Catholic.com presidential poll

[Darryl1958]

Unfortunately, pro-life is not necessarily a concern for most Republicans outside of CAF either. If you look at the history of the Republican Party, most, if not all of the Presidential candidates, came to a moderated position on the subject late in life.

I realize this may sound cynical, but I think the only reason Trump is pro-life is because he can’t run as a Democrat (too birther and anti-everyone). If anyone thinks the Republican party will be able to control him, they have another think coming.

If it was not much of a concern outside of CAF, then Trump and every other presidential candidate on the Republican side of the ledger would not be advocating the pro-life position. It is a prerequisite for getting up on that stage

It doesn’t sound cynical; just wrong.

 

[Darryl1958]

Sadly, you have summed it up pretty well. I just don’t understand party over religion.

It really came to me when I started getting back into the Church again. Pro-life is not a motivating concern for the majority of Catholic voters. There position is no more believable than that of a pro-Jewish Nazi would be.

It is simply not a credible position to have on Church teaching.

 

[Sy_Noe]

See thats what I’m saying so lets see how you think through this. Do you believe there should be absolutely no limits on abortion, period? Do you believe killing a seven-pound in the uterus for convenience is immoral?”

Rand Paul, confronted Debbie Wasserman, he asked her if it was okay to; "kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus.” Wasserman stated; “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. ”

This position, judging by almost any poll, is considered extremist by a majority of Americans, including women.

thefederalist.com/2016/01/19/poll-80-percent-of-women-support-late-term-abortion-bans/

So whats your thinking on this as it would help to understand the position you hold.

Well as a male, I don’t have a uterus. And besides, I can’t walk in another’s shoes, let alone on water. Nor have I necessarily been on roads and to places where others may have traveled in their shoes. And I wouldn’t even consider higher heels on me as I would probably break a leg or something. But if you want me to pretend that I am a woman, I’ll give it my best shot and then I will leave your question to that.

My own personal thinking in such a situation is if I were female and if I had already carried the fetus in my uterus until it had developed into 7 lbs (and that doesn’t happen overnight as you know) and especially if at that point, my own life or health were still not at risk, and in having religious liberty under the law which I of course would have, I personally in such a very rare scenario, envision myself exercising my legal and religious rights and would give birth.

So that’s my thinking based on my beliefs. I can’t speak though however for those actual women who would practice the dictates of their own faith and religious beliefs of course. You’ll have to ask them about their own thinking.

Right now though, although I don’t share your faith, I’m going to nevertheless think about what Pope Francis suggested to the Catholic faithful.

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

“We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow."

americamagazine.org/pope-interview

 

[sallybutler]

If it was not much of a concern outside of CAF, then Trump and every other presidential candidate on the Republican side of the ledger would not be advocating the pro-life position. It is a prerequisite for getting up on that stage

It doesn’t sound cynical; just wrong.

So the pro-life position is that abortions are okay in certain situations. Good to know.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Well as a male, I don’t have a uterus. And besides, I can’t walk in another’s shoes, let alone on water. Nor have I necessarily been on roads and to places where others may have traveled in their shoes. And I wouldn’t even consider higher heels on me as I would probably break a leg or something. But if you want me to pretend that I am a woman, I’ll give it my best shot and then I will leave your question to that.

My own personal thinking in such a situation is if I were female and if I had already carried the fetus in my uterus until it had developed into 7 lbs (and that doesn’t happen overnight as you know) and especially if at that point, my own life or health were still not at risk, and in having religious liberty under the law which I of course would have, I personally in such a very rare scenario, envision myself exercising my legal and religious rights and would give birth.

So that’s my thinking based on my beliefs. I can’t speak though however for those actual women who would practice the dictates of their own faith and religious beliefs of course. You’ll have to ask them about their own thinking.

Right now though, although I don’t share your faith, I’m going to nevertheless think about what Pope Francis suggested to the Catholic faithful.

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

“We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow."

americamagazine.org/pope-interview

Abortion doesn’t need to happen for the life or health of the mother. If the pregnant woman has a health problem that is felt can not be waited upon until the baby is born, then medical professionals should try and save both the lives of the mother and child. If the baby dies as a result because of medical treatment that is devastating, but abortion, as in the direct killing of the unborn baby, is not needed for the life or health of the mother.

The Dublin Declaration has been signed by over one thousand medical professionals and it declares, “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

dublindeclaration.com

Pope Francis’ comments that you cite there do not mean that these issues are not serious, relevant issues generally or in the context of voting and election issues.

This commentary says regarding Pope Francis’ comments:

Francis does not say Catholics should not discuss abortion, marriage, and other “hot button” issues, but that our conversations, arguments, and discussions about them must be within a proper context—and that context is the gospel. After all, as he notes, “the teaching of the church” on these issues “is clear” (even if many Catholics remain conveniently confused about them).

catholicworldreport.com/Item/2583/new_pope_good_interview_old_story.aspx

 

[Darryl1958]

So the pro-life position is that abortions are okay in certain situations. Good to know.

I did not say that. So your sarcasm is misplaced.

What I would say however, is to not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
If, for example, 95 % of Americans are a little repulsed by Gosnell, or people fighting Born Alive legislation, then that is something to build upon.

Baby steps. That is what pro-life is all about.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Abortion doesn’t need to happen for the life or health of the mother. If the pregnant woman has a health problem that is felt can not be waited upon until the baby is born, then medical professionals should try and save both the lives of the mother and child. If the baby dies as a result because of medical treatment that is devastating, but abortion, as in the direct killing of the unborn baby, is not needed for the life or health of the mother.

The Dublin Declaration has been signed by over one thousand medical professionals and it declares, “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

dublindeclaration.com

Pope Francis’ comments that you cite there do not mean that these issues are not serious, relevant issues generally or in the context of voting and election issues.

This commentary says regarding Pope Francis’ comments:

catholicworldreport.com/Item/2583/new_pope_good_interview_old_story.aspx

I didn’t say that the CC objected to a woman choosing medical treatment which could result in an indirect abortion. I merely spoke about what my legal and religious rights would be if I were a woman following the dictates of my own personal faith’s beliefs. Perhaps I should have clarified I was speaking as if I was a woman whose faith was not Catholic to have avoided any confusion on your part. Certainly if I were a faithful Catholic woman and if my health or life were in danger, I’d seek the medical treatment you prescribed. And I most certainly did not say the abortion issue was irrelevant. So I do not see the point of your post in reply to mine. But thanks for the additional (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Crossbones]

The default position for anyone who supports HRC or Dems is open access to abortion…
That is the position that anyone who supports Hillary can be presumed to be supporting.
People know well enough what they will be voting for, and it is of little consequence to them.

Pro-life is simply not an important issue for anyone who supports Democrats.Whether or not pro-choice is a strong motivation is an open question, but it is logically inconsistent to be strongly pro-life, and support Hillary or Democrats in general.

The default position for anyone who supports Donald Trump is to be for torture, targeting noncombatants and his racist comments.

That is the position that anyone who supports Donald can be presumed to be supporting.

People know well enough what they will be voting for, and it is of little consequence to them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well as a male, I don’t have a uterus. And besides, I can’t walk in another’s shoes, let alone on water. Nor have I necessarily been on roads and to places where others may have traveled in their shoes. And I wouldn’t even consider higher heels on me as I would probably break a leg or something. But if you want me to pretend that I am a woman, I’ll give it my best shot and then I will leave your question to that.

My own personal thinking in such a situation is if I were female and if I had already carried the fetus in my uterus until it had developed into 7 lbs (and that doesn’t happen overnight as you know) and especially if at that point, my own life or health were still not at risk, and in having religious liberty under the law which I of course would have, I personally in such a very rare scenario, envision myself exercising my legal and religious rights and would give birth.

So that’s my thinking based on my beliefs. I can’t speak though however for those actual women who would practice the dictates of their own faith and religious beliefs of course. You’ll have to ask them about their own thinking.

Right now though, although I don’t share your faith, I’m going to nevertheless think about what Pope Francis suggested to the Catholic faithful.

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

“We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow."

americamagazine.org/pope-interview

I can’t imagine why you would speak in such a odd way, is this a democrat transgender comedy joke point or something your attempting to make that went over my head? Sarcasm as suggested?

Now as to the point I made, I simply asked whoever believes this absurd democrat position I was specifically discussing with another before your rudely blurted in with this drivel, to speak from their own experience and position as a Democrat? Was that hard to accept or comprehend? I’m not concerned with a hypothetical, nor in your case. And in fact I was talking to a female. This is very rude posting by you.

Unless your saying your not a female and that makes you, as a democrat male, have nothing relevant to say which quite frankly I agree with, its evident here. But your quick defensiveness to honestly communicate is noted as is the deflection.

Oh as to Pope Francis, if you don’t want to discuss “abortion” than take the advice you quickly give and see your way out of the conversation. If its to discuss what you think I should do and then your barking up the wrong tree. So what was your point…

Right now though, although I don’t share your faith,

So right now you just want to remind me what Pope Francis stated though you are not Catholic but you want to give advice you don’t follow? This is what I’m saying and have said. I find that absurd just like your post was. How about you speak for yourself as a democrat male not following the Catholic faith and to what you think the Pope is saying in relation to yourself. Btw why would anyone follow a non or lapsed Catholics position [whatever you consider yourself] on what they think the Pope is saying? Your thinking bought you too this position?

Thats what I’m saying

 

[GaryTaylor]

The default position for anyone who supports Donald Trump is to be for torture, targeting noncombatants and his racist comments.

We are discussing formal cooperation. This is all opinion with no factual reality. 1 million deaths a year is a factual reality. Sounds like name calling and speculation which leads to an assumption formal cooperation may become a fact. No point in other words.

 

[ThePoorInSpirit]

third party

A vote for a lesser evil is still a vote for evil, I can vote for someone who is a good candidate but may not have much of a chance and not vote for something evil.

We need to move beyond this idea that we have to vote for one of the two major parties.

I strongly second this comment. It truly baffles me that any practicing Christian would consider either Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump. We have other options, use them. And pray that God will help us make the right decision.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I strongly second this comment. It truly baffles me that any practicing Christian would consider either Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump. We have other options, use them. And pray that God will help us make the right decision.

Hi how are you? Its a long discussion which I don’t have time this very moment but just to offer some thoughts.

It doesn’t baffle me at all, what other option is realistic? It baffles me that a logical clear thinking person would vote for anyone not even remotely plausible to be elected. Further I think its a vote for the greater evil. Personally I do think not voting is more logical but that too I believe to be a form of consent for the greater evil. I would start my response on that position.

 

[Crossbones]

We are discussing formal cooperation. This is all opinion with no factual reality. 1 million deaths a year is a factual reality. Sounds like name calling and speculation which leads to an assumption formal cooperation may become a fact. No point in other words.

There’s is a factual reality that Trump has said terrorists would be tortured, the US should target noncombatants and he has made racist comments.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There’s is a factual reality that Trump has “SAID”

Right nothing factually has factually happened, no torture etc. . Glad you agree.

1-million dead a year plus further contrary positions as stated-ACA -HHS mandate.

Your opinion vs factual reality.

 

[ThePoorInSpirit]

It doesn’t baffle me at all, what other option is realistic? It baffles me that a logical clear thinking person would vote for anyone not even remotely plausible to be elected. Further I think its a vote for the greater evil. Personally I do think not voting is more logical but that too I believe to be a form of consent for the greater evil. I would start my response on that position.

We as Christians are asked to put our faith and trust in God. I am doing my part by voting for someone I honestly believe will do a better job as president. Whether that person wins, it is in God’s hands. But I will not vote for someone whose rhetoric divides people the way Donald Trump does. We can’t please everybody but we can do a heck of a lot better than Mr. Trump.
The people who visit Lourdes in France have faith that they will be cured of their ailments and many are because of God’s love and mercy and their faith. Have faith, my friend.

 

[pnewton]

And what I am baffled by is how many people do not acknowledge any reasoning that extends past their own opinion. For those who truly are baffled, I encourage you read Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, not to critique it, but to learn. For if you are truly baffled by other legitimate choices for faithful Catholics, then it should be clear that there is something to be learned. Even when we cannot agree, there is much to be gained by understanding the other’s point of view.

There are solid Catholic reasons for voting for Trump. There are solid Catholic reasons for voting for neither Trump nor Clinton. Voting for Clinton would require a different path, but even that exists. There is no hope of countering any arguments by ignoring the arguments, and the parts that are legitimate. Surely nothing is gained by insulting and belittling the arguments of others.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Even when we cannot agree, there is much to be gained by understanding the other’s point of view.

Thats why I really think it helps to specifically elaborate on it without hypotheticals. As to above ThePoorInSpirit I find it actually commendable. Be it I prefer a little more hands on approach in choosing door one or two of what is the greater evil instead of leaving it in Gods hands.

 

[Crossbones]

Right nothing factually has factually happened, no torture etc. . Glad you agree.

1-million dead a year plus further contrary positions as stated-ACA -HHS mandate.

Your opinion vs factual reality.

I can think of politicians that said he was going to do evil things and then did those very evil things.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I can’t imagine why you would speak in such a odd way, is this a democrat transgender comedy joke point or something your attempting to make that went over my head? Sarcasm as suggested?

Now as to the point I made, I simply asked whoever believes this absurd democrat position I was specifically discussing with another before your rudely blurted in with this drivel, to speak from their own experience and position as a Democrat? Was that hard to accept or comprehend? I’m not concerned with a hypothetical, nor in your case. And in fact I was talking to a female. This is very rude posting by you.

Unless your saying your not a female and that makes you, as a democrat male, have nothing relevant to say which quite frankly I agree with, its evident here. But your quick defensiveness to honestly communicate is noted as is the deflection.

Oh as to Pope Francis, if you don’t want to discuss “abortion” than take the advice you quickly give and see your way out of the conversation. If its to discuss what you think I should do and then your barking up the wrong tree. So what was your point…

So right now you just want to remind me what Pope Francis stated though you are not Catholic but you want to give advice you don’t follow? This is what I’m saying and have said. I find that absurd just like your post was. How about you speak for yourself as a democrat male not following the Catholic faith and to what you think the Pope is saying in relation to yourself. Btw why would anyone follow a non or lapsed Catholics position [whatever you consider yourself] on what they think the Pope is saying? Your thinking bought you too this position?

Thats what I’m saying

Oh ok. I guess when you quoted me in post #771 I thought you were talking to me. That’s the only reason I replied. I did though find it a bit odd myself to be asked about women, whose faith might not be that of a faithful Catholic woman, aborting 7 lbs, as you put it. I would of course though expect faithful Catholic women not to abort. Women of various beliefs still have their religious liberty to follow the dictates of their faith community when it comes to this issue.

Here though is something relevant to your faith and to the teachings of your church in regard to your words, “are not Catholic”.

The Code of Canon Law currently does not recognize that someone can leave the Catholic Church. You might become a non-practicing member, but the Church’s laws consider anyone baptized Catholic to always be Catholic.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12648280&postcount=2

 

[SuperLuigi]

There’s is a factual reality that Trump… he has made racist comments.

I haven’t Trump make one racist statement yet. I do not recognize the definition of “racism” as defined by the PC, hypersensitive left.