Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adawgj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So a fetus is a clump of cells? But Doctors have indeed stopped doing abortions because they said it was life.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If it is absurd, then why didn’t you cite how it is absurd or not an apt analogy? On the face of it, it seems to be a very apt analogy, illustrating the point that some actions of right and wrong (like murder) you are willing to enforce by government, and some actions of right and wrong (like abortion) you prefer to rely totally on gentle persuasion. Yet you give no reason why gentle persuasion is appropriate to stop abortion while police force is appropriate to stop murder, unless you had already assumed that abortion was not as serious as, say, illegal parking, which I assume you also would allow to be enforced by police action.
Click to expand...
The primary role of government is protecting individual rights. Theft, rape, etc. are violations of one’s individual rights. Those laws are wholly appropriate. However, to use the coercive force of government to prevent women from determining their own reproductive freedom is a violation of their individual rights. That’s why the analogy the other poster used is absurd.
 
Mulligan2 said:
The primary role of government is protecting individual rights. Theft, rape, etc. are violations of one’s individual rights. Those laws are wholly appropriate. However, to use the coercive force of government to prevent women from determining their own reproductive freedom is a violation of their individual rights. That’s why the analogy the other poster used is absurd.
Click to expand...
It is only absurd if you don’t consider the pre-born to be individuals, which, according to Catholic teaching, they are.
 
Mulligan2 said:
The primary role of government is protecting individual rights. Theft, rape, etc. are violations of one’s individual rights. Those laws are wholly appropriate. However, to use the coercive force of government to prevent women from determining their own reproductive freedom is a violation of their individual rights. That’s why the analogy the other poster used is absurd.
Click to expand...
Oh, so you don’t believe the unborn child should have any rights? Do you disagree with the teaching of the Catholic church on this?

Ishii
 
Mulligan2 said:
The primary role of government is protecting individual rights. Theft, rape, etc. are violations of one’s individual rights. Those laws are wholly appropriate. However, to use the coercive force of government to prevent w?omen from determining their own reproductive freedom is a violation of their individual rights. That’s why the analogy the other poster used is absurd.
Click to expand...
We are not discussing reproductive rights. We are discussing wheher a Catholic can support a party that believes woman should be allowed to pay someone to kill their child.How do you reconcile your belief that this is acceptabe with the teachings of your Church?
 
estesbob said:
We are not discussing reproductive rights. We are discussing wheher a Catholic can support a party that believes woman should be allowed to pay someone to kill their child.How do you reconcile your belief that this is acceptabe with the teachings of your Church?
Click to expand...
I am not going to force a rape victim to carry her pregnancy to term. Maybe you’re comfortable doing that. I am not.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is only absurd if you don’t consider the pre-born to be individuals, which, according to Catholic teaching, they are.
Click to expand...
“Church teaching” and “public policy in a pluralistic society” are two different things.
 
Mulligan2 said:
“Church teaching” and “public policy in a pluralistic society” are two different things.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the contribution of a Catholic to that public forum should be based on what he holds to be true by virtue of Church teaching. And this particular teaching is not unique to the Catholic faith.
 
ishii said:
Thank you. Cross of Christ. So would that hold true for a Nazi candidate? He doesn’t want to send the Jews to the gas chambers, he just wants to get the trains to run on time. Should we therefore say that “Catholics shouldn’t vote for Nazi candidates” is an unfair “a priori assumption” ?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. A pro-life Democrat would be someone who is actively against what the party stands for. Your analogy might make more sense for the person who claims to be prolife but doesn’t want to do anything to change any laws.
Is there anything a party can do/stand for that would preclude membership in the party? At some point do we say, actively supporting a party means that you are at least indirectly helping the party’s platform and goals?
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on why you would be in the party. Is there no other practical alternative? Is there a stigma attached to the “better” party that makes it difficult to associate with them, or are they actually a worse party at your local level? How much of a chance is there to reform the party? Can you continue to hold your beliefs while still being a member of the party (IOW, does the party tolerate “dissent”)?

I’m obviously not a definitive source, but IMO these are questions that should be considered and require prudence.
 
Mulligan2 said:
The primary role of government is protecting individual rights.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is to promote the common good. Rights provide the basis for how to achieve the common good.

In any case, individual rights are violated when murder is legal.
 
CrossofChrist said:
Actually, it is to promote the common good. Rights provide the basis for how to achieve the common good.

In any case, individual rights are violated when murder is legal.
Click to expand...
Promoting the common good is a socialistic concept. The correct role of government is to protect individual rights. Protecting individual rights, by very definition, benefits society as a whole.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is only absurd if you don’t consider the pre-born to be individuals, which, according to Catholic teaching, they are.
Click to expand...
Mulligan2 said:
“Church teaching” and “public policy in a pluralistic society” are two different things.
Click to expand...
So if in the future society passed a law legalizing rape or perhaps stoning of women “adulterers” then you would say, “we must not conflate Church teaching with a pluralistic society” and would not work to change the law?

Ishii
 
Mulligan2 said:
Promoting the common good is a socialistic concept. The correct role of government is to protect individual rights. Protecting individual rights, by very definition, benefits society as a whole.
Click to expand...
And one of those individual rights is the right to life. Unborn are individuals. Or are you denying elementary biology?

Ishii
 
CrossofChrist said:
I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. A pro-life Democrat would be someone who is actively against what the party stands for. Your analogy might make more sense for the person who claims to be prolife but doesn’t want to do anything to change any laws.

I suppose it depends on why you would be in the party. Is there no other practical alternative? Is there a stigma attached to the “better” party that makes it difficult to associate with them, or are they actually a worse party at your local level? How much of a chance is there to reform the party? Can you continue to hold your beliefs while still being a member of the party (IOW, does the party tolerate “dissent”)?

I’m obviously not a definitive source, but IMO these are questions that should be considered and require prudence.
Click to expand...
Yes, those are good questions to ponder - such as is there a reasonable chance for someone to change the party.

Here is part of the problem: the Democrat party is not worthy of the votes of Catholics. But some Catholics who claim to be pro-life are conflicted because they know deep down that the Democrat party is at odds with the Catholic faith. But they so hate the Republican party that they can’t bring themselves to do anything but make excuses for continuing to vote Democrat. That is really the story told by this entire thread: it is the mental gymnastics one must engage in order to justify voting Democrat. It also requires lies and distortions about the GOP which is the logical alternative to the Democrat party.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Yes, those are good questions to ponder - such as is there a reasonable chance for someone to change the party.

Here is part of the problem: the Democrat party is not worthy of the votes of Catholics. But some Catholics who claim to be pro-life are conflicted because they know deep down that the Democrat party is at odds with the Catholic faitthe GOPh. But they so hate the Republican party that they can’t bring themselves to do anything but make excuses for continuing to vote Democrat. That is really the story told by this entire thread: it is the mental gymnastics one must engage in order to justify voting Democrat. It also requires lies and distortions about the GOP which is the logical alternative to the Dethemocrat party.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Abortion will remain legal until Democrat Catholics come to love the unborn more than they hate the GOP
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top