Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[markomalley]

I’ll take the word of Mitt Romney over any political group:

(Emphasis mine)

Does that sound like a pro-life crusader to you?

You weren’t around at the time (having only joined in 2013), but I half-way agree with you (as a review of my posting history would show).

Mitt Romney was originally pro-life. In 1993 he decided to run for political office in Massachusetts, where being pro-life would have disqualified him as a viable candidate to represent the good people of Massachusetts. So he briefed his church leaders that he was going to adopt the “personally pro-life but publicly pro-abortion” position that he held until "evolving" between 2005 and 2007, where he returned to his pro-life roots.

In a GOP primary, where he stood against other candidates who were consistently pro-life for their entire political careers, I agree, no Catholic should have ever voted for him. And I said so, frequently, on this board up until the GOP Convention…when the deal was done.

However, stacking him as the only viable opponent to the most rabidly pro-abortion (and, in fact, the first pro-infanticide – you can see links to the actual votes from the page linked here) President in this country’s history, I personally would have rather taken a chance on a flip-flopper than with an absolute known quantity.

It depends upon context.

(And we don’t even want to get into how Obama’s social policies violate this historical papal Magisterium…we’re just talking about abortion here)

 

[JimG]

I guess you could say that pro-choice Catholics have given us a pro-abortion administration, the HHS mandate, gay ‘marriage,’ and continued loss of religious liberty.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I’ll take the word of Mitt Romney over any political group:

(Emphasis mine)

Does that sound like a pro-life crusader to you?

I looked up part of that quote, that is from 2007, when he ran for president. According to what I read online, in 2005 he vetoed a embryo research bill. Just with that one veto, hasn’t he done more than Barack Obama has ever done when it comes to voting in regards to actually doing something that stops the destruction of human embryos?

Some pro-lifers have been critical of some of the things Mitt Romney has said and done in regards to the issue of life, but weighing Barack Obama and Mitt Romney up on the issue of abortion, who is the lesser of two evils?

 

[Path_Finder]

Planned Parenthood ran millions of dollars of ads against Romney, I do not doubt at all that as an austerity measure alone, Romney would have tried to defund Planned Parenhood, a governmental rathole of wasted money while at the same time, this is a favored cause of the Democrats even though Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. The legislature has tried many times to defund PP and it has happened in individual states, Wisconsin is one.

I’ll go with what Planned Parenthood thought of Romney/Ryan versus someone saying Romney once did this or that and that was in cooperation with a strong house and senate in Massachusetts. I wouldn’t forget that either.

 

[Mulligan2]

The other thing worth noting is that economic issues are oftentimes the key criteria when discerning which candidate to vote for - i.e. “kitchen table issues”. The so-called non negotiables do not fall into this category.

 

[Path_Finder]

The other thing worth noting is that economic issues are oftentimes the key criteria when discerning which candidate to vote for - i.e. “kitchen table issues”. The so-called non negotiables do not fall into this category.

Got it! Nor do concentration camps.

 

[SMGS127]

You weren’t around at the time (having only joined in 2013), but I half-way agree with you (as a review of my posting history would show).

Mitt Romney was originally pro-life. In 1993 he decided to run for political office in Massachusetts, where being pro-life would have disqualified him as a viable candidate to represent the good people of Massachusetts. So he briefed his church leaders that he was going to adopt the “personally pro-life but publicly pro-abortion” position that he held until "evolving" between 2005 and 2007, where he returned to his pro-life roots.

In a GOP primary, where he stood against other candidates who were consistently pro-life for their entire political careers, I agree, no Catholic should have ever voted for him. And I said so, frequently, on this board up until the GOP Convention…when the deal was done.

However, stacking him as the only viable opponent to the most rabidly pro-abortion (and, in fact, the first pro-infanticide – you can see links to the actual votes from the page linked here) President in this country’s history, I personally would have rather taken a chance on a flip-flopper than with an absolute known quantity.

It depends upon context.

(And we don’t even want to get into how Obama’s social policies violate this historical papal Magisterium…we’re just talking about abortion here)

My main concern in 2012 was that I agreed with Obama on 98% of issues. On the very few we disagreed with, I felt like Romney was a terrible comparison (such as abortion). So even if Mitt Romney would’ve instituted an extremely minor change in abortion law that barely affected anything, we’d be stuck with a fairly pro-abortion President for 8 years minimum (since 2016 would likely be Mitt Romney vs. a pro-abortion Democrat again). If Obama won, 2016 would not involve Mitt Romney. So we’d have 4 years of ever-so-slightly-worse policies at worst, even policies more likely, and then we’d have a real chance to institute change. I considered it actually more pro-life long-term to vote for someone who would only guarantee pro-abortion policies for 4 years than vote for someone who made us stuck with them for 8.

 

[Path_Finder]

I’ll take the word of Mitt Romney over any political group:

(Emphasis mine)

Does that sound like a pro-life crusader to you?

Why did Planned Parenthood spend millions against Mitt Romney telling women their rights to abortion were at stake? Does that sound like a Pro-Choice Crusader?

 

[Path_Finder]

My main concern in 2012 was that I agreed with Obama on 98% of issues. On the very few we disagreed with, I felt like Romney was a terrible comparison (such as abortion). So even if Mitt Romney would’ve instituted an extremely minor change in abortion law that barely affected anything, we’d be stuck with a fairly pro-abortion President for 8 years minimum (since 2016 would likely be Mitt Romney vs. a pro-abortion Democrat again). If Obama won, 2016 would not involve Mitt Romney. So we’d have 4 years of ever-so-slightly-worse policies at worst, even policies more likely, and then we’d have a real chance to institute change. I considered it actually more pro-life long-term to vote for someone who would only guarantee pro-abortion policies for 4 years than vote for someone who made us stuck with them for 8.

So you voted for a man who voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act? Do you think if a baby survives an abortion, it should be left to die as Barack Obama voted for 3 different times?

 

[ishii]

Planned Parenthood ran millions of dollars of ads against Romney, I do not doubt at all that as an austerity measure alone, Romney would have tried to defund Planned Parenhood, a governmental rathole of wasted money while at the same time, this is a favored cause of the Democrats even though Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. The legislature has tried many times to defund PP and it has happened in individual states, Wisconsin is one.

I’ll go with what Planned Parenthood thought of Romney/Ryan versus someone saying Romney once did this or that and that was in cooperation with a strong house and senate in Massachusetts. I wouldn’t forget that either.

What we are running into is the mentality of the Democrat catholic voter who asks: “what excuse can I find to vote for the Democrat candidate and/or vote against the Republican. I know - we’ll dig up something from his/her past to discredit his pro-life stance.”

Democrat catholics so want to vote for the Democrat - for all the pet reasons, or out of hatred of the GOP. So if a flawed candidate comes along who can defeat the pro-abortion, pro-infanticide Obama, they suddenly became perfectionists: “nothing short of 100% certitude that the candidate is pro-life will I vote for him/her. Romney said something un-pro-life in 2003 so therefore I’m not going to oppose Obama.” And so Obama won. And the truth is, if a more convincing candidate was nominated, they would find an excuse to vote against him/her.

Are they really pro-life ?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

My main concern in 2012 was that I agreed with Obama on 98% of issues. On the very few we disagreed with, I felt like Romney was a terrible comparison (such as abortion). So even if Mitt Romney would’ve instituted an extremely minor change in abortion law that barely affected anything, we’d be stuck with a fairly pro-abortion President for 8 years minimum (since 2016 would likely be Mitt Romney vs. a pro-abortion Democrat again). If Obama won, 2016 would not involve Mitt Romney. So we’d have 4 years of ever-so-slightly-worse policies at worst, even policies more likely, and then we’d have a real chance to institute change. I considered it actually more pro-life long-term to vote for someone who would only guarantee pro-abortion policies for 4 years than vote for someone who made us stuck with them for 8.

This is nonsense. Anyone remotely politically aware (as I thought you were) would know that a Romney admin - taking advice from Bork on supreme court justices, and with Paul Ryan as Vice president, would have been vastly more pro-life than the pro-abortion Obama admin. You are just rationalizing support for a pro-abortion president. Fine, you voted for Obama because you agreed with him 98% of the time. But do understand that you voted for a president who voted to keep infanticide legal.

Ishii

 

[SMGS127]

Why did Planned Parenthood spend millions against Mitt Romney telling women their rights to abortion were at stake? Does that sound like a Pro-Choice Crusader?

Because they’re loyal to the Democratic Party? PP is more afraid of state Republicans than anything national – they know they’re solid on a national stage.

 

[ishii]

If Republicans ran someone capable of the job, they’d actually have a chance of winning. Sometimes I wonder how people expect voters to vote for someone they’re deathly scared of giving power to. Romney or Palin would’ve completely ruined our country. If only McCain had picked Kay Bailey instead!

Which candidate would the unborn be deathly afraid of, Obama or Palin? Or Romney? From the perspective of the unborn babies, Obama would be a monster. Romney or Palin would be Oskar Schindler. Imagine an aborted baby asking you sometime, which did you vote for, Schindler, or the monster? How will you answer?

Ishii

 

[SMGS127]

But do understand that you voted for a president who voted to keep infanticide legal.

Ishii

So did you. That was the curse of the 2012 election for us.

 

[Mulligan2]

Got it! Nor do concentration camps.

Godwin’s Law strikes again.

 

[estesbob]

Tube only people who claimed Romney was pro abortion were Democrat Catholics trying to rationalize their support of intrinsic evil.

 

[ishii]

So did you. That was the curse of the 2012 election for us.

No, Romney wasn’t for legal infanticide. But I understand better what it takes for someone to rationalize support for voting for Obama. They need to make up falsehoods about the one guy who could defeat Obama.

Ishii

 

[mary_bobo]

My main concern in 2012 was that I agreed with Obama on 98% of issues. On the very few we disagreed with, I felt like Romney was a terrible comparison (such as abortion). So even if Mitt Romney would’ve instituted an extremely minor change in abortion law that barely affected anything, we’d be stuck with a fairly pro-abortion President for 8 years minimum (since 2016 would likely be Mitt Romney vs. a pro-abortion Democrat again). If Obama won, 2016 would not involve Mitt Romney. So we’d have 4 years of ever-so-slightly-worse policies at worst, even policies more likely, and then we’d have a real chance to institute change. I considered it actually more pro-life long-term to vote for someone who would only guarantee pro-abortion policies for 4 years than vote for someone who made us stuck with them for 8.

And do you still agree with 98% of what Obama SAID he stood for, considering the state the country is in now? I do not doubt that Romney and Ryan would have done what they could do, with a split Congress, to stem abortion. And while Romney was not my choice, I know he has had great success in all the ventures he has taken on. At least he has experience running something, unlike our current president.

 

[ishii]

My main concern in 2012 was that I agreed with Obama on 98% of issues.

And do you still agree with 98% of what Obama SAID he stood for ? .

For example, did you agree with Obama when he said, “if you like your plan, you can keep it” ?

• Or -

Did you prefer his other position which was, “if you like your plan, you can’t keep it” ???

Did you agree with Obama when he said his administration would “be the most transparent” ?

Or did you agree with the reality of his administration which has been the opposite?

Did you agree with Obama that “there is no red state America, no blue state America” ?

Or, do you agree with Obama’s strategy to divide Americans against each other and demonize his opposition?

Which Obama did you agree with?

Ishii

 

[SMGS127]

And do you still agree with 98% of what Obama SAID he stood for, considering the state the country is in now? I do not doubt that Romney and Ryan would have done what they could do, with a split Congress, to stem abortion. And while Romney was not my choice, I know he has had great success in all the ventures he has taken on. At least he has experience running something, unlike our current president.

Our country’s in a fine state. I don’t understand why people think there’s such a doomsday scenario. Jobs are returning (except in conservative states), health care is becoming broader and more protective and accessible (except in some conservative states), the economy is booming (except in conservative states). And we’re doing extremely well at international relations and diplomacy.

For all intents and purposes, outside of abortion and related issues (IVF/contraception), our country is on a good path. But of course, Republicans generally support IVF and contraception, which is why they aren’t mentioned on CAF as political issues . And Romney would not have changed virtually anything with regards to abortion.

So I’d rather have our current state of abortion and our current recovering economy than have our current state of abortion and have a crashed economy with an even larger wealth gap and a disaster of a foreign policy that Romney would have provided us with. You’re kidding yourself if you think Ryan would’ve had any power whatsoever.