Abortion and Voting

[JJ_Grier]

The Pope, the Magestrium and the Amercian catholic Bishops disagree with you . Noissue or combination of issues trumps abortion. The ONLY time you can vote for a pro-abortion canidate is if his opponent is more pro-abortion than he is.

3.* Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.*** For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Cardinal Ratzinger

*22.*There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. **These **are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignitybecause they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and thecondition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.

To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year’s ‘‘real’’ prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred ‘‘prolife’’ option is to subvert what the word ‘‘prolife’’ means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ''Obama’s Abortion Extremism,’’ and his follow-up article, ''Obama and Infanticide.’’ They say everything that needs to be said.

Archbishop Chaput

---

 

[JJ_Grier]

The Pope, the Magestrium and the Amercian catholic Bishops disagree with you . Noissue or combination of issues trumps abortion. The ONLY time you can vote for a pro-abortion canidate is if his opponent is more pro-abortion than he is.

3.* Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.*** For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Cardinal Ratzinger

*22.*There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. **These **are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignitybecause they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and thecondition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.

To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year’s ‘‘real’’ prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred ‘‘prolife’’ option is to subvert what the word ‘‘prolife’’ means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ''Obama’s Abortion Extremism,’’ and his follow-up article, ''Obama and Infanticide.’’ They say everything that needs to be said.

Archbishop Chaput

---

 

[JJ_Grier]

estesbob

Thank you, now I know where to get the correct information before I present it to my friends.

Thanks again
JJ

 

[JJ_Grier]

hah, yeah, believe me…the answer is ambiguous but i have spoken to numerous priests about this issue and done a great deal of research as I am pro-life but voted for someone who was in favor of abortion.

It is** not a sin** to vote for someone in favor of abortion AS LONG AS you are :

a) not voting for them because you support abortion (in which case that’s a pretty grave sin)
b) have come to this decision after a great deal of consideration and contemplation
c) could more or less “justify” your choice to no one else but God.

The Catholic Church can **NEVER **tell you who to vote for, but they encourage all Catholics to form their conscience before voting. That’s all.

PS - Even if your friends love a political party that typically supports abortion and that was a “sin” according to the Catholic Church, I dont really see how that is anybody’s business but that individual’s…

I realize it is not my business how they vote, however, I am concerned about their souls.

JJ

 

[JJ_Grier]

hah, yeah, believe me…the answer is ambiguous but i have spoken to numerous priests about this issue and done a great deal of research as I am pro-life but voted for someone who was in favor of abortion.

It is** not a sin** to vote for someone in favor of abortion AS LONG AS you are :

a) not voting for them because you support abortion (in which case that’s a pretty grave sin)
b) have come to this decision after a great deal of consideration and contemplation
c) could more or less “justify” your choice to no one else but God.

The Catholic Church can **NEVER **tell you who to vote for, but they encourage all Catholics to form their conscience before voting. That’s all.

PS - Even if your friends love a political party that typically supports abortion and that was a “sin” according to the Catholic Church, I dont really see how that is anybody’s business but that individual’s…

The Pope, the Magestrium and the Amercian catholic Bishops disagree with you . Noissue or combination of issues trumps abortion. The ONLY time you can vote for a pro-abortion canidate is if his opponent is more pro-abortion than he is.

3.* Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.*** For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Cardinal Ratzinger

*22.*There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. **These **are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignitybecause they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and thecondition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.

To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year’s ‘‘real’’ prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred ‘‘prolife’’ option is to subvert what the word ‘‘prolife’’ means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ''Obama’s Abortion Extremism,’’ and his follow-up article, ''Obama and Infanticide.’’ They say everything that needs to be said.

Archbishop Chaput

---

I did not realize my simple question would stir up so much controversy. I should have realized it because in our little community it has. Thank you so much.

Even though it is none of my business how anyone votes, when there are souls involved it concerns me. Thank you so much for your response I feel vindicated. JJ

 

[SwingCorey]

I agree. Too bad the Republicans didn’t think so back in 1973 when they managed to pass through Roe vs Wade, which the Supreme Court upheld. I’d be careful of their goody-two-shoes stand opposing abortion today.

Huh? “Pass through” Roe v. Wade?

Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision, not a piece of legislation. That’s why we have coined the phrase “legislating from the bench” - it refers to judges and justices making new laws by ruling on their opinion, not on the weight of laws already in place (especially in the Constitution).

Nobody passed “the abortion law”. 5 Supreme Court justices decided that, in spite of the wording in the Preamble of the Constitution (“for ourselves and our posterity”) as well as the 5th Amendment (“No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”), there were “shadows and emanations” of a right to privacy, and that included the right of a woman over her own body - COMPLETELY disregarding the body of the child inside her as a separate person.

That was the Roe versus Wade decision (judicial branch). Not a bill that was passed by the U.S. Congress (legislature) and signed by then-President Nixon (executive).

Please take an adult-level civics class, so you can better understand the 3 branches of the U.S. Government and what they can do (and shouldn’t do). I would also recommend watching “How a Bill Becomes a Law” - part of “Schoolhouse Rock”.

 

[SwingCorey]

I believe both Popes have stated that the Iraqi war was an UNJUST war. Again, there was no justification for killing (again) children, the elderly, and pregnant women, etc. And when you kill a pregnant woman, even in this country, it counts as TWO murders.

When it comes to life/death issues, I look at the numbers:

4,242 U.S. deaths in Iraq (over the past 6 years)
cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
642 U.S. deaths in Afghanistan (over the past 7.5 years)
cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualties/
1,146 Death penalty executions in the U.S. (since the death penalty was legalized in 1976)
deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=186​

6,030 lives lost from the War on Terror and death penalty

This is less than the number of lives lost in 2 days in the U.S. due to “safe, legal” abortions. And abortion has been legal in the U.S. for 13,078 days and counting!

In fact, even if only 1 baby were aborted each day since Roe v. Wade, that would still be more than double the number U.S. deaths due to war and the death penalty combined!

Now, I know you are also factoring in non-American deaths. Unfortunately, we have no reliable statistics for those (especially for non-combatant deaths), but I suspect that the total number of people killed as a result of the War on Terror (in both Iraq and Afghanistan) is less than 8 million people - the number of babies that have been killed due to abortion in the United States alone since 9/11/2001.

Yes, war is evil, but it is an extrinsic evil - evil, not because it is itself wrong, but because it can (and often does) lead to things that ARE intrinsically evil (like torture, innocent civilian deaths, etc.)

Abortion is an intrinsic evil - a direct attack on innocent human life, with the goal of ending said life - and is therefore ALWAYS immoral.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and people will rationalize away their souls for their own immediate benefit.

 

[Numinous]

SwingCorey just owned everybody.

 

[Ljrm18]

When I voted, I based my vote and reason for that, on how I would explain to God.

When I get to heaven, and God asks why I voted the way I did, I won’t have to tell him that I thought redistributing the wealth was more important than a baby’s life.

 

[flatlanderjenn]

Several months before election day I got this brochure in the mail:

ahumbleplea.com/Docs/StopObama.pdf

It will be helpful for everyone to read because it explains if we participate with the accomplice, then we become accomplices ourselves.

I hate voting just for one party. I’m not Democrat. I’m not Republican. My husband and I are both listed as Independent and we vote with a clear Catholic conscience and as pro-life as possible.

I refuse to just click on the option of a straight-party vote, even if I do end up voting entirely within one party. The candidates at least deserve me to take at least a fraction of a second to click on their name.

It all just seems so…:banghead:

Oh, and did anyone know that Ghandi said, “if Christians lived more according to their faith, there would be no more Hindu’s left in India.” It’s so true.

 

[estesbob]

**

Originally Posted by syromalabarcath

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif
*The Catholic Church can **NEVER ***tell you who to vote for, but they encourage all Catholics to form their conscience before voting. That’s all.

**

I realize it is not my business how they vote, however, I am concerned about their souls.

JJ

Syromalabarcath is correct that the Catholic Church will never tell you who to vote for.But they most certainly will tell you who you cannot vote for. And they made it clear in the last election that a Catholiccould not vote for Obama

 

[SwingCorey]

Syromalabarcath is correct that the Catholic Church will never tell you who to vote for.But they most certainly will tell you who you cannot vote for. And they made it clear in the last election that a Catholiccould not vote for Obama

I disagree with that last statement - they may have TRIED to tell you who you could not (in good conscience) vote for, but they neither made it clear nor did they do so successfully.

If you read the “Faithful Citizenship” book cover-to-cover, not from the standpoint of someone who already understands the issue, you will find that it is filled with double-speak and hedging. Yes, there are good, pertinent points (that could be summed up in 2-3 paragraphs, rather than a 10-20 page booklet), but they were buried for the sake of obfuscation and a desire not to offend.

Basically, they tried to tell you to vote with a formed conscience, without ever attempting to state what consists of a fully formed conscience. If everybody votes their conscience, that’s great - that’s what everybody on both sides says they did - but it’s not so great if there’s lots of people whose moral compasses do not point to “true North”, and therein lies the problem.

To sum up the intrinsic evils (that many Catholics do not realize are always wrong!) :

• artificial birth control is immoral
• abortion is immoral
• in-vitro fertilization is immoral
• embryonic stem cell research is immoral

This is where “Faithful Citizenship” failed - and this is why over 50% of “Catholics” voted for Obama. No clear leadership on the issue of “the Catholic vote”.

 

[estesbob]

I disagree with that last statement - they may have TRIED to tell you who you could not (in good conscience) vote for, but they neither made it clear nor did they do so successfully.

If you read the “Faithful Citizenship” book cover-to-cover, not from the standpoint of someone who already understands the issue, you will find that it is filled with double-speak and hedging. Yes, there are good, pertinent points (that could be summed up in 2-3 paragraphs, rather than a 10-20 page booklet), but they were buried for the sake of obfuscation and a desire not to offend.

Basically, they tried to tell you to vote with a formed conscience, without ever attempting to state what consists of a fully formed conscience. If everybody votes their conscience, that’s great - that’s what everybody on both sides says they did - but it’s not so great if there’s lots of people whose moral compasses do not point to “true North”, and therein lies the problem.

To sum up the intrinsic evils (that many Catholics do not realize are always wrong!) :

• artificial birth control is immoral
• abortion is immoral
• in-vitro fertilization is immoral
• embryonic stem cell research is immoral

This is where “Faithful Citizenship” failed - and this is why over 50% of “Catholics” voted for Obama. No clear leadership on the issue of “the Catholic vote”.

Cathilics who voted for Obama would have voted for him even if they had gotten a certified letter from the Pope telling them it was a mortal sin to do so. For way to many politics trumps faith everytime.

 

[house5five]

I am not sure why Obama is considered pro-abortion. He is pro-choice. Pro-abortion makes it read like he would recommend an abortion every opportunity. He also said that “we should work to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make.” During the debate, he said on the infantcide law that he voted against it because there are already laws in place and doctors can’t refuse medical treatment to someone who is born alive and chance to survive. It is part of their hippocratic? oath. This law would undermine Roe V Wade. I believe as Catholics we are focusing are time, prayers, and money on overturning a law rather than finding a solution such as helping the single mothers who choose life, helping prevent unwanted pregnancies or promoting adoption. We should spend our time reinforcing to our children that premarital sex is WRONG! I am not quite sure of the statistics of abortions and who is having them, but in my town of 100,000 it isn’t the teenagers. Everytime I go to pick up my niece from her HS there is another pregnant girl or some teenager at the mall walking a stroller with their boyfriend that I am assuming is the baby’s father. So can anyone tell me who is having abortions? what age groups? I read an article that about 50% are African American girls. This was written by Star Parker- a conservative columnist in case anyone is wondering. pressing post and ready for the attacks.

 

[fix]

Pro choice = pro abortion.

Anyone who thinks it is legitimate for another person to kill a baby legally is in favor of letting it happen. There is no other way to view it.

Simply claiming one wants to reduce abortion, while their actions are solidly pro abortion is disingenuous.

 

[estesbob]

I am not sure why Obama is considered pro-abortion. He is pro-choice. Pro-abortion makes it read like he would recommend an abortion every opportunity.

He is the most pro-aortion president in the history of the country, Can you name a single instance in his career where he has voted to or supported any measure whatsoever to limit abortion?

He also said that “we should work to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make.”

So you think that his support of limiting unwanted pregnanciees mitigates his support of unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortions on demand? One way we know that he has been successful in limiting pregnancies is his release of the Mexico City funds which have in the past been used for forced sterilization for poor women.

During the debate, he said on the infantcide law that he voted against it because there are already laws in place and doctors can’t refuse medical treatment to someone who is born alive and chance to survive. It is part of their hippocratic? oath. This law would undermine Roe V Wade.

They had numerous nurses testify that children born as a result of a bothched abortion were set aside to die. Obama’s main argument was that requiring an another doctor to come in and check the viability child was an undue burden on the woman. by your own admission he put protectinga law a law ahead of the life of infants.

I believe as Catholics we are focusing are time, prayers, and money on overturning a law rather than finding a solution such as helping the single mothers who choose life, helping prevent unwanted pregnancies or promoting adoption. We should spend our time reinforcing to our children that premarital sex is WRONG! I am not quite sure of the statistics of abortions and who is having them, but in my town of 100,000 it isn’t the teenagers. Everytime I go to pick up my niece from her HS there is another pregnant girl or some teenager at the mall walking a stroller with their boyfriend that I am assuming is the baby’s father. So can anyone tell me who is having abortions? what age groups? I read an article that about 50% are African American girls. This was written by Star Parker- a conservative columnist in case anyone is wondering. pressing post and ready for the attacks.

As Catholics we should support both. Wanting to get Roe V. Wade overturned and supporting pregnant women, promoting adoption etc. are not mutually exclusive. It it appears. you have bought into the bogus argument that the solution to poverty is to kill off a potential recipients. The battle cry the left always seems to be “adopt our political agenda or the children must continue to die”

Make no mistake-we have never had a president in history of this extremist views on abortion. because of his election ( and those who voted for him) children overseas are dying because he chose to fund those who are doing the killing.

 

[jp2weloveu]

I am not sure why Obama is considered pro-abortion. He is pro-choice.

Obama could not even bring himself to allow infants (born during botched abortions) to be protected. Just standing by wasn’t good enough for him, he actively worked to stop a law that would protect babies after they were born. He said (paraphrased) if the woman and her doctor decided that she should have an abortion, I will not stand between the doctor and patient in that decision.

This is his stance in any instance of pregnancy. He has never backed any restrictions on abortion or even infanticide. This obviously shows him to be pro-abortion. This is irrefutable as currently there are some regulations limiting abortions. The position that all such limitations should be removed is pro-abortion, that is promoting those abortions that cannot now legally take place. Make sense?

I’m sure most Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists, Hutus and other mass murders have/had similar principals.

So can anyone tell me who is having abortions? what age groups? I read an article that about 50% are African American girls. This was written by Star Parker- a conservative columnist in case anyone is wondering. pressing post and ready for the attacks.

What are you getting at? Sounds pretty ugly to me. What almost all of us here are concerned with is the life of the innocent child.

Is sounds like you may be interested in eugenics?

 

[house5five]

Oh that is not what I meant at all. I was just trying to write that it is only article that I have read on statistics. I can see how that came out wrong. By the way it was an article written by an African American who is pro-life. She was writing about the Roe V Wade decision and questioning why this group is having alot of them.

 

[estesbob]

Obama could not even bring himself to allow infants (born during botched abortions) to be protected. Just standing by wasn’t good enough for him, he actively worked to stop a law that would protect babies after they were born. He said (paraphrased) if the woman and her doctor decided that she should have an abortion, I will not stand between the doctor and patient in that decision.

This is his stance in any instance of pregnancy. He has never backed any restrictions on abortion or even infanticide. Please tell us why he is pro-choice! I can say I’m the Queen of England, but it dosen’t make me so…

I’m sure most Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists, Hutus and other mass murders have/had similar principals.

What are you getting at? Sounds pretty ugly to me. What almost all of us here are concerned with is the life of the innocent child.

Is sounds like you may be interested in eugenics?

Pretty ironic isn’t it? The first African American president in history firmly supports the killing of 400,000 black children a year in the name of choice is.

 

[estesbob]

Oh that is not what I meant at all. I was just trying to write that it is only article that I have read on statistics. I can see how that came out wrong. By the way it was an article written by an African American who is pro-life. She was writing about the Roe V Wade decision and questioning why this group is having alot of them.

Because Planned Parenthood targets the inner-city. abortion is now and always has been firmly rooted in the proposition that the world be better off without black brown and yellow children.