Democrats for Life?

[rlg94086]

I am a DFLAer because I am fiercely pro-life (in all circumstances) but I believe in protecting the environment, education, and helping the poor and sick.

I always struggled on election day because I make abortion and embryonic stem cell research my number one issue, yet I disagree with the Republican Party over most other issues.

I am with the DFLA because I still have faith that the Democratic Party can eliminate support of the murder of the unborn from the party platform and better serve all humans in this country with their other programs.

Maybe I am way off, since I live out in the sticks, but can you imagine the support that the last two Democratic presidential candidates would have had if they were pro-life? I think either wins in a landslide.

Sadly, I think that if the Democrats put a pro-life candidate against a pro-life Republican candidate, the Democrats would split into a third party (probably Green). I don’t say “sadly” due to the Democrat losing (I am a Republican), rather I am sad that we don’t have enough pro-lifers in both parties to make the issue moot.

This is what I pray for. If a majority of Americans were pro-life and supported pro-life candidates, then we could get on with arguing about the other, smaller issues like the federal government’s role in social welfare.

 

[Online_Knight]

This is what I pray for. If a majority of Americans were pro-life and supported pro-life candidates, then we could get on with arguing about the other, smaller issues like the federal government’s role in social welfare.

Amen to that!

 

[rlg94086]

This is an interesting definition of “Pro-Life”. Why is gay marriage a pro-life viewpoint, but the Church’s teachings on the death penalty, humane treatment of prisoners, care for the sick, care for the poor, etc., not part of the pro-life platform? If you expand pro-life to include issues other than abortion, Democrats immediately get the edge. Its only by restricting the conversation to abortion that Republicans have courted so many Catholic votes. Now it seems likely the the Republican nominee will have a similar position on abortion to the Democratic nominee.

And why should %s matter? Aren’t we voting for people, not statistics?

I can see your point on gay marriage, but I don’t see it on the other items on the list. Certainly, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Cloning need to be included. Death penalty isn’t because the Death Penalty is allowed by the Church, even though it is discouraged. The other Social Justice issues you listed are important, but they aren’t dealing with life/death directly.

 

[estesbob]

This is an interesting definition of “Pro-Life”. Why is gay marriage a pro-life viewpoint, but the Church’s teachings on the death penalty, humane treatment of prisoners, care for the sick, care for the poor, etc., not part of the pro-life platform? If you expand pro-life to include issues other than abortion, Democrats immediately get the edge. Its only by restricting the conversation to abortion that Republicans have courted so many Catholic votes. Now it seems likely the the Republican nominee will have a similar position on abortion to the Democratic nominee.

And why should %s matter? Aren’t we voting for people, not statistics?

The Democrat party can never have the edge because on all the other issues you mention there can be legitimate disagreement on how to best accomplish them. I personally think that Democrat policies on care for the sick care and for the poor have done great harm to the people they are purporting to help. You may disagree with me and the church acknowledges that Catholics of good faith can validly disagree on these issues On abortion and euthanasia there is no room for disagreement whatsoever. If Catholics followed the teachings of the Church and refused to vote for somebody who supports abortion both parties would be pro-life. Abortion is still legal in this country because a large number of Catholics continue to support those who enabled the killing of our children.

 

[TMC]

I can see your point on gay marriage, but I don’t see it on the other items on the list. Certainly, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Cloning need to be included. Death penalty isn’t because the Death Penalty is allowed by the Church, even though it is discouraged. The other Social Justice issues you listed are important, but they aren’t dealing with life/death directly.

That’s why I didn’t list Eutanasia, Stem Cells, and Cloning. As for the death penalty, the Church allows for it in certain limited circumstances, but the U.S. is clearly way, way outside of those limits. A candidate that advocates an unjust and immoral application of the death penalty is certainly on the wrong side of a life/death issue.

We can disagree, I suppose, about whether access to health care and food are life and death issues, but I have trouble understanding how they are not.

 

[estesbob]

I can see your point on gay marriage, but I don’t see it on the other items on the list. Certainly, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Cloning need to be included. Death penalty isn’t because the Death Penalty is allowed by the Church, even though it is discouraged. The other Social Justice issues you listed are important, but they aren’t dealing with life/death directly.

And are dealt with far better by the policies of the Republican Party Democratic policies are designed to keep people poor and voting Democrat.

 

[Ender]

I am a DFLAer because I am fiercely pro-life (in all circumstances) but I believe in protecting the environment, education, and helping the poor and sick.

I am a Republican because I am pro-life and because I believe in protecting the environment, education, and helping the poor and sick.

I am with the DFLA because I still have faith that the Democratic Party can eliminate support of the murder of the unborn from the party platform and better serve all humans in this country with their other programs.

It is sheer fantasy to believe that the Democrat party will work to eliminate abortion. I do not doubt that there are millions of pro-life Democrats, but very few of them serve in congress and the ones that do have no voice in the direction the party sets.

Can you name a strong anti-abortion Democrat in congress? (Senator Casey of Pennsylvania ran as a pro-life Democrat but the first time a vote on this topic came up he voted against the pro-life side.) Can you name a single anti-abortion proposal any Democrat has offered? Your belief that the Democrats will somehow reverse themselves on abortion is incomprehensible. I understand that you prefer their position on most other issues and how you could find voting Republican more than you can bear, but you need to be honest with yourself and face the truth that the Democrat leadership is unequivocally committed to supporting abortion rights and if abortion ever becomes illegal it will be in spite of them, not because of them.

Ender

 

[Sheeniac]

I am with the DFLA because I still have faith that the Democratic Party can eliminate support of the murder of the unborn from the party platform and better serve all humans in this country with their other programs.

Can you explain why you think that way? I don’t think there is any desire in the Democrat leadership to do that. (BTW - it’s Democrat Party, not Democratic, regardless of what TV announcers say)

 

[TMC]

Can you explain why you think that way? I don’t think there is any desire in the Democrat leadership to do that. (BTW - it’s Democrat Party, not Democratic, regardless of what TV announcers say)

OK, this is going way off topic, but why do you say its the “Democrat Party”? That’s not what its members call it. (I am not a member of either party, BTW.) They call it the “Democratic Party” and they call its members “Democrats”. Aren’t they allowed to name their own party?

 

[Sheeniac]

OK, this is going way off topic, but why do you say its the “Democrat Party”? That’s not what its members call it. (I am not a member of either party, BTW.) They call it the “Democratic Party” and they call its members “Democrats”. Aren’t they allowed to name their own party?

EEK - my bad. I got it flipped evidently.

 

[estesbob]

EEK - my bad. I got it flipped evidently.

There is nothing democratic about the Democrat party.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s why I didn’t list Eutanasia, Stem Cells, and Cloning.

Sorry, I guess I understood it that way due to the way you worded your last post:

TMC:

If you expand pro-life to include** issues other than abortion**, Democrats immediately get the edge. Its only by restricting the conversation to abortion that Republicans have courted so many Catholic votes. Now it seems likely the the Republican nominee will have a similar position on abortion to the Democratic nominee.

TMC:
Read to me like you wanted to exclude everything from the list except abortion…

TMC:

As for the death penalty, the Church allows for it in certain limited circumstances, but the U.S. is clearly way, way outside of those limits. A candidate that advocates an unjust and immoral application of the death penalty is certainly on the wrong side of a life/death issue.

The problem is that the “limited circumstances” and “unjust” or “immoral” applications are arguable.

TMC:

We can disagree, I suppose, about whether access to health care and food are life and death issues, but I have trouble understanding how they are not.

Indeed we can - especially since I didn’t say they weren’t life and death issues. What I said is that they don’t deal with life/death directly. When discussing Abortion, Euthanasia, Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research, the issues are fairly black & white (I say “fairly” because I know there are arguments about abortion exceptions among pro-lifers), but health care and food requirements for the poor can be handled in several ways - whether through private charity or governmental programs.

To say, for example, that the only correct Catholic viewpoint would be to support a national healthcare program is completely false. The Church does not require that we take care of the poor through government social programs. In fact, many of us Republicans would argue that such support would be contrary to the Church teaching on subsidiarity.

 

[rlg94086]

And are dealt with far better by the policies of the Republican Party Democratic policies are designed to keep people poor and voting Democrat.

I agree, but I accept that Catholic Democrats have views which may be supported by Church teaching. The fact that Democrat “solutions” actually make things worse are a completely different issue.

 

[melensdad]

Melensdad:

Our faith has several non-negotiable “Pro-Life” points which are:
Abortion
Euthanasia
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Human Cloning
Gay Marriage and Civil Marriage “equivalents”
I’m very curious to see a list of Pro-Life Democrats who are currently in office who support our Catholic positions on these issues of our faith . . . and then I’d love to see what % of the total Democratic office holders are made up by this group. I would suspect it is less than 0.05%

This is an interesting definition of “Pro-Life”. Why is gay marriage a pro-life viewpoint, but the Church’s teachings on the death penalty, humane treatment of prisoners, care for the sick, care for the poor, etc., not part of the pro-life platform? If you expand pro-life to include issues other than abortion, Democrats immediately get the edge.

Simply put, our Church says those are the “life issues” and gay marriage is included in there because a gay union cannot culminate in the birth of a child but in fact is always sinful and against the teaching of the church.

The issues of caring for the poor, sick, prisoners are all social justice issues within the church not life issues. There is legitimate disagreement, even within our Church as to the best approaches to deal with issues like poverty. Some suggest the socialist state supported policies are best, others suggest private charity. Both sides are well represented within our church leadership and no one party holds the monopoly on those issues within the eyes of the leadership of our faith.

And regarding the death penalty, our Catechism clearly states that it is a legitimate form of punishment. I personally oppose it, as did our last Pope and I believe as does our current Pope. But the reality is the CCC very clearly allows for governments to put prisoners to death. Many of us don’t think it is particularly necessary, but that is not the dogma of our Church.

I am a DFLAer because I am fiercely pro-life (in all circumstances) but I believe in protecting the environment, education, and helping the poor and sick.

My wife is a teacher and tells me that the Democrats who run our local school administration are the biggest cause of problems. They won’t let her use a red pen to mark papers because it will hurt the self esteem of the students. They stopped entrance exams for the “advanced placement” classes but then complain when students fail. She goes on rants about this type of activity at least once a week!

I am with the DFLA because I still have faith that the Democratic Party can eliminate support of the murder of the unborn from the party platform and better serve all humans in this country with their other programs.

WOW! I don’t even know how to respond to that one. The party is so full of Pro-Abortionists, pro-human cloning, pro-fetal stem cell, pro-gay activists that I can only imagine that it would take starting the party over from scratch to achieve what you desire.

 

[TMC]

Sorry, I guess I understood it that way due to the way you worded your last post:
Read to me like you wanted to exclude everything from the list except abortion…

Yeah, I agree that was poorly worded on my part.

The problem is that the “limited circumstances” and “unjust” or “immoral” applications are arguable.

I think the limits are arguable, but its hard to argue that US policies are within those limits, which clearly say that the death penalty is only appropriate “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” The catechism also says:

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.

Which doesn’t sound much like the way the penalty is applied in the US.

Indeed we can - especially since I didn’t say they weren’t life and death issues. What I said is that they don’t deal with life/death directly. When discussing Abortion, Euthanasia, Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research, the issues are fairly black & white (I say “fairly” because I know there are arguments about abortion exceptions among pro-lifers), but health care and food requirements for the poor can be handled in several ways - whether through private charity or governmental programs.

To say, for example, that the only correct Catholic viewpoint would be to support a national healthcare program is completely false. The Church does not require that we take care of the poor through government social programs. In fact, many of us Republicans would argue that such support would be contrary to the Church teaching on subsidiarity.

I reluctantly agree with most of this. I guess I believe that the vast majority of those who advocate increased aid to the poor do so out of legitimate concern for them. I don’t believe that the vast majority of those opposed to such programs are really advocating tough love (except for the ‘tough’ part). That is uncharitable, I know, but it’s how I feel. I was an opponent of these programs most of my life and gradually began to question my own reasons for that opposition. I shouldn’t impute that to others, but its hard to avoid doing so.

 

[TMC]

And regarding the death penalty, our Catechism clearly states that it is a legitimate form of punishment. I personally oppose it, as did our last Pope and I believe as does our current Pope. But the reality is the CCC very clearly allows for governments to put prisoners to death. Many of us don’t think it is particularly necessary, but that is not the dogma of our Church.

No, I’m sorry but this is clearly wrong as stated. The Church does not state that death is a “legitimate punishment.” It is allowed only as a last resort to protect others. It may not be used to seek retribution or to punish.

 

[estesbob]

No, I’m sorry but this is clearly wrong as stated. The Church does not state that death is a “legitimate punishment.” It is allowed only as a last resort to protect others. It may not be used to seek retribution or to punish.

I personally oppose the death penatly regardless of the circumstances. That said Catholics of good conscience can disagree on this. The same can not be said for abortion .

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t believe that the vast majority of those opposed to such programs are really advocating tough love (except for the ‘tough’ part). That is uncharitable, I know, but it’s how I feel. I was an opponent of these programs most of my life and gradually began to question my own reasons for that opposition. I shouldn’t impute that to others, but its hard to avoid doing so.

I can’t speak for the vast majority, but for me it has little to do with “tough love.” It has to do with a combination of belief in the limited role of government, individual responsibility and initiative, and a preference for private charity.

The principle of subsidiarity is big deal to me. The Constitution meshes well with that principle…if we only followed it. I am much more “liberal” on the local and even county level, but in the larger states and at the federal level I believe in very limited roles.

 

[Holly3278]

I personally could not vote for a pro-life Democrat. Why? Because it is too likely that they’d succumb to the majority of the Democrats and pass into effect a pro-abortion law.

 

[melensdad]

melensdad:

And regarding the death penalty, our Catechism clearly states that it is a legitimate form of punishment. I personally oppose it, as did our last Pope and I believe as does our current Pope. But the reality is the CCC very clearly allows for governments to put prisoners to death. Many of us don’t think it is particularly necessary, but that is not the dogma of our Church.

No, I’m sorry but this is clearly wrong as stated. The Church does not state that death is a “legitimate punishment.” It is allowed only as a last resort to protect others. It may not be used to seek retribution or to punish.

I’m sorry, but you are clearly wrong. I do not support the death penalty. I do not advocate for it. But here is what the CCC actually says, and you will see that what I wrote is correct. However you state that what I wrote was wrong and clearly my post was accurate as you will see below:
Catechism of the Catholic Church Number 2267:

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

Now it is clear that the Church frowns upon the Death Penalty, and it is clear that the church believes that the cases where it can/should be applied are very very rare, but it is also clear that our Church allows for the death penalty as legitimate.