R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
I agree with you here, but I’m not so sure that McCain would have nominated pro-life justices. Just my own sense, but I think McCain would have nominated men not zealously pro-life.
- Status
S
seekerz
Guest
That is your opinion. Abortion on demand did not begin with Obama, nor is it likely to end with him. A person’s vote is their private decision after thoughtfully considering all options and likelihoods. The likelihood of abortion being stopped or even significantly decreased by the actions of supreme court judges, is tenuous at best.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Hard to know, and we never will. He would certainly have been under pressure to do it, not the least of which would have been the possibility of the vociferously prolife Palin “going rogue” on him if he didn’t. With Obama, however, it was both his inclination and any pressure on him was in the other direction.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
Republicans don’t even pledge to nominate prolife justices. They say there’s no litmus test, and then mumble about the culture of life.
McCain would have been a good President, but he wouldn’t have done much about abortion, either.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Tenuous?
Other than a constitutional amendment, it’s the only way.Certainly, a person’s vote is his private decision. But that does not mean one cannot comment on the propriety or impropriety of voting a certain way.
Obama was clearly in favor of abortion on demand. Everybody knew it. No matter what options and likelihoods anyone considered, that was a known thing. Consequently, voting for him was voting for abortion on demand, objectively speaking. No way around that.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
But if no candidate is going to end abortion on demand, or lacks the ability to do so, then a vote for every candidate is a vote to continue abortion on demand.
S
seekerz
Guest
Only way? You probably mean the only legal way. I’m simply saying that there is no legal solution to abortion. Go a little south of the border and find out what modern pharmaceuticals women use to make an unwanted pregnancy into a “miscarriage” (which they can legally seek care for at any hospital). Women are the key in the fight against abortion. Politicians and supreme court judges, pro-life or pro-choice, as a matter of practicality - are neither here nor there.Tenuous?
Okay, Obama was clearly in favor of abortion on demand but he did not introduce it, so your contention that voting for him was voting for abortion on demand makes no sense. Maybe you meant that voting for him was voting to continue abortion on demand…in which case I will ask you who could have been elected to end abortion on demand? None in recent history have…
S
seekerz
Guest
Precisely.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Right. There’s not going to be a Man on a White Horse about abortion even from the GOP.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
From the Repub platform:
“That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.”
One could say, if one wanted, that it was not seriously intended. But I’m not sure how they could have been more clear about it.
If McCain had been the most ardent prolifer on earth, and had he been elected, it would still have been a very tough slog. Still, that would not have excused him for trying, and it did not excuse a prolife person supporting Obama. There are those who argue that, following the appointments of Roberts and Alito, it would have taken only one more prolife justice to reverse Roe and associated cases. (Yes I know, some say they wouldn’t have, but that strains credulity for most.) A tantalizing prospect for prolife people. Of course, it didn’t come to pass because Obama was elected. It is not surprising, then, that those Catholics for whom protection of the unborn was of paramount importance, are disappointed (to say the least) with those Catholics who supported Obama knowing what that meant to the prolife cause.
Understanding, as some do, that the Church does not have any compromise to make with abortion, it is a great shame (and an embarrassment) that people like Mormons and Evangelicals and Fundamentalists can point out that many Catholics do not seem to live out the tenets of our religion. Supporting Obama was, and is, a very big exemplar of that failure on the part of many, many Catholics.
Returning to the topic, one can read into Beck’s appeal whatever one wants. However, to Catholics it may be taken as an appeal to return to OUR OWN traditional Catholic values and morals, and should be so taken, whatever one personally thinks of Beck. The message has wide applicability.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Whistling in the dark, here, old buddy?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It may be noted that those justices who are considered likely to vote to end abortion on demand are Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia. All were Repub appointees; two within G.W. Bush’s administration. Yes, there were Repub appointees who voted for abortion, but there is not a single Dem appointee who does, nor one who ever did. Not one.
I’m not a Republican. I’m a Democrat, but some things are pretty obvious, and the fact that the Dem Party overwhelmingly supports abortion while at least a good part of the Repub party does not, is just inescapable. My goodness, all you have to do to know that is to read the platforms of both parties.
One can rationalize one’s support of abortion any way one wants, but supporting pro-abortion candidates is supporting abortion. That’s why I am unable to support Dem candidates and vote against them. I recognize the theoretical possibility that there might be a truly prolife Dem somewhere or other, but there has not been one on my ballot for years. And yes, I do check them out.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Not at all. Even you remarked that a GOP Congress wouldn’t be able to pull this off by their lonesomes.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m just amazed that you don’t think supreme court justices matter. But for them, we wouldn’t have abortion on demand.
Vote for the pro-abortion candidate and you’re voting to support abortion. Vote for the candidate who at least promises to support the prolife cause and you’re doing what you can in that arena. Whether Obama introduced abortion on demand or didn’t is of no consequence. He supports it.
I realize others are willing to take upon themselves the moral responsibility for having supported abortion with their votes or otherwise, and do that because of other issues they think are more important. It would be refreshing though (and sometimes one sees it, even on here) to see Obama supporters simply admit that they’re willing to live with an abortion-promoting government in order to facilitate unions or health insurance subsidies, or whatever their reason really is for supporting the man.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Ah, but you weren’t talking about Congress. “Man on a white horse” is singular, isn’t it? You were talking about the President. Do you now want to change it to “Men on white horses?” That’s okay, but that wasn’t what your originally said.Not at all. Even you remarked that a GOP Congress wouldn’t be able to pull this off by their lonesomes.
It may be remarked that the Senate has to ratify presidential appointments, so I’ll oppose pro-abortion Democrat senatorial candidates as well. And, of course, there’s funding, so I’ll also oppose pro-abortion House candidates.
M
Mimi
Guest
Yes! I believe we need a real effort to educate Catholics as to what authentic Catholic teaching is on social justice.
I was going to provide a link, but my internet connection is twitchy today… there was a story I saw on Pope Leo 13 and Rerum Novarum; some anniversary to celebrate it which is being highlighted.
Those who have co-opted the term “social justice” and made it into a self-serving phrase for a political agenda need to be shown Catholics know their faith, and especially on this important topic.
Rerum Novarum & Quadragesimo (sp?) Anno are not difficult documents to digest.
If anyone wants, I can provide a link to my diocesan website on which there are 3 talks I found helpful (not specifically on these encyclicals, but on social justice by a prof). Please email or PM me.
Peace,
Mimi
PS Here’s the article I was looking for:
catholicnewsagency.com/news/benedict-xvi-like-predecessors-to-remember-pope-leo-xiii-with-visit/
Benedict XVI, like predecessors, to remember Pope Leo XIII with visit
G
Good_News_1
Guest
Considered likely. That’s the best we can do with the current political dynamics in place.
If the Court changes, we have a fight in state legislatures. It becomes merely a question of crossing state lines. That isn’t going to change a thing.
I
ishii
Guest
Good, return it to the state legislatures. I would think we’d have more success outlawing abortion on the state level than the federal level. Furthermore, if the inconvenience of crossing state lines decreases some abortions (and it will) then it will be worth it - some lives will be saved.
Ishii
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Seems to me it’s more than that. I realize this probably doesn’t admit of proof one way or another, but it seems to me that when a nation or a state within a nation endorses something that’s profoundly wrong, people tend to think that wrong is okay, simply because the nation or state endorses it.
It’s unfortunate that many obtain their notions of mores from the body politic, but they do. We live in a nation that endorses killing the unborn, for any reason or no reason. This country is (I have read) the most liberal of supposedly civilized states for doing that.
I
ishii
Guest
I think I understand where you’re coming from - a few pro-Roe v. Wade justices came from Republican presidents - O’connor, Kennedy, Souter. However, we also got Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts. Furthermore, but for liberal Dem Senators such as Teddy Kennedy, we would have Bork on the bench - Souter was the “compromise” we got because Bork was defeated. Of course there is no guarentee how a justice will vote, but I think reasonable people would agree that with a Democrat president, you get 0% chance of overturning Roe v Wade, whereas with a Republican president you get not a guarentee but arguably a pretty good chance based on political realities. No one knows who McCain would have nominated, but I wish we were talking about his nominees to the bench and how they might vote and not the 100% pro-legal abortion justices Obama nominated. I base my voting on this reality: with a Democrat president you get zero chance, with a Republican you get a decent chance. Might the next president pick a replacement for either Ginsburg or Scalia? Let’s hope its a Republican picking them instead of the 100% pro-choice Obama, and vote accordingly.
Ishii
- Status