Can you in all conscience ?

[Semper_Zelare]

I couldn’t, which is why Romney and Obama won’t get my vote.

Peace and God bless!

Yeah, honestly!
I thought the thread would be about, “Can you in all conscience vote for Mitt Romney?”

Well, I can’t in good conscience vote for Mitt Romney. And obviously not Obama… (that should go without saying, but I say it for clarity).

I’m voting for Virgil Goode. And my conscience is clean. Virgil Goode is the only candidate still in the race who is pro-life 100% of the time.

[obviously Santorum, Gingrich, etc. were, but they’re no longer in the race].

 

[Ghosty]

Yeah, but do they have a real chance of winning?

If everyone who is pro-life actually voted pro-life rather than “the next best thing” we would have pro-life candidates who have a chance of winning.

Instead we would rather vote for the economic policies we prefer, and then make excuses for pro-abortion views and policies of the politicians we elect. This goes for both Republicans and Democrats.

Obama is pro-abortion. Mitt Romney is pro-abortion, just for fewer circumstances. I can’t in good conscience vote for a pro-abortion politician, but your mileage may vary. There was a slim chance that I would have voted for Mitt Romney on the off chance that he was actually pro-life now, but his recent statements have shown that he’s even willing to break with his Party’s platform in favor of abortion. No vote from me, as it’s people like him that are the very problem with the Republican Party, and people like him that will continue to ensure that abortion will be legal and on demand in this country. Obama, of course, goes without saying.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Jaypeeto4]

“FORMING CONSCIENCES FOR FAITHFUL CITIZENSHIP” is not an official teaching of the Catholic Magisterium. It is a policy wonk paper from the heavily-DEM-staffed USCCB
((whose former members are now serving in the current proAbort admin, by the way)).

Neither the USCCB, nor the “CCB’s” of other countries, have any authority, regarding doctrine or morals, whatsoever. They are NOT the magisterium and are not even PART of the magisterium. The magisterium is the totality of the world’s bishops in union WITH and in obedience TO, the Pope.

These vapid documents always manage to appear from the USCCB just in time to
save a dem who is in danger of not being elected or of not being re-elected,
with just enough TRUTH in them that you can’t call them “heretical,” but
with so much equivocating (deliberately, for writers know what they are trying to convey, they are schooled and not at all stupid), that the reader doesn’t know whether they SHOULD or should NOT vote for the proabort.
By the way, in calling these documents “vapid,” I am not insulting the bishops.
They don’t write these documents and, to hear some of them tell it, rarely even read them after some lay-staffed COMMITTEE issues them.

They are NOT authoritative guidance.
As proof of that, consider what happened after Pope Paul VI re-iterated the Catholic magisterial authoritative teaching against Artificial Contraception in HUMANAE VITAE.
The CANADIAN bishops, through their confverence, issued a document
Officially Dissenting from the magisterium, the pope’s, teaching on this matter.
We need to abolish these national conferences: they are hotbeds of dissent and
are filled with unorthodox “Catholic” staffers, who deliberately sought jobs in these conferences in the first place in order to weaken the faith, which they DISSENT from.

 

[Dawnia]

Mitt Romney has never legislated any pro-life measure.
He has legislated plenty of pro-abortion measures,.
Significantly, he legislated tax payer funded abortion two years after his so called conversion.
.

When was Mitt a legislator? I thought Governor was his only political job, which is Executive Branch and doesn’t draft legislation.

 

[Cider]

The problem is the the next president is going to be Obama or Romney. Not anyone else. That is just the facts. And every single vote that doesn’t go for Romney ensures Obama gets reelected. I know, I know. I’ve voted 3rd party in the past. In the last 30 years of voting I don’t think I’ve ever seen an election as important as this one to the future of our country and all it stands for. While I think that Romney is a nice guy, he is not high on my list of preferred presidents but he is a vast improvement over Obama. I honestly fear the for the future if Obama is reelected and I don’t feel I have the luxury to vote for someone else that I know for a fact has absolutely 0% chance of ever being president.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Mr. Romney’s position is 100% in line with the teachings of his Mormon Church on this matter.

The Mormon Church condemns abortion-on-demand, and does not even “smile on” the practice even in cases of rape or incest, but it does make exceptions for these extreme cases, as well as in cases where it is believed the mother’s life is in danger.
This is based on their reasoning, held by MOST Americans, by the way,
that since The Mother’s life is JUST AS IMPORTANT as the baby’s life,
then it is lawful to take the baby’s life to save the life of the mother who has already
been contributing to society.

I’m not comfortable with that reasoning either (though I do believe that mom and baby are BOTH equally important), but I can understand how non-malicious people could reason that way. The position Mr Obama holds, is cold and malicious. Mr. Romney’s position is an honest though serious error, taught since day one by his religion (not just since 1973).

Most Jews also reason this way, and most Jews, though they call for a pro-choice stand for those limited reasons, would NEVER abort their own babies.
They don’t call them doting “Jewish Mothers” for nothing.

We need to educate people as to the speciousness of the Mormon and other reasoning on this issue. It sounds good, but what we are condemning is the DIRECT KILLING of the unborn baby. In an ectopic pregnancy, for example, it is indeed necessary, to save the mother’s life, to remove the developing baby. If you don’t, she will die and , by the way, so will the baby. But once the baby is removed, if it is sufficiently developed, you put if on life support and try to save him or her. You do not take a knife and chop it up.
THAT is what we condemn. KILLING the baby, NOT saving the mother.
The reasoning is mistaken and not clear-headed.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Not a news article. Please read the forum rules posted at the top of the forum before starting a new thread.

This topic may be discussed in Moral Theology *if *a politician or a political party is not mentioned.