Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Path_Finder]

You asked how many Mormons elected to public office supported abortion, with the implication that Governor Romney would be reliable on this issue because of his faith tradition. But I pointed out two prominent Mormons that supported abortion, including Governor Romney.

This isn’t arguing on the peripheral. It is essential for pro-life supporters to make correct points and this particular argument wasn’t strong. Often times, I see people in this forum making arguments that are well thought out and very compelling and others are less so. The less so arguments really weaken the strong arguments. It is reasonable that a voter would a) have doubts about Governor Romney’s pro-life record, b) have doubts about the Republican sincerity to address the issue, c) see restrictions of abortion as a violation of the woman’s right to control her own body.

Now, my take is that in a) or b), the view is valid. Governor Romney certainly seemed to change his views on abortion based on political expediency and the Republican track record on abortion from ~1980 to ~2010 was not very strong. To me, the issue should be addressed in pointing out the progress made at the state level the last few years and by nominating someone with a very strong pro-life track record for the Presidency in 2016. Point c) is also a valid concern, but it can be pointed out that, by balancing rights, the child’s right to life outweighs the woman’s right to control her own body and the Republican party will work to pass legislation to support the pregnant woman.

However, there is a lack of tolerance for this level of disagreement to the point where there is a general slinging of “argument on the periphery”, calling people “Democrats” with the implication of that being a slur, an enhanced view of their ability to interpret Church teaching of voting. None of this is going to convince a voter to change their minds. On the other hand, I’ve seen posters (including yourself) make very compelling arguments that will change people’s minds. I’d like to see more of the latter.

Calling people “Democrats” a slur??

By the way, Judge Bork, pro-life Supreme Court Nominee, struck down by the Democrats, Ted Kennedy famously spoke out against him in Robert Bork’s America.

 

[Path_Finder]

Direct quotes aren’t opinions; they are direct quotes.

In 2004 and 2008, both Republican presidential candidates spoke on how they won’t have litmus tests for Supreme Court justices. On the other hand, this is what Senator Kerry said at the same debate that President Bush talked on litmus tests:

“I’ll answer it straight to America. I’m not going to appoint a judge to the Court who’s going to undo a constitutional right, whether it’s the 1st Amendment, or the 5th Amendment, or some other right that’s given under our Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right.”

Is it unreasonable that I expect the Republican candidate to have a strong pro-life record and make statements with that level of conviction? If not, why not?

And, furthermore, how many pro-life voters decide that the Republicans won’t act on abortion and base their votes on other issues? I suggest (and now, this is my opinion) a great many do. But the Republicans have treated their pro-life constituency almost as an embarrassment for the last 30 years. Only recently have we seen changes in that regards, but maybe losing the popular vote in the last 5 of 6 presidential elections makes you realize there aren’t enough bankers to get you elected.

Or maybe the Democrats are realizing that as long as they can get people to enter the nation illegally, they can get votes, so touche.

“Is it unreasonable”, gee, I thought Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, Mike Huckabee and others ran for President, I must be mistaken.

If someone doesn’t like Republicans in the first place, saying bankers are electing them, I have serious questions if the person is really pro-life or just out to diss the Republican party.

Let’s not forget, Republicans have the majority of Governorships and control of both houses of legislation in most states to the doomsayers.

Democrats in fact, are seeking to change demographics by allowing people to omit proper citizenship requirements and I believe that is one thing that happened in one state, the state with the largest population, California, otherwise, your gloomy statements do not really hold up.

But it seems you are talking about winning a popularity contest. Jesus didn’t come to win a popularity contest, in fact, he was crucified so your posts seem to demean people for trying to help the pro-life movement which is evident in the number of abortion mills that are actually closed.

If bankers are an interest of Republicans and this is a bit misleading, seemingly how this Administration is seen as very friendly to Wall Street, likewise, the Democrats are friendly to amnesty which includes allowing criminals into our country, big abortion, Planned Parenthood, Environmentalists who are hurting jobs, Unions, Unions are good but many of them are corrupt and have been famously so for years. Etc. Government workers, grow government and get those votes.

 

[Path_Finder]

Precisely.

And one party holds up even pay checks to the Military and services for the poor for Planned Parenthood- precisely.

Whoever votes Democratic if that is the correct term, hard to see what is a slur in this forum, indeed, a great amount of the time, is voting for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Democratic politicians introduced the ‘Women’s Health Protection Act’ which if passed in the House, senate and signed by President Barack Obama, could end many abortion regulation laws across America. What do you think is stopping that bill from significantly advancing? It is the fact that Republicans are majority in the House. If Democratic candidates had a majority in the House, there is a real possibility of that bill advancing and what a concerning prospect that would be.

Not only does it matter for the issue of abortion who is elected at the state level, but who is elected the federal level matters as well.

 

[Path_Finder]

Now I know, red states like Oklahoma and Tennessee are run by bankers!

 

[steve_b]

Saying “What’s your point” to someone likewise is rude.

My apologies if that’s the way it came accross

 

[zz912]

False. Republicans, including conservative Supreme Court justices, have capitulated to Roe v. Wade, see my posts above for evidence.

And no, not all Catholics who vote Democrat are “pro-choice” Catholics, but we have discussed that before.

So the rulings of Casey, 22 year ago, means that Republicans today are lying about being pro-life. So it’s okay to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.

And yes, Catholics who vote Democrat ARE pro-choice by their votes. All the feelings/emotions/statements/positions to the contrary are MEANINGLESS when the actual vote puts the pro-abortion party into power. You can claim to be pro-life all day long til you are blue in the face, but at the end of day, if you vote for the pro-abortion party, you ARE pro-abortion.

 

[steve_b]

It’s not my comment; it’s a direct quote from Mitt Romney.

But it’s a quote about a position he no longer professes. Everyone has a right to change their views. That’s why I posted the history #1887

It looks like his position on the matter changed around or after 2007. Therefore, THAT’S the end of one view and the adoption of a new view. Maybe he had an epiphany. Either way, his views clearly changed, and he went on the record with his change in views. Those are the views he ran on, those are the views he should be held to for purposes of voting him into or out of office just as any politician.

I have to take him for his word on his views NOW, not back when he held different views, at least until proven otherwise that his views did not really change…

 

[Al_Moritz]

So the rulings of Casey, 22 year ago, means that Republicans today are lying about being pro-life.

May I remind you that Chief Justic Roberts, the current Chief Justice, has affirmed that Roe v. Wade is ‘settled law’?

Put all together, I think it is wishful fantasy to think that ‘one day’ Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned. Of course, you may vote for a wishful fantasy, which is perfectly fine, but I am not voting this way.

And yes, Catholics who vote Democrat ARE pro-choice by their votes. All the feelings/emotions/statements/positions to the contrary are MEANINGLESS when the actual vote puts the pro-abortion party into power. You can claim to be pro-life all day long til you are blue in the face, but at the end of day, if you vote for the pro-abortion party, you ARE pro-abortion.

Not necessarily so, according to the USCCB voting guide. According to your personal interpretation of it, perhaps.

 

[Brandall]

May I remind you that Chief Justic Roberts, the current Chief Justice, has affirmed that Roe v. Wade is ‘settled law’?

Put all together, I think it is wishful fantasy to think that ‘one day’ Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned. Of course, you may vote for a wishful fantasy, which is perfectly fine, but I am not voting this way.

Not necessarily so, according to the USCCB voting guide. According to your personal interpretation of it, perhaps.

You’re absolutely correct. It is a wishful fantasy to think that “one day”, Roe v. Wade could be overturned. It’s impossible because the one group that is large enough to accomplish it, refuses to do it.

 

[ishii]

You’re absolutely correct. It is a wishful fantasy to think that “one day”, Roe v. Wade could be overturned. It’s impossible because the one group that is large enough to accomplish it, refuses to do it.

Brandall & Al Moritz - whether Roe V Wade will be overturned or not by a supreme court is still not relevant to the fact that the Democrat party is overwhelmingly pro-abortion and unworthy of the votes of Catholics. Let’s not keep making excuses to vote for them. Let’s not keep diverting away from the issue which is the Democrat party’s support for abortion.

Ishii

 

[theCrow]

You can beat this dead horse forever, but it will not change the fact that:

Catholics CAN indeed vote Democrat.

Pro-Choice does NOT always mean Pro-Abortion

Many Catholics, including myself, are not 1 issue voters.

/end thread

 

[steve_b]

You can beat this dead horse forever, but it will not change the fact that

Catholics CAN indeed vote Democrat.

Yes but not without dire consequences to their souls. One can always ignore the warnings. That’s been going on since A & E in the garden.
t:

Pro-Choice does NOT always mean Pro-Abortion

Every one is pro choice in that we all believe in the freedom to choose good over evil. That’s the power of free will. Free Will is what ultimately makes us culpable for what we do. Without it we would be guilty of nothing.

The phrase “Pro Choice” unfortunately has been hijacked and tortured into a different meaning when it comes to this political question being discussed.
t:

Many Catholics, including myself, are not 1 issue voters.
/end thread

Given this issue, I would suggest rethinking that talking point.

When looking at consequences of the **issue **being discussed, Catholics are fooling themselves if they think they can vote for a democrat given the mentality of that party on life issues, without grave consequences to their own soul.

#1559 open the internal links.

Look at the numbers murdered every single year by abortion and policies that promote abortion not just in this country, but our own country’s aid to other countries for the purpose of abortion. ONE party is pushing this agenda, and it IS an agenda, being pushed as a right. It’s the Democrat party.

Catholics have been given a pro life choice for decades, and it has NOT been the Democrat party. So when a Catholic votes for a Democrat, when they could have voted for a party who supports life, they are guilty of all those deaths that the Democrat party celebrates and supports legislatively and monatarily under the guise of women’s right to choose death of her child. And a Catholic can’t wiggle from this. They are complicit.

From Mother Teresa. (do a word search on abortion…18 references)
https://www.ewtn.com/New_library/breakfast.htm

 

[ringil]

Yes but not without dire consequences to their souls. One can always ignore the warnings. That’s been going on since A & E in the garden.

Using fear of Hell to shape elections? That’s not appropriate, but I am not surprised to see it.

Oh, just noticed that you do the “Democrat Party” thing too.

 

[Mark121359]

You can beat this dead horse forever, but it will not change the fact that:

Catholics CAN indeed vote Democrat.

At issue is not whether a Catholic can vote democrat. The issue is whether one should vote democrat in light of the fact that this party openly supports all abortion, including partial birth abortion and makes it perfectly clear for all to see. From their 2012 platform;

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform Sep 4, 2012

The biggest abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and their activist cohorts at NARAL Pro-Choice America are two names synonymous with the Democratic Party. A fact that no one here can dispute or challenge.

Pro-Choice does NOT always mean Pro-Abortion

"To be a faithful and serious Catholic necessarily means that one is pro-life and not pro-choice. To be pro-choice essentially means supporting the right of a woman to terminate the life of her baby, either pre-born or partially born. No Catholic can claim to be a faithful and serious member of the Church while advocating for or actively supporting direct attacks on innocent human life. Moreover, protecting human life from conception until natural death is more than a Catholic issue. It is an issue of fundamental morality, rooted in both the natural and divine law." ***~Bishop Paul Loverde~ ***

Peace, Mark

 

[JorduSpeaks]

On the issue of trustworthiness of Republicans on the issue of abortion:

I fail to understand why not trusting that someone will change things for the better justifies voting for someone promising to change things for the worse.

As for litmus tests:

The issue of only appointing justices to the Supreme Court who promise to overturn Roe v. Wade is a political trap often used in confirmation hearings. One of the requirements of a Supreme Court Justice is to be fair and impartial in interpreting law. However, if a Supreme Court Justice Nominee promises to overturn Roe v. Wade, they are essentially making a judgement about a future case and demonstrating bias and a lack of impartiality.

A justice who does not promise to overturn Roe v. Wade might do so. A justice who promises to overturn Roe v. Wade will absolutely not do so, as they will not be confirmed.

Also, Roe v. Wade, legally speaking, is settled law. It’s nonsense law based on the ridiculous and unscientific Magic Vagina Hypothesis, but it’s still settled law. The Supreme Court is and always will be hesitant to reverse a past decision, even a bad one, because doing so reduces an individual’s ability to accurately predict the consequences of her or his actions.

The only realistic way for abortion to become illegal is via constitutional amendment, which is admittedly a long shot. However, there are still a number of things that can be done at the federal level to reduce the occurrence of abortion. You could reduce federal funding for abortion. You could ban abortion on military bases. You could repeal laws that require private citizens to unwillingly fund abortion. You could even prohibit institutions receiving federal funding from publicly endorsing abortion, thereby preventing shameful displays like PBS’s partial-birth abortion propaganda documentary “After Tiller” (breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/27/Taxpayer-Funded-PBS-To-Air-After-Tiller-Late-Term-Abortion-Propaganda-Film-on-Labor-Day).

 

[JorduSpeaks]

Also, I just have to address this:

Sounds like the answer you want is that only God has authority over human life and death. OK - but God doesn’t prevent people from killing each other, does he? He lets them murder and then punishes them later for it in Hell.

I’m OK leaving it in God’s hands. What I do not want is for the state to play God.

You don’t want the state to play God by outlawing murder?

What, exactly is the state there for if not to outlaw, prevent, and punish murders? That is the NUMBER ONE duty of government: to elevate us above that nasty, bloody, brutish, and short life of constant war of each man against each man.

The reason God doesn’t prevent murder is not because He’s giving tacit approval to the practice. God doesn’t prevent murder because that’s OUR job. God knows that it is in the nature of humanity to find murder so repellent that we will invariably band together to protect those who can least protect themselves.

This instinct is so firmly ingrained in our psyche that it can only be overcome by trying to convince yourself that the person you kill or allow to be killed is somehow less than human. Even then, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, and those you don’t fool will invariably rise up against the person who tries to rob his fellow man of his humanity.

 

[Brandall]

You can beat this dead horse forever, but it will not change the fact that:

Catholics CAN indeed vote Democrat.

Pro-Choice does NOT always mean Pro-Abortion

Many Catholics, including myself, are not 1 issue voters.

/end thread

I’m not a 1 issue voter either but I will not vote for someone that thinks it’s okay for others to kill babies. More power to you if that’s okay with you.

 

[steve_b]

Using fear of Hell to shape elections? That’s not appropriate, but I am not surprised to see it.

Hey, I didn’t invent hell. Hell IS and SHOULD be a deterant not to sin in all kinds of areas not the least of which is voting. And nobody should be surprised at that, especially Catholics.

 

[pnewton]

Pro-Choice does NOT always mean Pro-Abortion

Really? What other choices have been proposed except abortion? Do you think men should have the right to choose and rape women? Should adults have the right to sexually molest children if they choose? Should the South have been able to stay pro-choice on the issue of slavery? Exactly what other choice besides abortion are we talking about?

The three things I say may seem extreme, yet there is no “pro-choice” argument that can be made for abortion that cannot be made for them as well, at least without avoiding when a human has human rights. Does 3/5ths a person have his own rights or can he be owned?

No, I think pro-choice is the most illogical of all positions.