Cruz Thread

[zz912]

**The emotional and perhaps physical agony of a rape victim is only intensified by a woman’s being forced to carry the baby of her attacker to term and subsequently care for the baby. **No one can argue it is the baby’s fault; but one can certainly argue it is the government’s insensitivity to the dignity of women if an abortion is not at least permitted in such circumstances, preferably very early in the pregnancy.

This is untrue. That is the talking point used to excuse killing the child, but it’s not true. In fact, the woman is violated again when she realizes that the rape isn’t undone, only a further violation has happened to her and her child.

 

[zz912]

And anyone who really cares about life on planet earth will vote against him, since he is for abolishing environmental regulations (he talks about that more than the abortion issue) and is a staunch climate change denialist (as per his oily backers). He is Pro-Death.

Here come the excuses that the mythical deaths from global warming are more important than actual deaths from abortion.

 

[zz912]

What do you mean by negotiating at the voting booth? AFAIK, Father R. Drinan was never officially or publicly excommunicated and was given a Roman Catholic funeral, but he voted in favor of keeping abortions legal, although he was morally opposed to abortion.

Fr. Drinan cooperated with intrinsic evil with his votes and political views. We should all say a prayer that he repented of this horrific evil and opposition to Church teaching before he died.

That said, the actions or lack of actions in regard to Fr. Drinan by bishops does not mean Church teaching is changed or that a person can vote for a pro-abortion politician. A Christian who does so is rejecting Jesus and the Christian faith. Many of those bishops who were silent on Fr. Drinan were also silent about much of the sexual abuse that was occurring under their watch.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

And the Church has also made it clear that you cant vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are.

Of the so called non-negotiables are there any on the list you believe a Catholic can licitly support? Seems like we are getting into a semantics argument rather than acknowledging that some things are so evil a Catholic can never support them

Where has the Church made that clear?

 

[zz912]

And yet with all the Republican presidents we’ve had since 1973, none has made a dent in abortion on demand.

The SC threw away its best chance with PP v Casey in 1992, and that was a largely Republican appointed SC.

Excuses #1, 5, 6, and 7

EXCUSES FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS

1. National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
2. Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
3. My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
4. I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
5. Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
6. Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
7. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
8. I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
9. I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
10. We can’t do anything about abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
11. You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
12. People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
13. We can’t end abortion until we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
14. I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
15. There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
16. The Pro-Life movement is in the tank for the Republican party (even though all pro-life legislation has had the overwhelming support of Republicans and overwhelming opposition from Democrats), so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
17. All people sin, so we’re all really “Cafeteria Catholics”, so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
18. Dominionists attend GOP rallies so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician
19. The Pope believes in Global warming, the Pro-life candidate does not so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician
20. Pro-life groups don’t want to punish women who have abortions with life in prison or the death penalty, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

None of those talking points tell me why several Republican presidents and a Republican SC have failed to eradicate abortion. That was the question. Why haven’t they?

 

[TMC]

How about considering this:

1. The Church is a hierarchy as much as it may cost to sink in the USSCB would not contradict the Pope,it brings down a message adapted to you as a priest would do to their parish people.
2. The Pope said values are values. And as usual he would reinforce the value of life.
3. Do away with the word non negotiable . Read the message. And no matter how one turns it or from where you look at it all you find is one stepping higher to embrace the value from even a much wider perspective,and more open heart., and tighter.

And Jesus is the Life,and the Truth and the Way.
We know who we are doing this for…

I am not sure what you mean by any of that. The supposed non-negotiables were not from the USCCB, they were written by CAF, which is not part of the Church. The Pope has said directly that Catholics should not put any one list of issues above the rest of Church teaching. Catholics are to look at the full range of Church teaching.

 

[TMC]

And the Church has also made it clear that you cant vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are.

Of the so called non-negotiables are there any on the list you believe a Catholic can licitly support? Seems like we are getting into a semantics argument rather than acknowledging that some things are so evil a Catholic can never support them

The Church has never said that. That would be single issue voting, which the Church does not support.

 

[DeniseNY]

Excuses #1, 5, 6, and 7

EXCUSES FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS

1. National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
2. Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
3. My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
4. I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
5. Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
6. Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
7. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
8. I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
9. I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
10. We can’t do anything about abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
11. You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
12. People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
13. We can’t end abortion until we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
14. I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
15. There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
16. The Pro-Life movement is in the tank for the Republican party (even though all pro-life legislation has had the overwhelming support of Republicans and overwhelming opposition from Democrats), so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
17. All people sin, so we’re all really “Cafeteria Catholics”, so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
18. Dominionists attend GOP rallies so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician
19. The Pope believes in Global warming, the Pro-life candidate does not so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician
20. Pro-life groups don’t want to punish women who have abortions with life in prison or the death penalty, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

The Church has never said that. That would be single issue voting, which the Church does not support.

 

[graciew]

Could you explain to TMC that Life isn t an issue but a value?
A wider mantle beneath which Life is protected? A sky beneath which to shelter all…
You need not go any further than that if you do not wish to.
We can probably agree on this,Lily. And I am running short of words.
We might go to a thread away from politics too. A culture of life

 

[estesbob]

None of those talking points tell me why several Republican presidents and a Republican SC have failed to eradicate abortion. That was the question. Why haven’t they?

Why hasn’t the Democrat party eradicated poverty?

 

[estesbob]

The Church has never said that. That would be single issue voting, which the Church does not support.

Of course they have:

he Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

Pope Benedict XVI

“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone”

Cardinal Burke

In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).

Cardinal Burke

]Note that “proportionate reasons’] does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions

Bishop Joseph A. Galante

There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

"Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

“The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry). Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.”

Bishop Rene Gracida

What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate

Archbishop John J. Myers

What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason? . . . It is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be

Cardinal Burke

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Why hasn’t the Democrat party eradicated poverty?

Maybe for the same reason the Republican Party continues to uphold abortion on demand.

 

[Peter_J]

I am not sure what you mean by any of that. The supposed non-negotiables were not from the USCCB, they were written by CAF,

The post was written by carpenter:

Here are the 5 things currently that faithful Catholics cannot negotiate on when at the voting booth: Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and same-sex “marriage”

But nobody seems to know how such negotiating would work. For example, what if we were offered $100 billion to become “neutral” with respect to the security of Israel. How would we negotiate on that?

Or what if it was a question of becoming a socialist country?

 

[meltzerboy]

meltzerboy. You said:

Your comment (used in the context of your opposition of Senator Cruz) is a straw man argument.

Nobody (except you) is saying a woman should be “forced” to “subsequently CARE for the baby”. Adoption is one alternative.

Your quote again (emphasis mine) . . .

Also I think your assertion about, “the emotional and perhaps physical agony of a rape victim is only intensified” when the woman carries her baby is a partial truth.

There is a grain of truth to it to be sure. But it is not the FULLNESS of truth.

• You are ignoring the fact that by killing an innocent person, you ADD to the “the emotional and perhaps physical agony of a rape victim". (You are making matters worse by killing an innocent person. Even the idea of sometimes “favoring” killing an innocent person is harmful because ideas have consequences)
• You are also ignoring the fact that now you ADD to the disaster not only the killing of an innocent baby, but ALSO you compound the problem even further by Government approbation of killing of a subset of INNOCENT human beings.
• Likewise you are ignoring the societal ramifications of allowing innocent people to be killed based upon someone else’s arbitrary definition of personhood (they DENY the personhood of the unborn human).
• You also ignore that some women may feel this way for a while, and LATER (after the killing is done) REGRET killing their baby.
• You ignore too, that other women WANTED to kill their baby they were carrying, decided against it and were VERY relieved and happy later that they cooperated with the LIFE of their baby.
• You ignore that there are women who AFTER they have the baby, subsequently have “emotional and perhaps physical agony” of knowing that their kid IS alive! THEN they want the child killed. There ARE mothers who say to their kids: “I wish you no longer existed!”

Using the “meltzerboy motif”, if the mother feels this way about their two year old, then what? Well if you are going to be consistent with your own theory, then you have to kill the two-year-old child!

Now you are going to deny that. You are going to say you don’t favor that.

But so what.

What if someone else (like Peter Singer) says YOU are now wrong.

The mother has the “right” to “eliminate” the memory as much as possible. “She doesn’t want the kid possibly showing up at the door 18 years from now!”

Now what?

Granted killing the two-year old will not “eliminate” the memory totally, but neither will killing of the seven-month old conceived baby still in the womb “eliminate” the memory totally either.

• And you are ignoring the whole purpose of Government.

And I am saying we as a society can do better than this.

I am saying we can strive (including in our legal system) for NON-VIOLENT solutions!

Do I want “conservatives” to “win” the election? Of course.

But I am not intimidated by the threats of losing an election, over and above doing the right thing.

And saving innocent life IS the right thing.

That’s one of the main purposes of Government.

Why does Government even exist?

If you ascribe to an American way of thinking (I do, and I hope you do too) the whole purpose of Government is instituted for the securing of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Without Life, other “pursuits” are not possible.

(See the United States Declaration of Independence here).

• **Sanders **= Kill any unborn human that the mom wants killed for any reason
• **Clinton **= Kill any unborn human that the mom wants killed for any reason
• **Trump **= Kill any unborn human that the mom wants killed for any reason but only in the case of rape and incest
• **Kasich **= Kill any unborn human that the mom wants killed for any reason but only in the case of rape and incest
• Cruz = All men are created equal. These truths are self-evident. They are endowed by their creator with unalienable Rights (That means the Government can’t give these rights and the Government therefore can’t take AWAY these rights). Governments are instituted to secure the people with LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Unless something extremely out of the ordinary occurs, I will be supporting Senator Cruz this fall. I will be supporting America.

Why does lynnvinc get only a few lines and I get a whole Megillah?

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[estesbob]

Maybe for the same reason the Republican Party continues to uphold abortion on demand.

With the help of Republican elected officials and the hard work of those involved in the pro-life ministry abortions have decreased by almost a half million per year since 1975. All this was done in spite of the unified opposition of the Democrat party. So if the democrat party is supposedly for the little man why have they not eliminated poverty? Why are they not held to the same standards on poverty that Republicans are on abortion?

 

[estesbob]

Why does lynnvinc get only a few lines and I get a whole Megillah?

Thank you for your thoughts.

Because your’e special!

 

[Crossbones]

I think it’s important to reflect on the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and to examine your conscience to determine how to vote. I do not believe that a candidate being pro-choice disqualifies them from Catholic support, but it is a serious issue and a Catholic cannot dismiss such a position likely. As Bishop Kicanas said during the 20089 election

“As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.”

 

[estesbob]

I think it’s important to reflect on the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and to examine your conscience to determine how to vote. I do not believe that a candidate being pro-choice disqualifies them from Catholic support, but it is a serious issue and a Catholic cannot dismiss such a position likely. As Bishop Kicanas said during the 20089 election

“As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.”

And fortunately, as I have posted, the Magestrium has told us what those issues are. How much clearer can it get than “No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,” "