans on abortions legally also have some of the highest abortion RATES in the world! And also are all 2nd or 3rd world country’s! Anti abortion laws can and do also lead to things like Mass poverty,Disease,Famon,Pollution,Wars,Destruction and Death!
It baffles me that so many people simply DON’T UNDERSTAND or refuse to understand facts as basic as those you’ve laid out in this video. Beyond the obvious moral indignation, it’s a #facepalm type of thing.
I’m 100% against abortion, but it’s really not that simple. Especially in the US, private healthcare kills people indirectly. Immigration issues are an affront to human dignity. You can vote for a candidate/party and criticize and fight them on the issues that need to change, so you have to see which needs more revision. Sadly (not a big enough word) in Canada Abortion is basically a given, so you have to look to the other issues that can be changed.
Memorializing our own religious and moral creeds into public law doesn’t help the individuals we are regulating become better, it merely imposes our preferences upon them. thou shall not kill is very different than thou shalt not kill because thou are not allowed to buy governmental decree. Goodness for the sake of following the law and not for the sake of goodness is not goodness at all but subservience to oppressive rule. Goodness born out of personal conviction and willful effort is goodness. If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. God gave us free will and asks we follow the righteous path. The government’s place - particularly a democratic republican government - is not in dictating moral law, but laws of order. If abortion is such a big problem perhaps the church hasn’t done enough to educate its parishioners on why it is their personal and individual responsibility to not have one.
The problem with this argument is not that the welfare state is more important than the right to life. He's 💯% right about that issue. Rather the issue is that votes for pro-life candidates don't necessarily result in the fullest or even a noteworthy protection of human life. In times past, it meant little more than the Mexico City Policy, and rhetoric from President Bush stating that it's a brutal practice. For that reason, I think it's possible to argue that a Democrat platform could potentially save more lives in certain circumstances. I'm not convinced this is actually the case, it's just worth considering when dialoguing with those pro-life Catholics that vote Democrat. Im certainly appalled by our blind eye to civilian deaths abroad, and think this could use a more serious analysis in light of the just war doctrine.
Brian, you are falsely assuming that one party will kill babies while the other party will save babies. If this were the case, your point would be valid. But this is not the case. Abortion is a cultural issue before it is a political one. Neither party can legislate an end to abortion. This is proven by the many pro-life administrations that did not affect the abortion rate trends at all compared to pro-choice administrations. On the other hand, when the culture espouses a given cultural/social paradigm, anti-abortion legislation becomes natural. The most striking example of this is the recent pro-life legislation in Poland.
Thats ok. Sanger wasn't the rabid racist or Eugenics advocate conservatives made her out to be. At the time children were being abandoned all over the place. Orphanages were overflowing with unwanted children and the child mortality rate was extremely high. Right under the noses of the political and religious establishment much the way it is now. So yeah, she should decide what's in her and the baby's interest.
I can’t vote singularly on pro-life because it isn’t as simple as banning abortion. There needs to be more systematic change to reduce abortion, starting at educating people about sex and identifying and addressing the reasons why women have abortions. If a full abortion ban without addressing its causes has worked effectively in other countries, someone let me know.
This video brought some thoughts up and would love to explore: (i) Explore the issue of where life starts. Under biblical as well as Catholic canon law. Is abortion taking away a life, or is it taking away a right to life. I would love you to do a discussion on this. (ii) Would also love you to do a video on - if Abortion and the killing of a baby is the same as the killing of a a murderer. And yes they are both killing. Bearing in mind, all that the scripture has to say about and eye for an eye but also about forgiveness, thee without sin cast the first stone and most important the old things have passed away; behold, the new has come into being. (iii) Can you do a similar argument on homosexuality. What is worse destroying God Planet or two men in civil union, not loving thy neighbour by allowing people to go without adequate housing and healthcare (Love thy neighbour) or two men marrying.
I'm not even a Christian but I know abortion is wrong. Imagine believing in an omnipotent being that wrote a book that explicitly states several times that killing people is wrong but still thinking that taking the life of an innocent human is acceptable.
To Be Catholic means to be Pro-Life, period. The Choice is life or death. Thank your Mother for saying YES to Gods Will in her life and saying yes to your life in her womb.
I think that the discussion too often comes down to pro-choice vs pro-life. I think there a huge difference abortion before 14 weeks and late term abortions.
@@Molotov49 Wasn’t sure of the specifics. But there was a NYT article on abortion rates. And it seems to have been on a steady decline. My impression was that it wasn’t strongly connected to the party in power.
I recommend looking into what the Early church fathers had to say about abortion. (Not that necessarily what the early church fathers said is "law", but I think its interesting to see that even from the beginning development of the body of Christ there was an opposition to abortions.)
Thank you brother in Christ! I am a volunteer pro-life councilor and have always considered myself a one issue voter for all the reasons you stated. I am appalled by some of my high school friends who voted pro death and call themselves Christians. I will never understand that until the day I die.
Here's the truth: We know that 99% of women that get an abortion don't regret it. They knew it was the right thing to do at the time. We also know that 91% of abortions are carried out during the first trimester. Finally, we know that a fetus doesn't develop consciousness until around month 4-5 (2nd tri). I'm sorry, but the facts don't care about your feelings. If you want to argue against second or third term abortion, you've got my vote, but arguing against the facts won't do you any good.
Facts need citations. I don't recall seeing anything on my video based on feelings. And if consciousness is your criterion, you'd better have a sound definition of what that means and then you'd better about that everyone in a comma is now eligible to be aborted based on it.
![ผัวเถื่อน - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P08ORRVDGl8/mqdefault.jpg)
The state of Colorado is having an amendment this election to end late term abortions. Please pray that it passes!!!
no! Please don’t!
@igor lopes no actually that’s a fair point. Have a nice day.
@igor lopes don’t know exactly.
@igor lopes conception.
@igor lopes you want the mother locked up?
One cannot be faithful and believe abortion is acceptable period
Team JV!
Do not judge and you will not be judged.
@@jeremyguzman8447 it’s not judgment it’s a statement of fact. Like you cannot be faithful while having homosexual sex
Banning abortion is immoral and is instrumental in keeping half the population in slavery and servitude. The government has no right to interfere with a woman's right to choose. It's her body, it's her choice. Period.
@@carlabest1257 it’s a child, not her body you can’t kill your child because it’s inconvenient for you or you don’t love it.
Abortion aside, public healthcare, public education, public wellfare etc which were listed as positive things sound awful to me. Coming from an Argentinian, who has those things and knows how much they suck🙃
I didn't meant to suggest that I think they are all good. I was speaking to those who assume they are good which is why they choose candidates who support them over candidates who oppose abortion.
Good point! When something is just given to you, and you have no choice, its usually pretty bad
Fala mesmo, hermano! Abraços de um brasileño.
Look a video on our system in France 🇫🇷
Hola, Milagros. Espero que vayas bien. Please may you explain to me why these things suck in Argentina? Here in Great Britain, these things are often held up as wonderful examples of a caring society, and as provision being made for those who couldn't afford it otherwise.
I get that the first concern is to respect LIFE as a fundamental right for everyone. The problem is that every time an election approaches Republicans raise the issue...until the elections are done. After that you won't hear it again until next elections. Republican party was 8 years in the Government with Bush and now 4 with Trump...and abortion is still there. This is the sad reality, unborn people has no one to truly defend and fight for them. In the 21 century Abortion should not even to be a matter to discuss about in a considered first class country...Legions of cowards, immoral, ignorant, evils...
Abortion isthere because the supreme court was packed by Dems previously. Now because we have a Republican president, we now have a conservative Supreme Court with the possibility of finally overturning. You have to think this fully through not be so emotional in your argument. Clearly you’re by biased by your leftist views
Roe v Wade was overturned under Trump. The Democrats will do all in their power to ensure abortion becomes PO permanently imbedded into the law .
When Jesus instructed us to tend to the poor He did not mean to do it by way of the Roman spear, He clearly meant personally not via covetous taxation of others
👍👍🙌🙌
Just trying to figure this out for myself, why doesn't the same apply to abortion? From my understanding, murder wasn't even necessarily illegal if you go far enough back in history, except to those who subscribed to a religion that specifically banned it. God gives us free will, shouldn't we focus on what we can do as individual Christians before we take the speck out of our neighbor's eye?
@@maybudha I recently listened to a pod cast of William Lange Craig, who was talking about the conservative VS liberal party, except he meant them more general than American politics, and he used the term socialist instead of liberal. He argued that the big difference between the two is approach in how to handle situations like poverty. The conservative wants people personally choosing to invest in helping the poor, where as the "socialist" wants to organize a governmental movement to invest in helping the poor.
"“You see, conservatives tend to emphasize personal giving and charity in order to illay society’s ills. You support private charities to help the poor and the disadvantage and the ill and so forth. Whereas for the socialist the way in which these problems are to be addressed is through government, through society, and adopting public policies that will promote it."
Yes!
@@binsworth I'm not sure this is a good wording but in one case you are intervening to prevent a active harm to a neutral party in the other you are actively harming a neutral party to try and help a different one. The difference would be preventing an active sin which may save the sinner and prevents the harm vs forcing an act of charity at which point the force stops it from being charity and it loses all moral value and becomes theft by the majority from a minority to help a different preferred minority
Brian, this is the best apologetics I’ve ever heard, regarding why the pro life position takes primacy.
I'm sorry but I don't think so...
I really like Brian by the way, but when he states voting is complex, his answer is too simplistic. Can you for exemple conceive that a catholic might not vote for Trump PRECISELY because he is pro-life and wants to save unborn lives? I guess no...
We agree killing unborn children is worse than not giving to the poor and polluting. But now that we admit it, we must honestly ask serious ourselves :
- Do we want to save lives, or do we want a law? Can a legal law really operate without not a change of culture?
- What kind of culture that candidate or that party actually encouraging?
- What strategies have really helped to counter abortions in other countries (see the Hungarian model). What do the statistics show about abortion rates (ex : why do abortion rate lowers faster under democrats presidency?)
- Will Trump leave a country where a young mother of any kind (poor, uneducated, color, ...) has more chances to keep her unborn child? A country where the sacredness of every life is acknowledged and celebrated?
- What will be the long-term impacts (legacy or backlash) that Trump might have on the pro-life movement? I personally fear Trump's administration PRECISELY because of the issue of the unborn!
Most people won't even try to tackle these questions. But if doing so, someone choose any of the candidates, I think he made a good conscious vote. If instead, we choose to avoid those questions and secure ourselves with simple thinking, then it shows our faith is weak, cause a strong faith is not afraid of critical thinking.
I suggest you to read this article about how a catholic should vote :
churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/holding-your-nose-how-to-vote-like-a-catholic/
@@ajpdeschenes
Yes! I agree with your comment so much. I think a lot of people think simply banning abortion by law will fix the abortion problem, but its going to take a lot more then that.
It’s certainly not “single-issue” voting to vote against a pro-choice candidate, because to be pro-choice in the first place is an indication of one’s inability to think critically, morally, and with clarity-so that single issue represents how they can be wrong about a host of other issues.
It is single issue, but we should not be ashamed to be 'single issue voters' when the issue at hand is the mass murder of children.
@@calebvaughan587 I appreciate your point, and agree (that it’s an issue with paramount importance and weight on its own). I’m just saying that such an issue must also point to and predict the likelihood of other wrongs and evils that would exude from such a candidate.
Interesting point. I have seen this for myself. I'm not saying that I must be right about everything because I'm right about the sanctity and dignity of life from conception but that is a very important thing to be right about. If you can't get that, then everything else is in question.
It is a single issue: life or death. The problem is where you do not have pro-life candidates/parties.
Really because being "pro-life" does not stop the vast majority of Republicans from being pro-death penalty, for torture, and always ready to go to war. Regardless of your whether you thought the Central American migrants deserved asylum or even a serious effort by our government to give them due process being pro-life, pro-family Christians didn't stop the Trump administration from treating these people like they were sub-human and ripping apart their families.
Mr Holdsworth I'm always amazed.... Not only at your fantastic thoughts and the way you articulate them, but at how you manage to hit every point in depth, in only about 10 minutes.
A weird take from some is “I’m pro-choice, but I’d never have one”.
I think a good metaphor to respond with, when someone says that, is to ask them the following:
“If you saw your neighbor abusing their child, would you try to help the child, or at least call the police for help? Or are you saying because it’s their child and not your own, it’s their choice? How are the unborn any different?”
I know a lukewarm soul of this type
Willingly ignorant is the word.
I’m prochoice in terms of skydiving, but I’d never go skydiving myself. Why is that so incomprehensible?
@@thefactoryratgenius4659 Because skydiving doesn’t have a goal of killing its participants.
Thank you for articulating my thoughts. Prayers for all the babies that will lose their lives by abortion.
Also, the modern Democratic isn’t very friendly when it comes to religious freedom.
I don't think it's that easy Brian.
Even when you admit the situation is complex, you make the solution too simple. We agree killing unborn children is worse than not giving to the poor and polluting. But now that we admit it, we must honestly ask ourselves :
- Do we want to save lives, or do we want a law? Can a legal law really operate without a change of culture?
- What kind of culture that candidate or that party is actually encouraging?
- What strategies have really helped to counter abortions in other countries (see the Hungarian model). What do the statistics show about abortion rates (ex : why do abortion rate lowers faster under democrats presidency?)
Since we're talking about American politics, I'll be more explicit :
- Will Trump leave a country where a young mother of any kind (poor, uneducated, color, ...) has more chances to keep her unborn child? A country where the sacredness of every life is acknowledged and celebrated?
- What will be the long-term impacts (legacy or backlash) that Trump might have on the pro-life movement?
(I personally fear Trump's administration PRECISELY because of the issue of the unborn.)
The Church's teaching is more nuanced than that of many Catholics on this issue.
Benedict XVI :
“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” Pope Benedict XVI, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles
Francis:
"Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection." Pope Francis, Gaudet et Exsultate, 101.
I like the tone of your video, you invite people to use their intelligence and follow their consciousness. But I invite you to think further with the same attitude.
If by asking those questions, someone decide to vote for Trump anyway, because he believes he will create a better longing culture which will help mothers and the whole society to welcome any new life, than it's ok. If someone just dismiss those questions... I think it's dishonnest and weak. A strong faith can tackle hard questions.
@Ian Thanks Ian!
The argument fell apart for me when you mentioned healthcare; I can’t justify standing by and watching a sick person die because they could not afford their treatment; just as much as I can’t justify abortion. In both cases, an innocent life is lost due to lack of mercy. Health is central to all life and well being. If a political party claims to be pro-life; that includes health care or else we’re dealing with serious hypocrisy.
It’s interesting that you bring up genocide in reference to abortion; but political policies surrounding foreign affairs support genocide in certain countries. Voting exclusively based on abortion laws does not guarantee any moral high ground.
Exactly. I’d say take everything he says with a grain of salt. He’s not an American, but he’s been plagued with that American evangelical nonsense mentality when it comes to politics at least.
The problem I see with your analysis is that you seem to say abortion is worse then social issues but I would argue that according to Jesus when He separates the sheep from the goats the issues that divide the two are social. I was hungry and you feed me I was in prison and you visited me... As much as you did to the least of these you did it onto me. Some Catholics are obsessed with abortion so much they forget that murder begins in heart as the Lord when we hate our brothers and sisters. With Abortion the finger is pointed mostly at the women and doctors who go ahead with it but what about the men who's responsibility the pregnancy is? The are not held accountable enough and it's not right at all.
If Biden repeals Hyde, I hope Pope Francis excommunicates him
Unfortunately Jorge Bergolio wouldn't excommunicate men like McCarrick....why expect much?
Biden is already Excommunicated! ...and so is Pelosi! Read Section 2272 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church!
@@robertgreen3170 true, but i meant officially
@@jwil4286 you won't see that done publicly because it is already officially done through section 2272. Canon law is called into section 2272 which means the excommunicated must seek reinstatement through their bishop. The Church doesn't make a big deal about public excommunications. Look up Nancy Pelosi's trip to the Vatican. The Pope refused to meet with her in public because she was excommunicated. He wanted no "photo ops" or discussions of their meeting in the press. When she had a press conference later to say that the Pope was open to many of her Pro-Choice views, the Vatican came out the next day in their publication and pretty much called her a liar! ...publicly!
@@jwil4286 Robert Green is correct. Biden is "Self Excommunicated" and it is official per Canon Law. Jesus told the first Pope that "what you bind on Earth is bound in Heaven" (Matt 16:19).
Killing someone because you are disinclined to gain weight, or delay college, or lose a movie role, means you want to commit murder for the sake of convenience but you don’t want that to be CLEARLY stated.
Everything else is obfuscation.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 How a woman gets pregnant is not a mystery. Catholics also believe in abstinence until marriage. If you are unable to care for a child then perhaps you should control yourself and not have sex. Taking a life because you just couldn't resist a few moments of pleasure is ok? A baby gets dismembered so someone could have an orgasm? We're not animals; we are capable of controlling our desires. A woman who wants to commit suicide, or engages in cutting or self mutilation would be considered mentally ill and would immediately be sent to receive help, that actually is her body her choice, but a woman who decides to have her baby killed is applauded and considered empowered. You see no problem with this? The ONLY reason abortion is legal is because it is a multi-million dollar industry. Anyone with a brain knows it's horrifically wrong.
@@rook7717 Exactly.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 Obviously their lives matter, every life matters, that's the point. The difference is that the woman is making choices. She is choosing to have sex, she is choosing a dangerous procedure. Unfortunately, every choice has a consequence that must be faced. If I choose to go rock climbing, I know there's a good chance that something could go very wrong. I could fall and become paralyzed or die, it's up to me to face those consequences. Life isn't always easy and sometimes we just have to face what our choices have handed us, and often it turns out to be a blessing in disguise, a lesson that we needed to learn. We live in a world where people have been taught that they don't have to deal with anything that is remotely uncomfortable and that you should live a life free of responsibilities. The sexual revolution turned what was meant to be sacred, into a free for all. Do whatever you want as long as it feels good and then take the quickest, easiest route to undo what you did. The fact that you disagree with what I said doesn't make it any less true. Abortion is legal because people get rich from it. As for birth control, it doesn't always work. Doesn't it seem a little suspicious that so many women who get birth control from Planned Parenthood end up getting pregnant anyway and then return to have that baby aborted? Selling something that is ineffective sounds like a good way to keep business coming. In addition to that they receive federal funding. Rather than giving money to Planned Parenthood why are we not setting up programs to support women who end up with unplanned pregnancies and to help defray costs for families who want to adopt? Isn't that more logical? The reason it doesn't happen....we're back to, abortion is a multi-million dollar industry. No one gets rich from actually helping these women. All these choices have created a society where life only matters when it's convenient and profitable. Women who get abortions are forever scarred and broken. Children in our society are taught that they're a burden rather than a blessing. They hear celebrities and protesters say their lives would have been ruined with a child and the only way they were successful was by getting rid of that child. Is there any wonder childhood suicide has increased so drastically? They think that they're burdens and their lives don't matter. The legalization of abortion isn't just a few people making a choice about their bodies. When we live in a world that says the most innocent lives are worthless, it touches every aspect of society. There is no longer any respect for ANY life.
@@rook7717 Incredibly simplistic take on the choices women face.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 Yes. Well said. Drives me nuts about how some people boil this entire issue down to "it's all about personal responsibility & just don't have sex." They never, ever consider what it is truly like to feel utterly trapped and helpless as a, say, 19 year old poor black woman.
Everyone needs to watch Father Altman. He speaks absolute 100% truth on this issue.
You mean everyone should watch this?
m.th-cam.com/video/v1Th2x_suqU/w-d-xo.html
Yes, I agree.
No one speaks absolute truth all the time. To even say something like that is scary on many levels.
@@tcl5853 She didn't say all the time she said "on this issue", two very different things
@@littledrummergirl_19 : with all due respect it’s just as disturbing. He’s a man and to give anyone the authority to be the “absolute truth” is in an old fashioned word, idolatry.
@@tcl5853 You seem eager to say the dumbest things. If your brain cannot rationalize what she is trying to say, then keep whining
Thank you, Brian. You are a good Catholic man❣️😊
I really like your videos Brian. You seem like a very faithful Catholic and explain things so well, so lovingly and so convincingly (not that I need convincing!). I wonder if you shouldn't be sorry for being 'graphic & inflammatory' though re describing the realities of abortion...just reading Tim Gordon's Rules for Retrogrades where he makes a great case for not using euphemisms and never apologising for defending the truth.
Agree 100%. When we adopt the terminology of the opposition, with its wiggle terms and asides, we are merely rearranging the seating on the proverbial sinking ship.
How do you not have 100k subscribers by now, Brian?! I am constantly sharing your videos! And I even used them in class when I was teaching theology at a Catholic high school. Keep up the good work, brother! And thank you for adding such nuance and insight to the preeminent right to life argument.
Wow! This Canadian understands American politics better than many Americans! Thanks Brian!
Seems like pro life people are concerned about the birth.....but no so much for anything afterwards. I feel like at the very least, if YOU make someone have a baby-YOU should pay to raise it.
Wow Brian I used to watch your videos a lot but I think this video is a drastic oversimplification on "Democratic" pro-choice policies. Policies like birth control and healthy sex-ed (both supported by "Democratic" pro-choice policies) have actually been proven to statistically decrease number of abortions, while republican states where abortion restrictions are greatest tend to have the greatest number of abortions. Hence, I think your analogy is quite literally, completely not justified or parallel to the true complex nature of abortion. I also think abortion, itself, in a Biblical context is more nuanced than you make it out to be and I wish you touched upon the Biblical side (aside from crafted in your mother's womb) a little more.
Hi Phoebe, you raise interesting points. It seems like you're saying that Democrat support of pro-choice policies including increased contraception use, increased sex-education, and increased access to abortion lead to less abortions.
A few issues I find with this are:
1) Contraception is a grave moral evil, and has been considered to be so by the vast majority of Christianity until the 20th century (the Catholic Church hasn't changed it's teaching on this). A Catholic cannot advocate for contraceptive use.
2) Sex-education ranges in complexity throughout different education systems, and it can have vastly different styles. Some styles are much more controversial. If the end goal of sex-ed is "safe sex" (i.e. sex without responsibility), then we have failed our children. A Catholic cannot teach or advocate for sex without responsibility/outside of marriage (i.e. fornication).
3) Committing a gravely immoral act (i.e. increasing easy access to abortion) in order to bring about a greater good (i.e. less abortions) is based on a *philosophy of ends-justify means.* This is another untenable position for a Catholic to hold.
4) How is abortion nuanced in the Bible? What passages support or justify it?
I'd like to hear your thoughts on these points. I hope I have not misinterpreted your post
A naive argument given by a Canadian with a generous social safety net including a single payer healthcare system that won`t leave you bankrupt if you or your family get sick. Catholics are human too and need a functioning government that uses their tax dollars to help them unlike the situation we have now in the states. Poverty kills , lack of healthcare also kills,we can end abortion by simply not participating in it and the cultural habits that lead to it. And yes ,I`m a Roman Catholic who lives in the U.S. and I see a lot problems here that will have to be solved with works as much as prayer.
I agree, I wouldn't trade my healthcare system for yours. That said, the admonition to end abortion by not participating it is like saying, they could have ended the holocaust by not participating in it. Unfortunately, they had to actively fight against it and sacrifice their own welfare to do so.
Your analogies seem flawed, the democratic party would be addressing problems that result in situations where you have to make such a decision. The republic party, as far as their actions have shown, have only sit back and enforce unfair laws without providing any infrastructural support. That is not an ideal government it's just a lazy dictator. Choosing a bad candidate who can result in so many avoidable deaths during a this epidemic doesn't seem justified. Whereas choosing a candidate who addresses causes of a genocide and hence would be able to prevent it seems more reasonable, don't you agree?
Brian is usually on point, but this video is glaringly ill-considered. There are two areas where he does apply the equal analysis: 1) Yes, abortion kills people, but other things kill people as well. 2) No, the Democrats may not actually fix the problems they claim they will, but the Republicans may not fix abortion either. It would be great if the situation were as clear cut as Brain makes it out to be, but it simply is not.
Re (1): Captial punishment kills people. Racism kills people. Police violence kills people. Lack of healthcare kills people. Pollution kills people. Climate change kills people. Downplaying a pandemic kills people. The list goes on. Unfortunately, the major anti-abortion party in America is often quite supportive of killing people in other ways or opposes policies that would save lives. The choice here is not at all obvious.
Re (2): While there are some things that elected officials can do to counter abortion in America, abortion policy ultimately comes down to the decision of supreme court justices. The anti-abortion Republicans have appointed 14 of the last 19 new justices, yet there has been no significant curtailment of abortion rights over that time. There is no guarantee that the court will ever overturn the right to an abortion. What is more, the next president and congress may not even have the opportunity to appoint a supreme court justice. Unfortunately, the anti-abortion party in America has very little ability to prevent abortions, and what little ability they do have has been wielded ineffectively. The choice here is not at all obvious.
I don't want to vote for anyone who supports abortion. It is always wrong to support abortion. The trajedy of the American politics is that the politicians do who oppose abortion most often have little power to do anything about it, often fail to use what little power they do possess to prevent abortions, and often vigorously support other policies that kill people or oppose policies that save lives. The choice here is not at all obvious.
Im happy I'm not American. Your system seems suprisingly undemocratic to me.
@@erikkollar66 In many ways, the American system of government was specifically designed to not be democratic. The founders did not view pure democracy as an unalloyed good and sought to temper its potentially ill effects.
@ You are absolutely correct that there is a difference between people dying and people killing people. There is also a difference between people dying unavoidably--everyone dies, afterall--and people dying when we know how to prevent it and have the means to do so. I'm not saying that anyone should feel morally compelled to vote one way or another; you have no idea who I am voting for. I'm simply saying that this video arrives at a clear cut conclusion via unequal analysis of the choices, and that a full assessment reveals both major parties to have major moral failings that greatly complicate the decision placed before voters. Support whomever seems best to you; just be as honest about their flaws as you are about the flaws of the people you don't support.
Having sat through all 10 minutes, I have noticed a glaring omission. There is no mention of preventing unwanted pregnancy, which is the truly effective way of ending abortion.
Ending unwanted pregnancy can be achieved by comprehensive sex education and access to birth control, including sterilization.
If development of male birth control beyond condoms is achieved, this will further improve it.
As long as there continues to be unwanted pregnancies, there will always be abortion, legal or not.
Also, the drop in abortion rate may have to do a drop in the unwanted pregnancy rate, which is achieved by the aforementioned sex education and access to birth control.
@@happilyabortedfetus5805 Just based on correlation, the need for abortion didn't exist the way it does now prior to widespread availability of contraception and "sex education". People use abortion because no contraception works 100% of the time. Condoms, for example, are only 98% under the absolute best circumstances (which is rarely the reality). So even at maximum effectiveness, 2 out of 100 instances of sex with a condom result in a potentially unplanned pregnancy. Add since the parties in question obviously did not want that outcome, they'll seek an abortion. Nobody explains that in the, so-called, "sex education". We're promised consequence free sex, which is a lie, and then when it turns out to be a lie, we are shocked and amazed that we have to rely on abortion. Abortion is the safety net for the fallacy of contraception. This is why the high and noble aim of governing your own choices can never be replaced by a magic pill.
@@BrianHoldsworth Wrong. In the USA, abortion was legalized in 1973 and the birth control pill was introduced in 1960, which led to the sexual freedom movement. But in 1930 there was already 1 abortion for every 3 births, so it was illegal only on paper with no birth control involved and no sexual freedom culture.
Don't fornicate, and be open to creating life when having sex in a marriage. It's simple. The Catholic teachings are consistent. Also sex education is a way of sexualizing innocent minds at younger and younger ages. We are seeing the Satanic logical conclusions of that nowadays with drag queen story hour.
To be pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. I regard abortion as a grave sin but doubt we should give the state power over our own bodies. God gave us free will it is not for the state to compel us to do God's will.
Completely agree
I don't disagree with what you say about the relative importance of abortion. However, I wonder about the following things:
1) What if a voter does not believe a candidate will do as he says? Reagan appointed four justices two of whom later voted to uphold Roe v Wade. Kennedy actually wrote the decision to do so in Casey v Planned Parenthood and later the Oberkfell decision. The two Bush Presidents also appointed four justices two of whom have disappointed pro-life hopes regarding overturning Roe. If Trump best fulfills the promise re Supreme Court appointments is will be ironic because he was pro-choice until quite recently. This does not make supporting a pro-choice candidate permissible, but may excuse supporting otherwise objectionable but ostensibly pro-life candidates.
2) I am skeptical that social welfare programs reduce abortions in fact, but programs providing support for parents and children such as those created in other countries where they want to increase the birthrate could do so.
3) Could Christian support for someone pro-life but otherwise morally objectionable be counter-productive because it makes people who might otherwise listen to pro-life arguments cynical about Christian hypocrisy?
Some Catholics have criticized me because I have voted for pro-life third party candidates in Presidential elections. I don't think (then) Cardinal Ratzinger emphasized the likelihood of winning.
There is a larger meta-motive behind the Christian concern for the individual, the family, the contract of marriage and of all intra-personal human relationships than merely the protection and defense of helpless and innocent human life - though that is not a minor issue. It's that human life shouldn't be regarded as a commodity, a conceit or a constraint on the glory and potential of our own beings. To be used, brokered or discarded where expedient or advantageous. That's the sacredness of human life, an injunction upon us not to treat ourselves and each other as mere things......
If we give this up we not only turn against God, we render all assumptions of modern society concerning human rights, law and the proper order of justice incoherent. Then there is no logic or rationality governing our human interrelationships, there is only will. We have returned to a world innocent of Christendom - and we won't know it different from Hell.......
Sorry, this argument is falling on my deaf ears. Maybe you do have to be American to see what's at stake in this election. But returning to Constitutional normalcy outweighs a vote that nominally supports pro-life policies. Abortions will continue no matter the law. The challenge is to convince people to examine their conscience freely. And this election is about restoring the democratic safeguards that ensure the exercise of a free conscience.
My dad makes your argument as well. In order to make the claim that trump will destroy democracy entirely involves some fairly substantial evidence apart from a few “anti-democratic” leadership decisions made by trump. The system can handle a trump and won’t fall apart even with another 4 years of him.
As a Pro-Life and practical Catholic, I struggle with the question of who to vote for in the USA- this election especially. Both party candidates have patterns of dehumanizing rhetoric, but one seems to have made it the core tenet of their platform. This candidate is nominally Pro-Life, despite a personal history of espousing Pro-Choice views. Sure people can change, but when they change so frequently to whichever position benefits them personally and politically, I doubt their sincerity on the single issue I “agree” with them.
I usually enjoy your arguments, but here you argue mostly against one candidate (with straw men) and imply the “enemy of my enemy...” To use use your hyperbole: Do I trust the one “murderer,” or the other? Your other argument is that I should pick the candidate of the better political party, even if he personally, least embodies its ideas. That rings hollow to me.
But, properly, I should not vote for either candidate, for (to me) obvious reasons. Should I vote for the evil they have done, or the evil they intend? If I must vote (for evil), then I guess it collapses to a tit-for-tat game where I’ll vote out the incumbent until they merely do evil I can tolerate.
This is theoretically, the only way to peacefully (and internally) improve such a fundamentally corrupt system. One that produces such candidates as these.
That and prayer- lots of prayer. Please pray for me, but mostly, please pray for my country.
I will not vote for the Anti-Christ Donald Trump. Neither will I vote for Biden. I’m done choosing between two evils.
So sad that many of our bishops don't have the courage to say the same thing. There are so few of them that act like they actually believe Church teaching these days. I suspect it may because the Church in the states is on the government teat for half their income. I recall some words about God and mammon and millstones...
Bravo Brian, best reasoning I've heard on this topic.if only our bishops and Pope-had your level of discernment. Let's pray for that. Thank you!
Honestly, I can't vote for most Democrats NOR Republicans. I am anti abortion, anti war, anti death penalty, etc. So I have become an issues voter
One thing you haven't brought up is whether or not voting "Pro-life" will actually result in pro-life policy? I would find the "single issue voter" position would have more strength if I thought that voting Pro-Life would actually result in pro-life policy. Here in Canada, we have had a "Pro-Life" party at the helm for MANY years and have yet made any progress on that front. Even Trump with all his actions on pro-life issues are only temporary and have already been eroded. You ignore the capacity of that vote to actually make a change on the issue of abortion.
Voting Pro-Life, I am afraid, has no affect. I wish it did, for it would help me make my choice easier. As it is, every time an election comes around, I feel like I my choices are between Satan or his brother.
Brian, honoring your request to not make this video an argument about abortion.
Some quibbles about your argumentation on being a one-issue voter:
1) Nazis - You went down that road awfully fast. Just remember the Nazis carefully studied the Jim Crow American South in order to develop their final solution. America provided a wealth of information on segregation.
2) These are not "normal times" and this is not a typical election. It is perfectly acceptable to vote for the pro-choice candidate when the opponent is a narcissistic sociopath and a proto-fascist. I would think you'd realize that one needs a functioning democratic government in order to truly manifest your pro-life values. Voting for a candidate who is truly an aberration of humanity will only lead to a dystopian "Handmaid's Tale" theocracy. I'm pretty sure you said you don't like fascists, right?
3) Your comments about the democratic cities being led poorly demonstrate an unfair bias and lack of nuance; they also lack historical context. By FAR, the most critical influencer in why many major cities have poor living conditions in the inner-city is the historical practice of red-lining. Minorities who live in deteriorating communities are living EXACTLY where white America put them! The next major contributing factor, which continually gets overlooked, is the drug war, started by REPUBLICANS in the1970s. And third is the Crime bills of the 80's which BOTH sides approved. It's a long, complicated history of oppression that put people in urban ghettos. To blame democrats alone is preposterous.
Please don't make an idol out of the *legal status of abortion*. We should exhort women not to think it's a good choice whether it's legal or not.
Adultery is one of the top 10 sins as well and I don't recall seeing many pro-life Catholics calling for laws outlawing adultery. In fact, many of them threw their full-on support behind a confirmed, unrepentant adulterer on his "3rd" marriage with multiple porn star scandals following him. We have no idea how many abortions Mr. Trump led women he fornicated or committed adultery with to. Be careful when you present things as so black and white.
It's important to note that the ideas of abortion and paying for healthcare/education/etc. aren't separate issues, these are both the spawn of the same ideological demon: liberalism. The branch of liberalism that the Democrats subscribe to is one where an individual's autonomy is the most important thing, and when two people's autonomies would conflict, deference is given to the one who suffers from the most "oppression" be it historical, systemic, etc. With the exception of climate change and Covid policies, you can predict just about any progressive standpoint on any issue given those two principles.
This is why when pro-life people talk about the issue of abortion, we argue about the right of the child, but when pro-choice people talk about the issue it's always about "autonomy". They quite literally want to be free from the reality of sex itself. In the same way, liberals also want to be free of the financial stress of paying for healthcare or college, free from the constraints of traditional marriage and a traditional understanding of sex and gender, etc. Progressivism correctly understood is essentially an emotional argument against the truth of our existence.
How about challenging your prolife stance in critizing the millions of lost lives due to war and poverty!
I know where you're coming from, but it's not a black and white issue. It's not only about whether the Democrats are more concerned about poverty or social issues. Thinking only about the pro life issue (not only abortion) the Democrats fight against capital punishment (Republicans support it) church teaching goes against it but we don't like to take it that seriously. Republicans support gun access for everyone, thanks to that there's lots of murders in the states and millions of weapons travel into Mexico and end up in the hands of drug cartels.
Being pro life is not just being against abortion, it's caring for life in all stages and we seem to forget that.
Maybe así Catholics we should Bastián frontera voting when all options go against our beliefs, nota just choose the least awfull option.
I voted for Barack Obama over Paul Ryan because of Paul Ryan's stance on cutting Social Security. Another Catholic video stated that you cannot for a candidate BECAUSE they a pro-abortion. Sorry - if you want to rob seniors or the disabled you don't get my vote. How do you know the pro-life candidate will work diligently to end abortion?
I will vote for Trump again, but he is pro-life and pro Social Security, because he has morality.
People always like to say that pro choice people kill babies. This is simply false, there is a huge difference between a born baby and a still in the womb non developed fetus. It can't even think, if the mother thinks they cant take care of it that's her choice to make and not yours. Sure the fetus never asked to die, but did it ask to be made? Honestly, faith should be taken out of this to as a topic as serious as this should have real facts and evidence to support it.
Those who support abortion are simply just wrong. The woman's right to chose exist but not after they have chosen not to use protection during intercourse.
The way I’ve thought about it is like this: I try to cast my vote such to minimize human death and suffering. I weight all the issues based on their potential change to current amount of human death and suffering. When I do this, the single issue with the greatest positive potential impact is abortion.
abortion is never ever ever right you can be poorer and you can survive and be eventually succesfull but not if tthey kill you
Brian has omitted to address the response to these prickly elements by any pro- abortionist:
None of these succinct points, that Brian makes, would make it past the first breath of being presented to a pro-abortionist.
The immediate, spring loaded, retort would be..... a woman’s right to chose how to manage the autonomy of her own body!!
If rational discourse were the norm in discussing any of our societal or political issues, we’d be in a totally different place.
Just sayin...
Granted, but that's why this video is addressed to those who claim to be pro-life and faithful Catholics, but still vote for pro-abortion politicians.
Such a humble intro and as usual, truly thoughtful content.
Great analogy. One of your best videos.
One of the better videos you've ever put out
All modern liberal movements are based around critical theory. The oppressed vs the oppressors and covers every aspect of race, feminism, LGBTQ, etc. These movements all share the following:
1. They dislike the other's agenda if it doesn't relate to them.
2. They are willing to work together in the meantime as they want to overthrow the current society.
3. They are pro-choice.
At the heart of the above there is no compassion, no love and no tolerance. Plus the wish for the oppressed to be saved from the oppressor is not really the desire at all as they all support abortion which is the ultimate in the innocent being oppressed by the strong. In reality those who understand critical theory want to become the new oppressors Anyone who cognitively supports any form of critical theory is lacking morality to a significant degree.
Brian, my disagreement with your position is that much of the opposition to the Republican party is not based on policy, and much of the support of the Democratic party is, again, not based on policy.
Also at stake are issues of leadership vs. abdication, integrity vs. hypocrisy, honesty vs. dishonesty, conciliatoriness vs. bellicosity, unity vs. factionalism, etc. These are not policy issues, but they are matters of stance or posture, and they are absolutely vital to the soul of our nation.
As for myself, I cannot support this "pro-life" party here in America because it fails at leadership. It isn't a matter of policy. I believe they are gaining their policy victories at the price of their leadership, and when that leadership fails, the policy is not going to save us.
I'm not alone in thinking this. Senator Ben Sasse said something very similar to this recently in a now publicized phone call with some constituents. Perhaps the difference is, I now refuse to vote for this party, while others like Sasse remain committed to it.
I fear what happens when we sacrifice leadership for policy, even on the issue of abortion.
I’m right there with you.
Could you be more specific as
to how the Republican Party is failing in leadership? The Democratic party is the party for abortion up to 9 months.
I mean... the murdering of innocent babies it's pretty specific and a failure by my standards.
@@devon6294
From 2017 to 2019, the Republicans had every lever of power. They had the Presidency, both chambers of Congress, and the Supreme Court. They had the power they needed to change the country’s abortion laws. But they didn’t. They used that power to gut environmental regulations, bust the federal budget with a massive tax cut we couldn’t really afford, and have a complete leadership meltdown over Obamacare. The GOP was in the same position between 2005 and 2007. And then, they passed another big tax cut that wasn’t offset by spending cuts, they undermined the efficacy of the postal service by blowing up their pension program, and they made it harder to sue people and companies that recklessly sell guns to dangerous people. When Republicans have power, abortion never makes it onto the docket. When they conveniently don’t have power, they all make promises they have no intention of keeping to get Christians to donate to their campaigns. I really don’t care if the Republican platform is officially pro-life. If they never actually do anything to stop abortions, they are no better than the Democrats.
Additionally, the stated pro-life policy goals of the GOP wouldn’t actually do much to reduce the number of abortions in the US. They don’t support any kind of legislative action on the issue, instead opting to try to install federal judges who might overturn Roe. But that hasn’t yielded anything close to positive results. And overturning Roe wouldn’t actually save many lives. That would punt the issue to the states. So even if we overturned Roe v Wade, any woman who could travel to a blue state could still be able to have an abortion. At best, the a Republican plan is to make abortions cost a little more for women in some parts of the country. That’s an incredibly weak policy position. additionally, we’ve seen time and time again through the war on drugs and attempts to restrict gun ownership that banning things doesn’t actually stop them from happening. Even in red states, women who couldn’t afford a plane ticket would still be getting abortions. They’d just be getting them in a shady guy’s basement instead of a clinic. By banning abortions, the government would just give up its ability to ensure that those procedures were carried out by trained doctors in sanitary conditions.
If the GOP actually cared about reducing the number of abortions that occur in this country, they would relentlessly pursue a legislative agenda that combats the reasons why women feel like they need abortions. Make diapers, car seats, bottles, etc. covered by TANF, SNAP, and WIC benefits. Give people guaranteed paid family leave. Have a plan for universal affordable childcare. Invest in shelters and programs that give resources to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. Make it cheaper and easier to adopt children, and provide more opportunities for biological parents to exercise agency in the adoption process. Provide housing assistance for young families in crisis. Make it easier for people to access addiction treatment, mental healthcare, and non-abortifacient methods of birth control. Improve the foster care system so no one can rationalize abortion as an act of mercy, protecting their child from becoming a ward of the state. There’s a ton of achievable, popular, common sense policies that would reduce the demand for abortions that the Republicans refuse to pursue.
If neither party is ever going to actually ban abortions nation-wide, it makes sense to vote for the party who is doing the most to reduce the number of abortions that happen. When the Republicans have power, they do nothing. When the Democrats have power, they expand the social safety net in such a way that pregnant women in crisis might feel more confident in their ability to raise a child instead of aborting them. There isn’t a “good” choice. It’s definitely a lesser of two evils situation. But action beats empty rhetoric, even if I agree with what the people doing nothing say.
@@devon6294 Sure. Firstly, I highly recommend listening to Ben Sasse's phone call. It sums up a lot of my feelings about Trump.
The one thing I would add about Trump is that he has continually refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. That, right there, is absolute no-go for me.
But let me give a non-Trump example. There is no way I can look at Lindsey Graham and not see a bald-faced hypocrite. Four years ago, in refusing to even consider Merrick Garland for the court, he told the American people that he would do the exact same thing under a Republican president. Then he further said the American people could use his own words against him if he did not live up to his commitment. Well, here it is, four years later, and of course, Lindsey Graham's words have proven to be empty.
So, my thing is this. I can understand arguments that abortion needs to be the #1 policy consideration. But what good are your policies if you only win them at the price of hypocrisy? Is that a long term strategy?
When the Democrat party says that Republicans don't care about babies, they are only interested in controlling women's bodies, don't we kind of prove them right every time we resort to a political stance that associates our pro-life position with hypocrisy and a "might makes right" attitude that currently runs through the Republican party?
I've recently finished Jordan Peterson's book 12 Rules for Life. Peterson often talks about life as a game. It's not sufficient to adopt a strategy that wins you THIS game. You need to adopt a strategy that also improves your chances at winning future games. I've been thinking a lot about his rules, and one of my takeaways is that, when we allow falsehoods to corrupt our speech, we give lie to any truth we fight for. We win the game at the cost of the future. We get the policy, but we provide evidence against the policy.
@@justgettingby7725 I listened. It was mostly conjecture. And I thank you for your opinion.
We are not going to find perfection in any one party.
I will continue to vote for those that will get us closer to overturning Roe versus Wade, which has a viciously prayed upon the most vulnerable. The unborn belong to God. Each one of us belongs to God. We are made in His image.
The secret truth is everyone has an issue that they won't compromise on. Now that issue might not be in the spotlight right now but everyone is a single issue voter when it's their issue. Mine happens to be pro-life
If Atheists can be prolife, then anyone who believes in God should also be pro-life.
Come to the true tradition of Christianity.
Come to Orthodoxy ☦️
There are no shades of grey. Its either black or white, right or wrong.
Just a generation ago or so, in my own church (as much as I respect this channel, I'm certainly not catholic), a top leadership figure openly said that you cannot be a faithful member while being a democrat.
That holds more true today than ever before.
Though it's painfully noticeable that current leadership has started using some of the language of the left, some, but at least they denounce the riots going on, and at least they aren't the current Pope who's chin deep into leftism as though the left will EVER accept catholics, even as they attack ACB / the new Justice for being catholic.
Make no mistake that the Democrats and left in general *despise* you, they despise Christians, conservatives, anyone to the right of themselves and anyone with actual moral fiber. Supporting them in any way is supporting your own execution or exile, and that of your friends and family who don't defect.
Isn't Joe Biden a practicing Catholic?
@@binsworth It's hard to say. He says he is, but he supports (or at least is willing to compromise on) abortion and was fairly racist in the 90s. He was even denied the Eucharist/Communion last year for his stance on abortion. I wouldn't presume one way or the other -- I don't know him and there are mixed signals, so I don't know if his faith is genuine or not.
I will say that the Democratic party is comprised of many people, a large portion of whom are anti-Christian. One only need look at the TFP (a Catholic student action group with videos here on TH-cam) to see college campus's reactions to the Catholic Church's position on the 'Sexual Revolution'.
@@PianoForte9096 3 things
1 Jesus says that only God can decide who is righteous and who is not. Therefore, I'm not sure we have any business determining who's Christian and who isn't.
2 Even if we did have business determining who's Christian and who isn't, I would say that if you're basing your vote on who supports Christian values, one candidate seems to have a far less Christian lifestyle than the other. One candidate teargassed protesters and clergy in an Episcopal Church just to do a photo op. One candidate has had multiple divorces. One candidate is openly disrespectful to women. The other is Joe Biden, whose party does not support reversing Roe v Wade. I dislike both, but I think it's a little ridiculous to say Joe is a bad Catholic but Donald is a good one.
3 People get so hung up on abortion, but there are so many other atrocities that are happening that the pro-life camp seems to forget. There are children locked in cages, and we can't find their parents. There are political parties who aren't condemning white supremacy, even when it's on the rise. We have a leader who bungled the COVID response so badly that thousands of people died. None of these seem like even remotely Christian values, and I can't figure out why these are all put to the side so we can focus on one single issue.
What I'm saying is that even if abortion was legal, nobody will ever force you to get one. The government's actions through our current administration are, however, forcing people into other terrible situations that they don't have a say in.
@@binsworth
1. I don't remember this teaching, would you mind pointing out the passage? As for a good reason, if we were not allowed to discern who is Christian and who is not, we risk being influenced by masquaraders: " For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. 'Purge the evil person from among you.' " (1 Cor. 5:12-13, ESV).
2. I'm inclined to believe you -- you've reasoned well. If looking at lifestyle, it's quite obvious that Trump isn't a Christian himself, but attaches himself to things for political gain. I'm just not sure if Biden does the same thing or not.
@@binsworth
3. As someone looking to become Catholic, I'm becoming increasingly aware that neither political party truly aligns with Christian values. There are children locked in cages, there are thousands living in tents in Californian cities. I actually think that Trump condemned white supremacy (www.voanews.com/usa/amid-growing-criticism-trump-condemns-white-supremacy), but Biden refused to recognize the violence attached to ANTIFA, calling it a mere idea. I actually don't think that Trump did too badly with COVID-19; he closed the country early enough to be called racist against China and his constituents wouldn't be compliant either way. I've seen this all go down from Japan (which has had a relatively good COVID response), and I've seen how people on both sides -- anti-maskers who I just can't understand and the thousands of protestors in June violating social distancing rules while cathedrals couldn't have more than a dozen people inside (see San Francisco) -- not be true to the cause. I was raised in a military family, so I follow instructions from leadership wherever I can and recognize that I can't control anyone else. I'm not enthusiastic about Trump, but I am willing to defend those who have received inordinate media backlash (but not legitimate backlash).
Back to the original point from OP -- the Democratic Party is not aligned with Catholic values. It supports abortion, the destruction of the family, and the normalization of evil. You've also pointed out that the Republican Party is not aligned with Catholic values. It refuses to support environmentalism and the general social welfare, and it also supports the normalization of a different kind of evil. Fair enough. Ultimately, the message of Christ supersedes all politics, and hopefully you can agree with that if nothing else.
It's a good argumentation, Brian. On the Democratic side, the argument from Catholic social teaching is that, for example, climate change poses an equal or greater danger to life (and the unborn) than abortion; therefore, abortion should not be the single deciding factor that should sway Catholics to vote Republican. In my opinion, this is more "weaponised ambiguity" if I may so quip. Have you considered this perspective: that while all political parties will always be imperfect, from a Catholic point of view, the Democrats have adopted an extreme secularising worldview that is outright hostile to the opposition, and that has put state-given rights over God-given rights. In this case, even if they opposed abortion (Hitler strongly opposed abortion for Aryans), voting for them would still be an evil choice, because their underlying philosophy is contrary, let's not say to Church teachings, but to the idea of God itself.
That is the position I always supported. If you are going to vote for two "evils" you should vote the one that is not actively trying to suppress you.
@@thedarkknight9021 Totally agree. The sticky part is to remain sensibly in opposition to the evils you still vote for.
A large portion of society, and those in the pro choice stance dont see the unborn fetus as a person. There is a difference between life and personhood, and youd have to make a case for how personhood is defined
Great point! Check out Lia Mills’ videos here on TH-cam... a brilliant young woman who addresses the definition of the human person well.
He made videos on it previously
Brian, the Catholic church identifies some issues as non-negotiables, such as abortion, euthanasia, use of deliberately killed bodies for experimentation or drugs. I think you see the point. All other issues are negotiables, eg, taxes, healthcare, environment. The Church also says you must give critical weight to a candidate's position on the non-negotiables first and must vote pro-life. Further, even if the pro-life issue is the only thing you like about a candidate and hate his negotiables issues, and love the negotiables issues of the pro-abortion candidate, you must vote the pro-life candidate. Further still, if in such a position, you cannot choose not to vote (eg, vote for neither), but are obligated to vote pro-life as long as you can vote at all, or else you are helping the pro-abortion candidate via your inaction. So, who said Catholic precepts on moral choice were going to be easy?
First, your analogy limps because I am unaware of any party, politician or candidate that advocates for mandatory, compulsory abortion.
Secondly: you do not address the phenomenon of the politician who states he/she is pro-life and may sincerely be so, but who then also advocates and promotes social and economic policies which may put more pressure on pregnant women in tough situations to resort to abortion. We need social and economic policies that make abortion unnecessary.
In other words, the problem may not be the legality of abortion, but the simple fact that our present societal structure and values de facto requires abortion.
It may be prudential to vote for a person who is prochoice but who, on other ancillary issues would help foster economic and societal conditions that would actually decrease the necessity of abortion and actually foster a more pro-life society.
Perhaps we should focus on creating a prolife society rather than try to legislate prolife laws.
If a society can't defend the more innocent of their own, then don't expect for your rights to be protected later in the line.
You shouldn't sell your vote nor your soul for material things.
Is like the ones that say they love diversity, but kill all down syndrome babies.
"By their fruits you shall know them"?
The fact is that the policies conservative parties oppose lead to LESS abortions.
It is an observable fact that increased sex education, access to sexual health resources and contraception REDUCES the amount of abortions.
Therefore a vote for republicans is a vote for MORE abortions.
Ugh the ad before your video was a priest talking about how good it is to vote for Biden.
Brian this was really well done. I hope it helped the people who struggle with how they ought to vote.
I can’t ❤️ this strenuously enough
Proverbs 24:11-12 Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death, Do not stand by and watch them die. Do not try to disclaim responsibility by saying that you did not know, for GOD, who knows all hearts, knows yours, and he knows that you knew, and he will reward each person according to their deeds.
I'm Catholic and I oppose abortion.
Early/Unwanted pregnancy = consequences of your actions
Rape victims = I sympathize with you, yet one must still not sin, Blessed are those who suffer, but still oppose sin.
.
1 Corinthians 10:24
24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.
.
Mark 9:35
35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”
.
Philippians 2:5-8
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death-
even death on a cross!
There is no fence sitting according to the words of J ESUS S. A Catholic who votes for abortion, is no different than those in th e Roman colliseum who gave the thumbs up to see the Christians being torn apart by hungry lions. We will be held accountable for how we cast our vote
You either have respect for human lives, or you do not. No in-between. No one life, at whatever stage, is more important than the other.
You are passionate. That is good. This is a difficult issue. It is. Brian-your statistics from 2011-2017- include 5 years of Mr. Obama's term (a Democrat). Abortions went DOWN during Mr. Obama's term. The abortion issue isn't going to be solved by voting for a political party. It is a heart issue. It is an access issue. It is contraception issue. It is a jail rapist for raping issue. I am in a RCIA class. This issue may prevent me from moving forward. I believe wholeheartedly that it is a woman's decision, left between her, her God, and her partner. Abortion will not end if Roe vs Wade is overturned. The states will then legislate it. Liberal states will have few restrictions and Conservative states will likely attempt to ban it. Abortion occurred before January 1973, and the Roe vs. Wade decision, it will not end by me voting for a political party.
Please watch my other video on the topic.
Hey Steve. The Catechism gets into moral acts being judged to be good or evil by object, circumstance, and intention - all must be good to make for a good act. If not by circumstance or intention, all the life issues (euthanasia, abortion, etc.) are evil by object - evil meaning there is a privation of goodness which is from God. No doubt intention is good for most life issues, but intention alone doesn't make an act good. This is just good philosophy, which is why the Church embraces it (thought it's also supported by revelation). Don't let your erroneous thinking on this one topic prevent you from taking steps towards Christ -- we all struggle with Church teaching at one time or another.
Maggie DeWitte's letter in the Des Moines Register:
OBAMA DIDN'T CAUSE DROP IN ABORTIONS
Contrary to Danielle Burmeister’s Oct. 2 guest essay, evidence does not suggest that abortion rates are reduced under Democratic presidents. Just the contrary.
In fact, even Snopes calls this false: “At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama’s administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation.”
So what is the cause of the decline of abortion rates between 2008 and 2016? In fact, the cause is specific. Most of the pro-life strides come at the state level.
During Barack Obama’s presidency, the Democrats suffered their largest drop of power since the Eisenhower years. When he came into power, his party controlled both chambers of 27 state legislatures, but only 13 when he left. In all they lost 816 state legislative seats, plus 13 governorships.
Obama’s lack of coattails allowed pro-life representation to soar at the state level, resulting in a smorgasbord of life-saving legislation. In other words, any honest assessment of the data, as Snopes makes clear, needs to look at cause and effect, not just effect. The cause: more pro-life legislators elected at state levels; the effect: a decline in human abortion.
- Maggie DeWitte, executive director, Iowans for Life
God will bless our nation when we end the legalized murder of human life in the womb with a constitutional amendment (i.e. slavery). By God's grace this will happen..."If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14. Steve, I agree it is a "heart" issue but with prayer and fasting, God's love and mercy will convert many hearts! I will pray that you continue with your RCIA class. God bless you!
Steve Chapman You should probably put RCIA on hold to further study and pray over Catholic belief. To be Catholic one must fully give their mind and will to Christ's Church. For example, the root cause of abortion is artificial contraception. Prolife married couples do not practice contraception and they do not kill their preborn children. If one cannot accept this very obvious truth, how much less can they accept the sublime reality of Holy Eucharist. Think about it.
I sense there is something funny going on about abortion incidence numbers. So, when their (like PPfA) revenue goes up but then abortion incidence goes down. And then, when there's a Republican in charge abortion goes up but when a Democrat abortion goes down. In all situations one condition stays true, reporting abortion numbers is not mandatory.
Anti abortion isint As pro life as you might think! Most country with bans on abortions legally also have some of the highest abortion RATES in the world! And also are all 2nd or 3rd world country’s! Anti abortion laws can and do also lead to things like Mass poverty,Disease,Famon,Pollution,Wars,Destruction and Death!
It baffles me that so many people simply DON’T UNDERSTAND or refuse to understand facts as basic as those you’ve laid out in this video. Beyond the obvious moral indignation, it’s a #facepalm type of thing.
I’m 100% against abortion, but it’s really not that simple. Especially in the US, private healthcare kills people indirectly. Immigration issues are an affront to human dignity. You can vote for a candidate/party and criticize and fight them on the issues that need to change, so you have to see which needs more revision. Sadly (not a big enough word) in Canada Abortion is basically a given, so you have to look to the other issues that can be changed.
Memorializing our own religious and moral creeds into public law doesn’t help the individuals we are regulating become better, it merely imposes our preferences upon them. thou shall not kill is very different than thou shalt not kill because thou are not allowed to buy governmental decree. Goodness for the sake of following the law and not for the sake of goodness is not goodness at all but subservience to oppressive rule. Goodness born out of personal conviction and willful effort is goodness. If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. God gave us free will and asks we follow the righteous path. The government’s place - particularly a democratic republican government - is not in dictating moral law, but laws of order. If abortion is such a big problem perhaps the church hasn’t done enough to educate its parishioners on why it is their personal and individual responsibility to not have one.
The problem with this argument is not that the welfare state is more important than the right to life. He's 💯% right about that issue. Rather the issue is that votes for pro-life candidates don't necessarily result in the fullest or even a noteworthy protection of human life. In times past, it meant little more than the Mexico City Policy, and rhetoric from President Bush stating that it's a brutal practice. For that reason, I think it's possible to argue that a Democrat platform could potentially save more lives in certain circumstances. I'm not convinced this is actually the case, it's just worth considering when dialoguing with those pro-life Catholics that vote Democrat. Im certainly appalled by our blind eye to civilian deaths abroad, and think this could use a more serious analysis in light of the just war doctrine.
Brian, you are falsely assuming that one party will kill babies while the other party will save babies. If this were the case, your point would be valid. But this is not the case. Abortion is a cultural issue before it is a political one. Neither party can legislate an end to abortion. This is proven by the many pro-life administrations that did not affect the abortion rate trends at all compared to pro-choice administrations. On the other hand, when the culture espouses a given cultural/social paradigm, anti-abortion legislation becomes natural. The most striking example of this is the recent pro-life legislation in Poland.
Thats ok. Sanger wasn't the rabid racist or Eugenics advocate conservatives made her out to be. At the time children were being abandoned all over the place. Orphanages were overflowing with unwanted children and the child mortality rate was extremely high. Right under the noses of the political and religious establishment much the way it is now. So yeah, she should decide what's in her and the baby's interest.
I can’t vote singularly on pro-life because it isn’t as simple as banning abortion. There needs to be more systematic change to reduce abortion, starting at educating people about sex and identifying and addressing the reasons why women have abortions. If a full abortion ban without addressing its causes has worked effectively in other countries, someone let me know.
This video brought some thoughts up and would love to explore:
(i) Explore the issue of where life starts. Under biblical as well as Catholic canon law. Is abortion taking away a life, or is it taking away a right to life. I would love you to do a discussion on this.
(ii) Would also love you to do a video on - if Abortion and the killing of a baby is the same as the killing of a a murderer. And yes they are both killing. Bearing in mind, all that the scripture has to say about and eye for an eye but also about forgiveness, thee without sin cast the first stone and most important the old things have passed away; behold, the new has come into being.
(iii) Can you do a similar argument on homosexuality. What is worse destroying God Planet or two men in civil union, not loving thy neighbour by allowing people to go without adequate housing and healthcare (Love thy neighbour) or two men marrying.
This argument assumes both sides aren't pro death. Saying something pro life doesn't make them so when they don't do anything pro life.
Great video, loved it!
I'm not even a Christian but I know abortion is wrong. Imagine believing in an omnipotent being that wrote a book that explicitly states several times that killing people is wrong but still thinking that taking the life of an innocent human is acceptable.
To Be Catholic means to be Pro-Life, period. The Choice is life or death. Thank your Mother for saying YES to Gods Will in her life and saying yes to your life in her womb.
What I’m not surprised??....... Catholics 🤷🏻♂️
I think that the discussion too often comes down to pro-choice vs pro-life. I think there a huge difference abortion before 14 weeks and late term abortions.
I once voted for a lesbian. One of the reasons was because she was slightly more pro life then her rival.
I'm a little confused. When you said abortion rates fell 20% during the Obama presidency were you crediting his administration? 🤔
I doubt this has to do with Obama. Abortion rates have been falling steadily since the 90s.
@@gareginasatryan6761 No, any time a Republican president is in office, abortion numbers barely drop.
@@Molotov49 Wasn’t sure of the specifics. But there was a NYT article on abortion rates. And it seems to have been on a steady decline. My impression was that it wasn’t strongly connected to the party in power.
When you talk about these hit topics who use the perfect wording
The calm and rational and relaxed way you approach the subject I think is extremely helpful. I wish I could do that. Bless you!
I recommend looking into what the Early church fathers had to say about abortion.
(Not that necessarily what the early church fathers said is "law", but I think its interesting to see that even from the beginning development of the body of Christ there was an opposition to abortions.)
The highest homicide rate per capita of any city is in Oklahoma
Brian, your wisdom is showing! Also in some white hair on your beard. Thanks, Anthony.
Totally how I feel Brian. Still trying to think through this similar video: th-cam.com/video/RvWD7ykNjCc/w-d-xo.html
As an American, I appreciate your words! Thank you!
I don't believe you can be a true Christian and support abortion.
Thank you brother in Christ! I am a volunteer pro-life councilor and have always considered myself a one issue voter for all the reasons you stated. I am appalled by some of my high school friends who voted pro death and call themselves Christians. I will never understand that until the day I die.
Here's the truth: We know that 99% of women that get an abortion don't regret it. They knew it was the right thing to do at the time. We also know that 91% of abortions are carried out during the first trimester. Finally, we know that a fetus doesn't develop consciousness until around month 4-5 (2nd tri). I'm sorry, but the facts don't care about your feelings. If you want to argue against second or third term abortion, you've got my vote, but arguing against the facts won't do you any good.
Facts need citations. I don't recall seeing anything on my video based on feelings. And if consciousness is your criterion, you'd better have a sound definition of what that means and then you'd better about that everyone in a comma is now eligible to be aborted based on it.
Biggest head on the internet. Also ridiculous argument.