C
CatholicMan17
Guest
My old catechist told me, vote for whoever you want, just don’t vote democrat lol
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Not according to Catholic theology. One is formal cooperation with evil (being the abortionist) and the other is remote material cooperation (voting). The degree of culpability is not the same.
C
C.Ray
Guest
Kennedy was of course a Democrat in 1962, but I think he would not be a Democrat today.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Perhaps you can quote the CCC where it says supporting abortion politically is less serious than performing an abortion.
P
phil19034
Guest
True. But sometimes they do this in order to get SOMETHING passed. Republicans rarely have enough seats in legislatures to completely overturn abortion, esp with Roe v Wade still in play.
So loopholes and exemptions have to be allowed in order to prevent the rule from being throw out by the courts.
Incrementalism has to be strategy until Roe v Wade is overturned.
As far as IVF is concerned - you would be shocked to learn how many Protestants don’t know that embryos are destroyed.
My brother-in-law is a devout Protestant and never thought IVF was wrong until I explained it to him. He still doesn’t understand where the sin is with the embryo creation (as a lot of Protestants don’t understand or recognize the Natural Law), but he did understand (and wasn’t previously aware) of the sin of killing embryos and freezing them in perpetuity.
D
Dolphin
Guest
Evil is evil. There is no tier. That’s like the same as people asking if something is a mortal or venial sin. It’s still a sin no matter what so we shouldn’t do it.
In the same way, evil is still evil. The devil often does small amounts of good to trick us into supporting what is ultimately evil.
In the same way, evil is still evil. The devil often does small amounts of good to trick us into supporting what is ultimately evil.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Not in the Catechism, but well-supported:LeafByNiggle:
Perhaps you can quote the CCC where it says supporting abortion politically is less serious than performing an abortion.
The distinction between formal and material cooperation is clearly expressed by St. Alphonsus Liguori, when he says: “That {cooperation} is formal which concurs in the bad will of the other, and it cannot be without sin; that {cooperation} is material which concurs only in the bad action of the other, apart from the cooperator’s intention. (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Theologia Moralis, ed. L. Gaudé, 4 vols. (Rome: Ex Typographia Vaticana, 1905–12), 1:357 (lib. II, §63)
And there is this published by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia:
http://archphila.org/HHS/pdf/CoopEvilChart.pdf
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Couldn’t open your cite.
But I have to ask whether you really do comfort yourself with this. You’re saying an action is evil only when the evil result is directly intended. If only a known outcome, it’s innocent.
Preposterous! If I do not directly intend to kill Jews but only intend to load them on cattle cars for transport, I’m innocent? If I do not intend to kill anyone by firing my rifle into a crowd, but only intend to try out my new ammunition, I’m innocent?
If one knows the result of one’s action will be an evil result, but goes ahead with the action, he’s guilty of the result regardless of the intention. Knowing the result and continuing with the action IS intention.
And when one empowers those whose actions support abortion, one is as guilty as they are.
But I have to ask whether you really do comfort yourself with this. You’re saying an action is evil only when the evil result is directly intended. If only a known outcome, it’s innocent.
Preposterous! If I do not directly intend to kill Jews but only intend to load them on cattle cars for transport, I’m innocent? If I do not intend to kill anyone by firing my rifle into a crowd, but only intend to try out my new ammunition, I’m innocent?
If one knows the result of one’s action will be an evil result, but goes ahead with the action, he’s guilty of the result regardless of the intention. Knowing the result and continuing with the action IS intention.
And when one empowers those whose actions support abortion, one is as guilty as they are.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
Most Republicans are for legal abortion with many restrictions on when abortion is legal. Most Democrats are for legal abortion with fewer restrictions on when abortion is legal.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No. (more characters)
P
phil19034
Guest
Not most that I know. The only “Republicans” I know who are ok with abortion are socially liberal libertarians. I don’t know a single conservative Republican today who’s ok with legal abortion.
And MOST of the Republicans I personally knew who were OK with legal abortion have left for the Democratic Party because they don’t like the Religious Right.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I have not seen studies on that juxtaposition, but it seems watered to me. The Dem dedication to unrestricted abortion seems pervasive to me. “Safe, legal and rare” simply means “legal”.
On the other hand, all abortion restrictions in the last 30 years have been enacted by Republicans.
So I think the positions are a little more distinct than you make them.
T
TMC
Guest
I don’t see the same thing as you. One possible difference, is that I am referring to actual Republicans and actual Democrats, the people, not the politicians they elect. Some (but not all or even most) politicians on each side take the absolute stances you describe. But very few actual voters take those positions. As a result, most politicians elected by those voters don’t enact absolute positions (or even try). That should be obvious from the fact that when Republicans have controlled government they have never outlawed abortion, and when Democrats have controlled the government they have never removed all restrictions.
One can quibble about whether the difference between the parties on the issue is larger or smaller than I describe, but it is clear that neither party is “pure” on the issue either way.
U
upant
Guest
an Iranian with something to say.
some don’t agree with you concerning his involvement.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Nope.
There’s No Evidence Iran Is Responsible for the Deaths of Hundreds of Americans
The assertions being repeated today seem based on apparently groundless claims from twelve years ago to justify the war in Iraq.
progressive.org
Exactly, he was the leader of the military effort against ISIS, so of course his troops killed many Arabs. Such is war. Our generals are also responsible for killing many, many people, and we train the Kurds, the Afghanis, and many others.
Really? Proof, or more fake news?
The Palestinians and Israelis are essentially at war. We supply the Israelis, Iran and others supply Hezbollah. Do you really want to get into that here? You always lose.
Yes, just as our generals and warmongers are masterminds of acts of war against other nations. We don’t belong over there at all. They have their own wars to fight.
Soleimani was considered a hero in Iran, he had an 82% favorability rating:
Qasem Soleimani - Wikipedia
You found someone in the 18%, and I believe her when she says that Soleimani was ruthless and part of a brutal regime. However, the assassination was against Just War Doctrine. Assassinations are not the means to peaceful ends, they are escalations.
If she favors assassinations, she has no credibility in being a “human rights advocate”.
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
would you expect less of a number to be published even if it was lower? like our polls here, depends on who is asking and who is answering.
I believe she wants a free Iran. what do you do with a government that kills protesters?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
An awful myth. Repubs can’t outlaw abortion without having a prolife majority on the Supreme Court and a case in which the rule in Roe and Casey are at issue.
Democrats have tried repeatedly to repeal the Hyde Amendment, and tried to force all religious organizations like the Little Sisters to provide abortifacients to their employees. Dems have actually been very aggressive in forcing abortion compliance on the people.
O
OneSheep
Guest
I give more credibility to the contribution style at Wikepedia.
He was a hero in the eyes of most. He was the lead person in defeating ISIS. For those persecuted by the Iranian regime, he was hated. I’m not saying that their anger and hate was misplaced.
Of course, you move to America and get our government to kill their leaders, because our government wants regime change anyway.OneSheep:
I believe she wants a free Iran. what do you do with a government that kills protesters?
Look, there are problems all over the world, Central America, Africa, the Middle East. The first thing we can do is try to help their economies in a really helpful way, not with our military and forcing sanctions, etc. We can provide resources, but we can also pressure governments to abide by the UN human rights declaration and UN resolutions, which we do not do with friends like China and Israel.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Not at all shocked for the same sort of reasons you describe. Until the pro life moves this to their agenda, the millions of tragedies will continue.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
It is simply a matter of degrees. Exactly.
Do you take your coffee with half a teaspoon or arsenic or a full teaspoon.
Do you take your coffee with half a teaspoon or arsenic or a full teaspoon.
- Status