That would be a question for another thread.
- Status
F
fnz2thrght
Guest
so it’s ok then to vote for this totally corrupt, SINFUL guy, masquerading as a Catholic simply because he’s pro-life?
don’t think so.
don’t think so.
Given the choice between a pro-death sinner and a pro-life sinner, yes, I will vote pro-life.
E
estesbob
Guest
A person who supports abortion is so morally flawed they are unfit to hold office at any level. The only choices are to not vote or write someone in.Two candidates stand for election. One of them is pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and otherwise strong on social justice. A second candidate is anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, mediocre on social justice, but is known to be dishonestly presenting his and his opponents past political accomplishments. Who would be the best candidate to vote for. This is a true to life scenario playing out today in the April 1 elections.
G
goofyjim
Guest
Sounds like a write in time since I couldn’t vote for either loser.
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
And Peter Singer is a terrible human being.
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
For those who would write in a candidate, that is essentially giving the pro-abortion candidate the vote. I would vote for the corrupt but pro-life candidate to keep the pro-abortion candidate out of office. I don’t know why people don’t see it that way.
In Christ,
Rand
In Christ,
Rand
E
estesbob
Guest
Fortunatley I have never been faced with this situation and it has for sure not been the case in any Presidential election if my lifetime. You make a good point, though.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.
that is like saying being pro-free will is being pro-sin.
taxes are not robbery. the government has a responsibility to each and every citizen. part of that responsibility is to help protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. they don’t provide happiness, just guarantee the opportunity to pursue it. we have a flawed economic system (just like every other system is flawed as there is no perfect economic system) and part of the reasoning for government assistance programs is to correct the injustices caused by our system. it is the government, which we as citizens have a responsibility to support albeit to also hold them accountable, whose job it is to correct these injustices (since they are caused by our system) and help provide the opportunities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
are there some (or even many) who take advantage of this? yes, because the system of correcting the injustices cause by our economic system are themselves flawed. but there is no perfect way of doing any of it so we do our best.
i am extremely pro-life. i am pro-life all the way as well (seamless garment pro-lifer)… i.e. anti-death penalty, anti-war, as well as anti-abortion and euthanasia. HOWEVER, i donot see some one as being pro-choice as automatically being pro-abortion. just because some one thinks the constitution (not a perfect document) guarantees the right for citizens to choose an abortion does not mean they believe it is morally right for them to choose an abortion. i think abortion is abhorrent. but i also understand that we have a broken system, and, as of now, that system says the choice is legal. i work towards changing our system to better protect life (as i see, but not as all see it), but i do not assume that those who would be in favor of leaving the choice there don not have a goal to convince everyone to never choose abortion.
it is a much more lasting effect to change some one’s heart than to force their actions.
that is like saying being pro-free will is being pro-sin.
taxes are not robbery. the government has a responsibility to each and every citizen. part of that responsibility is to help protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. they don’t provide happiness, just guarantee the opportunity to pursue it. we have a flawed economic system (just like every other system is flawed as there is no perfect economic system) and part of the reasoning for government assistance programs is to correct the injustices caused by our system. it is the government, which we as citizens have a responsibility to support albeit to also hold them accountable, whose job it is to correct these injustices (since they are caused by our system) and help provide the opportunities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
are there some (or even many) who take advantage of this? yes, because the system of correcting the injustices cause by our economic system are themselves flawed. but there is no perfect way of doing any of it so we do our best.
i am extremely pro-life. i am pro-life all the way as well (seamless garment pro-lifer)… i.e. anti-death penalty, anti-war, as well as anti-abortion and euthanasia. HOWEVER, i donot see some one as being pro-choice as automatically being pro-abortion. just because some one thinks the constitution (not a perfect document) guarantees the right for citizens to choose an abortion does not mean they believe it is morally right for them to choose an abortion. i think abortion is abhorrent. but i also understand that we have a broken system, and, as of now, that system says the choice is legal. i work towards changing our system to better protect life (as i see, but not as all see it), but i do not assume that those who would be in favor of leaving the choice there don not have a goal to convince everyone to never choose abortion.
it is a much more lasting effect to change some one’s heart than to force their actions.
E
estesbob
Guest
Of course it is. They support the killing of children. The fact that they only support the killing of other peoples children does not wash the blood from their hands.
The Church itself has declared that one can not put the death penatly or support of war on the same level of abortion so your seamless argument is incorrect.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
you are making an illogical jump. they support choice, not the killing of children. there IS a difference. i am not saying i agree with them, but i do not wrongly assume anything about them beyond their support for choice in the matter.
again, your logic is like saying being pro free will is supporting sin. it is just not so.
and i disagree with the church to some extent on that issue. i do agree that more death occurs through abortion than the death penalty. i do agree that more innocents die. but SOME innocents die because of the death penalty (proven). many innocents die because of war. they are the same issue, you are just valuing one life over another which is not in line with how God seems to view us.
also, the church has basically said that, while capital punishment can be licit, it is only so under certain criteria. none of which could possibly be met today.
E
estesbob
Guest
They support other people killing there children if they wish to do so. How is that not supporting abortion
Not even close. Pro-abortion people are supporting a specific action
Soundl like you are trying to rationalize supporting pro-abortion canidates.
I oppose the death penalty In ALL cases but their is no comparison between a canidate who supports the death penalty and one who supports abortion. Heres how then Cardinal Ratzinger explained it:
- **Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. **For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
F
fix
Guest
Being pro choice for armed robbery is not endorsing armed robbery? It certainly means one would claim there is a “right” to rob others. That is allowing it to happen and claiming it is acceptable.
Free will means we are free to choose what is right. Using free will to claim we have a right to do evil is not freedom, but a serious misuse of freedom.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
you are assuming again. they aren’t necessarily (i won’t say none of them do, but you are making an assumption you cannot make because you don’t know their hearts) supporting some one killing their child. they are supporting people having the freedom to choose. it is aiding to the easier access to abortion (which is why i am pro-life) but abortions were happening before they were legal. i am not saying that is a reason to make something legal (what are we… the netherlands… lol). i am simply making the point you cannot assume what is in some one’s heart or mind. you keep changing their words and then condemning them based on your change. they are pro-choice, not (necessarily) pro-abortion (although the founder of planned parenthood seemed to be very pro-abortion when it came to minorities, handicapped, and poor people).
true, if some one were pro-abortion they would be supporting a specific action. however, pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.
it is rational to support the best candidate for office. there are other issues than abortion. although, i do believe that more innocents die every year due to abortion than most other reasons so the abortion issue does carry more weight with me. in the case presented by the OP, i would support the pro-choice candidate because i would not trust the one who says they were pro-life (on abortion but not death penalty or war) as they are not trustworthy. the pro-choice candidate would at least accomplish some good since they were strong on social justice issues (according to the OP’s hypothetical scenario) and we could trust them to do what they say they will do. they are the lesser of two evils IMO and i would vote for them and hope to get a reliable pro-life (on all issues) candidate the next time around.
again, i have never heard a candidate say they were pro-abortion so your argument doesn’t stand up. and there is a comparison (because here i will differ with your theology) as you are simply valuing one life over another. why is the innocent baby’s life more valuable than the convicted felon’s life? or, more appropriately, the innocent mad convicted of a crime they didn’t commit and sentenced to death (it has happened in this country many times)? if we really believe in heaven, hell, and a just AND merciful God AND we decided to value one life over another (which i am against), wouldn’t it be logical to view the sanctioned killing of a sinner (and thus sending them to hell for eternity) as worse than the abortion of an innocent child who God will have no reason to condemn? this is not me arguing one life over another mind you… but i am just showing the danger in doing so.
i disagree with him that there are levels or different weight given to these issues because it boils down to valuing one life over another which is not in line with the nature of God taught by the church. i do agree that we can never sanction abortion or euthanasia. but being pro-choice does not sanction those choices. one could argue that it gives us as believers a better opportunity to change hearts than if the fist of the government were just attempting to control behavior.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
it is not allowing it to happen. it is a good analogy and appropriate here for i have said that i do work to change our system to better protect life (just as our system has things in place to protect our property). but, as we see, just because it is illegal to commit armed robbery doesn’t mean it has ceased to happen. the key is changing hearts not laws. laws can only influence behavior (or at least they can only influence public behavior… people are still who they are in private). i see the opportunity in this fight for life. we can change hearts rather than dictate behavior. the ultimate goal is to do both, but until the system our government is based on changes, abortion will be a legal alternative. therefore, we should be working towards both goals: changing the laws AND changing people’s thoughts and ideas about life.
let me make perfectly clear, as far as i know, i have never voted for a pro-choice candidate in an election that could have some effect on abortion. for instance, in a school board or county commissioner or mayor of a small town election, pro-life / pro-choice will not really ever come into play. governor, president, senator, congressperson… it might (especially president). that being said, i do feel the need to point out the pro-choice is NOT the same as pro-abortion. most people who would call themselves pro-choice would be offended by the assumption just as pro-life people are offended when they are called anti-choice.
we do have the right to do evil and God has the right to punish that evil. the government has the right to punish those who break the law, but those people still have the God-given right to choose to break the law. i agree it is a misuse of freedom but we still have that freedom.
again, i believe that legalized abortion should end. but i take exception when people judge others and assume that if they believe the choice should be there (or, better yet, they believe that our system says the choice has to be there according to the constitution and being a candidate for public service are making a commitment to uphold our constitution) they want abortions to happen, i.e. they are “pro-abortion”. it is a false and derogatory statement.
our constitution does allow for choice when it comes to our bodies (men and women). our society has deemed it is the woman’s body and the fetus/child inside of that body is still a part of the body. therefore, our constitution guarantees the right of choice to women in this matter. IT IS A BROKEN SYSTEM AND AN IMPERFECT DOCUMENT. for pro-choice and legalized abortion to go away, the document and parts of our system will have to be changed. the only way that will ever happen is if we focus on changing people’s hearts and minds rather than trying to dictate their actions.
E
estesbob
Guest
So you are rationalizing voting for those who aid and abette the killing of our children . Youcould havce simplified things by just sayng “I vote Democrat no matter children die.” The mental mastrubation required to rationalize supporting infanticide is a terrible thing to behold.
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
bengal fan,
You are making absolutely no sense at all. “Choice” is a euphemism for abortion. They say they are “pro-choice” but the only choice they are talking about when they use that term is the choice to have an abortion. How is that not supporting abortion? They are pro (meaning “for”/“in support of”)-someone having the choice to kill their child. They are in support of legalized abortion. How is that not pro-abortion?
Also, the Constitution does NOT allow for abortions. Roe v. Wade was a smokescreen where the court legislated from the bench. There is absolutely NOTHING in the entire constitution that guarantees a “right” to abortion. Nothing at all.
In Christ,
Rand
You are making absolutely no sense at all. “Choice” is a euphemism for abortion. They say they are “pro-choice” but the only choice they are talking about when they use that term is the choice to have an abortion. How is that not supporting abortion? They are pro (meaning “for”/“in support of”)-someone having the choice to kill their child. They are in support of legalized abortion. How is that not pro-abortion?
Also, the Constitution does NOT allow for abortions. Roe v. Wade was a smokescreen where the court legislated from the bench. There is absolutely NOTHING in the entire constitution that guarantees a “right” to abortion. Nothing at all.
In Christ,
Rand
F
frankadams
Guest
Originally Posted by Rand Al’Thor forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*For those who would write in a candidate, that is essentially giving the pro-abortion candidate the vote. I would vote for the corrupt but pro-life candidate to keep the pro-abortion candidate out of office. I don’t know why people don’t see it that way. *
In Christ,
Rand
In 1988 and 1992, I had the choice of two Democratic pro-abortion governors running against a Republican Vice President/President who was pro-abortion in the 1980 Republican primary. He suddenly changed his public position when he was named the Vice Presidential nominee. He also served on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood.
The calculus of many posters here has been made clear to me: If a candidate vows to try enact genocide on 999,000 senior citizens is running against a candidate who vows to try to keep abortion legal, I am morally obligated to vote for the former because he will (allegedly) preserve more lives.
*For those who would write in a candidate, that is essentially giving the pro-abortion candidate the vote. I would vote for the corrupt but pro-life candidate to keep the pro-abortion candidate out of office. I don’t know why people don’t see it that way. *
In Christ,
Rand
Well, I have had similar situations to this in my lifetime. In 1980, I had the choice of a pro-abortion Democratic president running against a Republican governor who signed pro-abortion laws in California.
In 1988 and 1992, I had the choice of two Democratic pro-abortion governors running against a Republican Vice President/President who was pro-abortion in the 1980 Republican primary. He suddenly changed his public position when he was named the Vice Presidential nominee. He also served on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood.
The calculus of many posters here has been made clear to me: If a candidate vows to try enact genocide on 999,000 senior citizens is running against a candidate who vows to try to keep abortion legal, I am morally obligated to vote for the former because he will (allegedly) preserve more lives.
E
estesbob
Guest
We must live in alternate universes-but then again i think my comments about mental mastrubation apllies here also.
F
frankadams
Guest
You are correct about “choice.” I have never heard one other area of civic life in which pro-aborts use the term “choice” to something they wish to keep or make legal. There are some areas in legalization can be legitimately debated (marijuana, prostitution, even assisted-suicide), but no one who supports those actions is called “pro-choice.” The phrase is a market-researched, focus group-tested term used to divert people’s attention away from the act of abotion itself. As such, it is intellectually dishonest.
Regarding the “right to privacy” it is a pretty big constitutional stretch. Many honest pro-aborts will even admit to that.
- Status