Did he specify whether one is voting for the “pro-choice” candidate because of their position or despite it?
Economic distribution? Do you mean taking away from one who has earned to give to another who has not? I don’t want to criticize before I know what you mean.
Just corrected my own post. As much as I hate to admit it, because of my political leanings, after further research there doesn’t appear to be any candidate, major or otherwise, running this time on the Democrat side who is pro-life. It’s quite unfair for those of us, myself included, who desire the social programs associated with the Democratic Party, and the Pro-life stance taken by the Republican party in the last few elections. There are, fortunately, a few Republicans this time around who are against un-just war. So that helps soften the blow, at least during the primary/caucus season. We’ll just have to see who ends up with the nominations after that. Then we apply our ethics all over again based on the actual nominees, who may very well both be pro-infantacide this time around. If that’s the case, then we have to just go down the line of other issues and their relationship to Catholic teachings. Unjust war, concern for the poor, (also elderly, infirm, disenfranchised, imprisoned, sick, etc…)
Important, certainly, but not “**just as **important”. Nothing is more important than the fact that millions of innocent human beings are being killed and the government is doing virtually nothing to stop it. Ideally a candidate would ban abortion as well as instute economic reform to distribute wealth more fairly. But if one candidate promises a fairer economy as well as allowing abortion to continue, and another candidate would allow a less fair economy but would ban abortion, morally speaking you must unfortunately vote for the second candidate.
Or to be more specific, ask them “So you wouldn’t mind if we wanted to kill your grandchildren?”
Yet if 3/4’s of most legislatures and the president were Republican unborn babies would be safe, marriage would be safe, prayer would probably be allowed in schools, etc…
I can’t think of any socialist/communist governments that have been good to Christians or RCs, can you?
In America the power of the people as been taken by the courts (who imposed abortion against the peoples will). Prior to Bush the Supreme court had two strong stricty constitutionalist judges. Bush gave us two more. The next president will have to appoint another judge. Even the most liberal (and only pro-abortion) Republican candidate has promised to appoint a good judge. If the next president is a Republican we should have 5 (majority) solid judges and the ability to stop Roe Vs. Wade. God Willing.
That would be a interesting point to bring up to them. I wonder what they would think if it was their own family in that situation?
We are not supposed to talk about individual candidates, but there is at least one other Republican who is authentically pro-life and more conservative on other issues than the neo-cons that are around now. I do not use ne-con in a derrogative sense, just mean one who is on the conservative scene of late.For those looking for a republican pro-life, anti-un-just war, you need look no further than Mike Huckabee. He’s even moving up in the polls in Iowa
I can’t vote for any of the democrats at this point, although their stance on abortion is not the deciding factor for me.
I was raised to believe that you can not vote for someone who is ‘pro-choice’. At the same time, when I was a kid, it wasn’t often that both parties were pro-choice, so you had an option.
I get the feeling that you too quickly discount the effectiveness of pro life Canadian politicians, possibly due to your zeal for social reform. You cannot pretend the primary importance of sanctity of life is not possible in your country.
The short answer: No!!!