And with this, the posted link describing a US priest saying pedophilia doesn’t kill but abortion does, I am done with the Catholic site of strange notions once and for all.

Pedophilia doesn’t kill but abortion does. Tell that to parents who lose their own family members to suicide from rape, molestation, and clerical sexual violations. It’s this vile and immoral logic from a leader in this church that requires me as a thinking and virtue promoting person to say enough. Enough! Enough trying to engage Stockholm Syndrome members who defend their own class and spit on their sheep and all of civilized society. Enough!

Anyone reading this Guardian article who doesn’t also say enough! has excommunicated themselves from decency, love, and rationality, but rather chooses to align themselves with a system that is freely designed to be incapable of recognizing right from wrong.

Anyone who responds to this post without also saying enough! Will be blocked. No longer will I waste my time with the perfectly possessed, the Stockholm choosers. The problem. My time and I suggest others’ times too is better served elsewhere, where change for the good is better spent.

Good bye, good luck and thanks for all the fish.

https://courses.edx.org/c4x/GeorgetownX/phlx101-01/asset/marquis.pdf

or more recent:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5a71/3b452a74234f46c8148f5642b3b0d7842248.pdf

A worthy aspiration of Enlightenment idealism.

Here in the US our founding fathers repeatedly stated that our constitutional republic could only work if the people are virtuous, which starts with people making virtuous decisions.

'Political' mainly refers to the resolution of conflict at a societal level and 'subsidiarity' as a political principle is the view that central government should be limited in how much it can interfere in the lives of individual citizens.
Political solutions are normally much more complex than simply the manifestation of an accumulation of virtuous personal choices.

Personally influencing one person on the most important decision they will likely ever make will certainly be political as it will be for the common good of the mother, the baby, perhaps the father, and you.
As opposed to waiting for a political solution for all of society which will only come through virtuous personal decisions.
This is known as the principle of subsidarity.

Again, I think you've misunderstood my comment. Matthew Lu, clearly, is of the opinion that it may be possible through a more strictly Aristotelian reading of virtue ethics to argue that it might, perhaps, provide an absolute prohibition on abortion. However, all this accomplishes, in my view, is to lose itself in an endless debate about what virtue ethics means and how it might work rather than a discussion of, as I say, workable political strategies.
I think that a 'political solution' requires rather more than one individual influencing another although, of course, personal influence can have some usefulness.

I'm glad that you read that article, although the author didn't support a case for abortion using virtue ethics, in fact he said that virtue ethics were misused unless the conclusion is that abortion is "never permissible to be directly aimed at".
I do want to find a political solution that affects real people. I hope that someday you will influence someone to not consider abortion. If that happens then a political solution will have been implemented and at least one person will avoid the suffering of termination of life.

I've now had a chance to read the linked article. It's well argued and I have very few disagreements with virtue ethics as a philosophical stance but your offering it indicates to me that after all these months you still don't understand (or accept, perhaps) the point I've been trying to make.

As should be clear from Matthew Lu's piece, it's perfectly possible to make a case both for and against abortion using virtue ethics. All these arguments ever do is to entrench polarised views on the issue while providing a distraction from the political action which might actually make a difference to the suffering of real people. What we need are sensible political strategies which are implementable and likely to work in practice.

I pray that when you take into account the interest of a powerless unborn child that you will consider giving more weight to the first need, life. From there I'm sure that your concern for the quality of life will benefit all involved.
Here is one of the best articles I've read regarding abortion, it's a book chapter so it's not a quick read, it supports my view that the powerless deserve more "interest". Abortion and Virtue Ethics by M. Lu, https://www.academia.edu/1423061/Abortion_and_Virtue_Ethics