Democrats go all in for abortion rights

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orogeny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dmelosi said:
From the article from Cardinal Ratzinger…
“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons”

What proportionate reason do you give for over 1 million intentional deaths that the democratic proudly promotes every year?
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t we look to the author of the document if those proportionate reasons are defined by anyone other than the faith formed conscience of each individual?

Surely if millions of Catholic risk eternal damnation, because of a vote, wouldn’t it be the responsibility of the one voice of the Church, over all Catholics, to correct them? Why doesn’t the Pope say, some of you have misinterpreted what he has written?
 
estesbob said:
I and others have in this thread and numerous times in other threads posted specific quotes from vatican documents, the pope and other members of the magisterium indicating that the only proportionate reason is when a candidate’s opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. If you can find a single member of the magisterium stating there are proportionate reasons that would allow a catholic to vote for Obama or anyone else who supports unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortion on demand please do so.
Click to expand...
You and others in this thread have readily dismissed Romney’s statement that he was ,more pro choice than Ted Kennedy and the possibility of him changing his views with his political aspirations in an attempt to pander to a bloc of voters. That needs to be weighed as much as any other reason. We are not to ‘blindly’ follow others. If a candidate is not trustworthy, that certainly seems to be ‘proportionate’ to me.
 
The Politico headline is certainly correct: “Democrats go all in for abortion rights.”
And yet, the Democratic Party has gone all in for abortion rights for a long time now. It’s not something new. What’s newer is the more blatant openness about it. I think this is partially because their presidential candidate is so firmly and outspokenly pro-abortion. And perhaps they believe that they have convinced the public over the past 40 years that abortion rights are a good thing instead of an intrinsic evil.

Ted Kennedy once was anti-abortion. It was not a given that the Democratic Party had to become the party of abortion, and yet that is what happened. And over time, the party has become increasingly worse on the issue, and now supports even more intrinsic evils, such as same sex marriage.

Archbishop Chaput has reflected on “why democrats have gotten worse on abortion.”
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
You and others in this thread have readily dismissed Romney’s statement that he was ,more pro choice than Ted Kennedy and the possibility of him changing his views with his political aspirations in an attempt to pander to a bloc of voters. That needs to be weighed as much as any other reason. We are not to ‘blindly’ follow others. If a candidate is not trustworthy, that certainly seems to be ‘proportionate’ to me.
Click to expand...
Can you find any member of the magisterium that states you can vote for someone who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand because you find his opponent untrustworthy?
 
dmelosi said:
From the article from Cardinal Ratzinger…
“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons”

What proportionate reason do you give for over 1 million intentional deaths that the democratic proudly promotes every year?
Click to expand...
I keep asking Catholic democrats that and they never give an answer

Here is a list of quotes from various Bishops, Priests and Catholics have given. Social security, tax, immigration, health care, national security, death penalty, in combination or singularly are not proportionate reasons to vote for a pro abortion candidate
 
estesbob said:
Can you find any member of the magisterium that states you can vote for someone who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand because you find his opponent untrustworthy?
Click to expand...
Untrustworthy is a proportionate reason. The Church does not endorse a candidate to place itself in a position of supporting an evil, if that candidate in deed turns out to be evil. It teaches us to form a faith based conscience and vote accordingly, and leaves it at that. There are those who narrow down the field, but it’s not clarified by the Church as such.
 
Just a thought –

Republican Catholic women sometimes have abortions. Many of them also use artificial birth control.

That’s a fact. Just don’t want any forum newcomers to believe otherwise.
 
Personanongrata said:
Just a thought –

Republican Catholic women sometimes have abortions. Many of them also use artificial birth control.

That’s a fact. Just don’t want any forum newcomers to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...
Is this “thought” trying to make the proud and aggressive promotion of killing the most innocent by the democratic party not as evil?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Can you provide the Pope’s definition of proportionate reasons? He’s the author of the material which is the subject of debate between the bishops. There is minimal division between the bishops. Where the major differences are is in the selective interpretations,of laypersons. for partisan reasons, which seems to be addressed by Bishop Lennon.

No one is looking for an excuse to specifically support abortion itself. The reasons of doubt and mistrust on either candidate have been listed, but also seem to be quickly dismissed for partisan reasons.
Click to expand...
Finally, another bishop, Rene Gracida, retired Bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas Corpus Christi is a coastal city and the county seat of Nueces CountyGR6 in the U.S. state of Texas. It is part of the region known as South Texas. , wrote a clarifying statement that is helpful:

"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 who is completely for abortion-on demand; candidate B, who is in favour of very limited abortion, i.e., in favour of greatly restricting abortion; and candidate C, a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

Being such that election, as to high office, is difficult or impossible: The candidate’s private life rendered him unelectable.

… Click the link for more information… "The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate A 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, but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate A. Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate B, since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate A and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate B 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.”

see for more of the discussion:
thefreelibrary.com/Abortion+and+%22proportionate+reasons%22.-a0124488625
 
Trader said:
Finally, another bishop, Rene Gracida, retired Bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas Corpus Christi is a coastal city and the county seat of Nueces CountyGR6 in the U.S. state of Texas. It is part of the region known as South Texas. , wrote a clarifying statement that is helpful:

"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 who is completely for abortion-on demand; candidate B, who is in favour of very limited abortion, i.e., in favour of greatly restricting abortion; and candidate C, a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectableun

Being such that election, as to high office, is difficult or impossible: The candidate’s private life rendered him unelectable.

… Click the link for more information… "The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate A 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, but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate A. Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate B, since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate A and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate B 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.”

see for more of the discussion:
thefreelibrary.com/Abortion+and+%22proportionate+reasons%22.-a0124488625
Click to expand...
And the Catechism says we cannot do evil so that good may come from it, but a ‘little evil’ is acceptable? I just don’t buy into the lesser of two evils argument, and as I hear from others all the time, I believe I am at liberty to disagree with the view.

We have varying opinions from our bishops. What we do not have is plain and simple language naming a candidate. Why is that? If there are issues of such great importance, as to outweigh the possibility of a candidate misrepresenting his views only to be elected, why doesn’t the Church set the example by naming the only candidate which a Catholic may vote for?

It’s as I said, ‘the Church does not want to be in the position of having supported a evil, should the candidate prove to in deed be evil.’ What position would it place the Church in if they named a candidate that turned out to be lying only to get elected?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
You and others in this thread have readily dismissed Romney’s statement that he was ,more pro choice than Ted Kennedy and the possibility of him changing his views with his political aspirations in an attempt to pander to a bloc of voters. That needs to be weighed as much as any other reason. We are not to ‘blindly’ follow others. If a candidate is not trustworthy, that certainly seems to be ‘proportionate’ to me.
Click to expand...
You might be confusing Mitt Romney with Rudy Guiliani. Guilani prior to the 2008 RNC primary had many time said he was pro choice but then during those primaries said all of a sudden he is pro life.

Romney while he was still Governor did at the end of his term sign some pro life initiatives so the assertion he is only “acting” pro life to appease the base of the Republican Party to become the nominee is patently false.

Do you honestly feel that Romney is in favor of abortion the same as Pres. Obama?
 
We’re all Catholics who answer to the one voice over the Church. We can’t ‘cherry pick’ bishops to find the Church’s truth, when we have bishops who say different things. The one voice gave instruction and it’s proven to be of debate among our bishops. If it were to be interpreted precisely one way, why doesn’t the one voice end the debate?
 
JMJSHJ said:
You might be confusing Mitt Romney with Rudy Guiliani. Guilani prior to the 2008 RNC primary had many time said he was pro choice but then during those primaries said all of a sudden he is pro life.

Romney while he was still Governor did at the end of his term sign some pro life initiatives so the assertion he is only “acting” pro life to appease the base of the Republican Party to become the nominee is patently false.

Do you honestly feel that Romney is in favor of abortion the same as Pres. Obama?
Click to expand...
There is no confusion. Romney stated he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy. I think he ‘sways’, according to the popular vote.

I don’t think they are the same; however, I do not feel obligated to vote for either candidate, as many are dictating as absolute instruction from the Church, as long as you choose the candidate they personally are supporting.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Go back and reread the link provided.

The Bishop stated:

The part you are referring me to was written by the Right to Life leader:

What the Bishop wrote, was in response to the email received.
Click to expand...
You do realize that this entire letter is in response to someone charging that Faithful Citizenship violates 503c law?

The summation of the letter is “Yes, that is authentic Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching is non-partisan”.

I would highlight his section:
Bishop Lennon also noted that it is very telling that the detractors have given no specific example of any statement made at the forums that is contrary to Church beliefs and teaching.
Click to expand...
You’re being hoisted on your own petard here.
 
scipio337 said:
You do realize that this entire letter is in response to someone charging that Faithful Citizenship violates 503c law?

The summation of the letter is “Yes, that is authentic Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching is non-partisan”.

I would highlight his section:

You’re being hoisted on your own petard here.
Click to expand...
I know exactly what this is in response too.

Bishop Lennon stated:
"This issue has been grossly distorted by a few individuals who wrongly claim to represent the entire Right to Life movement and whose purpose is not to shed light on authentic Catholic teaching but to remake and narrow the scope of Catholic teaching to fit their own personal agenda.”
Click to expand...
That ‘Right to Life’ movement was the challenger, or detractors, of that diocese’s voter guidance.
 
Personanongrata said:
Just a thought –

Republican Catholic women sometimes have abortions. Many of them also use artificial birth control.

That’s a fact. Just don’t want any forum newcomers to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...
PLEASE stop being disengenuous.

You’re on record for calling Personhood Amendments…
Personanongrata said:
Silly and a waste of time. Money would be better spent helping to get kids already born adopted.

:cool:
Click to expand...
.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9921280&postcount=15

but complain that “Romney isn’t pro-life”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9889024#post9889024

But Akin and Walsh need to be “voted out” because they ARE pro-life:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9913770#post9913770

You have absolutely 0 credibility on this issue because you speak out of both sides of your mouth.

…So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top