Election 2012 - Who to vote for?

[Scott_Lafrance]

Failing to go to church on Sunday is ignoring God? What about those workers, train crews, airline pilots and crews, physicians, nurses, cops and firemen who have to work Sundays, and maybe on Saturday as well? Are they ignoring God, too?

Weekly Sunday Mass (as distinguished from the reception of the Eucharist, which is not required here) is obligatory for all Catholics (1983 CIC 1247). There is, strictly speaking, no such thing as a “dispensation” from the Sunday obligation. There are instead some factors that might excuse Sunday Mass attendance. One thinks of personal illness or serious infirmity, or the need to take care of someone suffering from same, significant travel, or certain jobs affecting public safety or welfare. Saturday evening Mass (regardless of the “type” of Mass—say, a wedding Mass—it is) satisfies the Sunday obligation (1983 CIC 1248), and occasional attendance at Greek Orthodox Eucharistic liturgies also satisfies the Sunday obligation (Directory on Ecumenism, n. 47). Watching televised Masses or joining in other prayer or Communion services do not satisfy the precept, however praiseworthy one’s participation in such optional activities might be (1983 CIC 1248).
Servile labor, which may be thought of as work primarily oriented to sustaining our earthly existence or occupation, is today probably better understood not so much in terms of the physical exertion required, but rather in terms of the orientation of the work. An accountant, for example, might find digging in the garden or cutting the grass (traditionally reckoned servile) to be recreational, whereas doing tax returns on Sunday could be servile work for such a person, and should be avoided. For a cashier, playing the guitar is likely recreational, while for a professional musician, practicing on Sunday is probably a work to be avoided.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

What did you find? You don’t have to put it on a silver plate…a simple answer is fine.

As I’ve said, I intend to not vote for either Obama or Romney, so I need not choose between the two or justify a choice.

But, certainly, it is always wrong to kill innocent people, inside or outside the womb.

 

[bellasbane]

I am still waiting for someone to tell us what the proportionate reasons are that would allow a Catholic to vote for Obama.

OK, here goes.

First of all, it doesn’t matter whether I actually vote for Romney or Obama - because I live in Massachusetts and Obama is going to win this state no matter what.

However, I support Obama over Romney, because even though I don’t like many of his policies, I believe he a good leader who really cares about the middle class, got us out of a terrible economic crisis, passed health-care reform, ended the war in Iraq, and killed Bin Laden.

In my eyes, Mitt Romney has done nothing other than act as turn-coat and say anything to get elected president. I do not believe he cares about average Americans - they are just numbers on a spread-sheet to him. I do not support any of his economic or foreign policies, because they fail to factor in the cost of human suffering. I believe they will hurt America, hurt the poor, and hurt the middle class.

Regarding “life” issues:

I support a federal ban on abortion on the basis that an embryo is a person and therefore has the right to life. I do not support Scalia’s argument in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey that the federal Constitution does not guarentee a woman’s reproductive rights and therefore it is a matter for the states to decide.

If a woman’s reproductive rights are not protected by the federal government, then any state can prohibit a woman from having an abortion. However, by the same token, any state can prohibit a woman from having a child - like they did in China. Or it could coerce women into becoming pregnant - like they did in Romania under Ceausescu. If a woman has no federally protected reproductive rights - the states can vote to do anything it likes with her body.

For those reasons, the rights of both parties must be affirmed - even if in the end the Court decides that in the specific case of elective abortion, one (the child’s right to life) takes precedence over the other (a woman’s reproductive rights).

Obama clearly does not believe an embryo is a person who has a constitutionally protected right to life under the United States Constitution. So he is no help there. That does not make him evil - even Saint Augustine wasn’t entirely certain about when a fetus became a person. However, he does defend a woman’s reproductive rights and supports government programs that help mothers & children. I believe a sense of security reduces the likelihood that a woman will seek out an abortion - so Obama gets credit for that.

Six years ago, Mitt Romney was a pro-choice Republican. During the primaries, he said in an interview that he supported the personhood amendment in Mississippi, but at the same time, he is the only GOP candidate who has refused to sign the Personhood Pledge. In my mind, that’s just more evidence that he has no integrity and cannot be trusted. I seriously doubt he would lead the charge for personhood at the federal level in the next four years when it couldn’t even get passed in a place like Mississippi. It could ruin his chances for a second term.

If anything, he is more likely to limit abortions by appointing justices to the Supreme Court who side with Scalia and would undermine a woman’s reproductive rights, which I cannot support for the reasons already given.

So here is the absurdly simplified breakdown:

Personhood: Obama (No), Romney (No)
Reproductive Rights: Obama (Yes), Romney (No)
Economic Security: Obama (Yes), Romney (No)

If the GOP had chosen any other candidate I would have been seriously conflicted - since they all support Personhood and that is the key to everything. Unfortunately, they chose the only one who refused to take a stand. Now all I want is for Romney to go away so that the GOP can nominate a better man (or woman) in 2016.

 

[bellasbane]

I would like to think that this forum is very welcoming of everybody, liberal Catholic or otherwise. However, if by being welcoming you mean to say that we should tolerate views that are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic church without charitably pointing them out as being incorrect, then I respectfully disagree with you.

Charity starts with humility.

 

[Joe_5859]

First of all, it doesn’t matter whether I actually vote for Romney or Obama - because I live in Massachusetts and Obama is going to win this state no matter what.

Is that true? Even though Romeny was governor of Massachusetts? I mean, I know Massachusetts is generally a blue state, but don’t people still go for the homegrown guy?

I would have thought he at least had a chance. But I haven’t looked at the polling.

 

[scipio337]

OK, here goes…

I do not support Scalia’s argument in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey that the federal Constitution does not guarentee a woman’s reproductive rights and therefore it is a matter for the states to decide.

If a woman’s reproductive rights are not protected by the federal government, then any state can prohibit a woman from having an abortion. However, by the same token, any state can prohibit a woman from having a child - like they did in China. Or it could coerce women into becoming pregnant - like they did in Romania under Ceausescu. If a woman has no federally protected reproductive rights - the states can vote to do anything it likes with her body…

…he does defend a woman’s reproductive rights…

…If anything, he is more likely to limit abortions by appointing justices to the Supreme Court who side with Scalia and would undermine a woman’s reproductive rights, which I cannot support for the reasons already given…

I’m confused.

Can you specifically point out what you mean by “reproductive rights”? Birth control? The right to have children?

The logic I’m reading in your view is that it’s acceptable to ban abortion on the basis of personhood of the fetus, but NOT as a limitation of ‘reproductive rights’?

Do you believe Romney will ban birth control? Prohibit a woman from having a child?

I have no idea which “reproductive rights” Romney will threaten (outside of abortion).

 

[bellasbane]

Is that true? Even though Romeny was governor of Massachusetts? I mean, I know Massachusetts is generally a blue state, but don’t people still go for the homegrown guy?

I would have thought he at least had a chance. But I haven’t looked at the polling.

Obama beats Romney by 19% in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts: Romney vs. Obama (RCP Average)
Obama: 54.4%
Romney: 35.2%

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ma/massachusetts_romney_vs_obama-1804.html

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Charity starts with humility.

Social justice requires actual justice.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

O
So here is the absurdly simplified breakdown:

Personhood: Obama (No), Romney (No)
Reproductive Rights: Obama (Yes), Romney (No)
Economic Security: Obama (Yes), Romney (No)
.

Obama, who has never run anything in his life, with a bunch of propeller head academic, socialists for advisors, knows ANYTHING about economic security. Is that a joke or something?

 

[pnewton]

Maybe you ought to do your own research rather than wait for someone to hand you the reasons on a silver plate.

You could always choose to do like I am and vote behind the metaphori curtain. There is no requirement that one publicly announce their vote at CAF. I would not have answered this poll had it been a public one.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

You could always choose to do like I am and vote behind the curtain. There is no requirement that one publicly announce their vote at CAF.

Don’t misunderstand. I shall vote, but not for either major presidential candidate. I expect my ballot to be a real laundry list of choices.

 

[stevegravy]

I am still waiting for someone to tell us what the proportionate reasons are that would allow a Catholic to vote for Obama. I cant seem to find it but i find a ton of info indicating there are not. i.e.:

At this point, the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitively into a “party of death” due to its choices on bioethical issues, as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life."And I say this with a heavy heart, because we all know that the Democrats were the party that helped our Catholic immigrant …

Cardinal Burke

Proportionate reason for voting for Obama is because you are already living off the government teat and you want more of other people’s money. Long and short of all proportionate reasoning.

 

[St_Francis]

To what end? Think you might change your way of thinking to theirs or that they will go over to your side?

As I mentioned in my post, yes, I am willing to change my mind, and have on some issues already.

Yes, I’m a liberal, but I see no way that either I or the conservatives are going to change our positions, so I avoid “debate.” It is IMO just presenting my position and they presenting theirs. Round and round the mulberry bush otherwise.

So, you don’t really want to engage in discussion at all? You just want to post?

Well, I guess that seems odd to me. I post because I *want *to discuss, to understand the other person’s point of view, to persuade the other person or to see where I am wrong. To me, this is a way of getting to truth.

It’s interesting to find out that others have different ideas about their posting. Thanks for explaining that.

 

[Joe_5859]

Obama beats Romney by 19% in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts: Romney vs. Obama (RCP Average)
Obama: 54.4%
Romney: 35.2%

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ma/massachusetts_romney_vs_obama-1804.html

Hmmm. I guess you guys don’t have fond memories of him as governor.

 

[bellasbane]

I’m confused.

Can you specifically point out what you mean by “reproductive rights”? Birth control? The right to have children?

The logic I’m reading in your view is that it’s acceptable to ban abortion on the basis of personhood of the fetus, but NOT as a limitation of ‘reproductive rights’?

Do you believe Romney will ban birth control? Prohibit a woman from having a child?

I have no idea which “reproductive rights” Romney will threaten (outside of abortion).

Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights#cite_note-autogenerated1-1

A ban on elective abortion on the basis of personhood WOULD place a specific restriction on a woman’s reproductive rights - because the child’s right to life trumps a woman’s right to have an abortion.

Any other restriction would have to pass the same test. That is how it should be.

Courts decide between competing rights all the time. The important thing is that the rights of both parties are recognized as inherent to the person and not open to public referendum like Scalia proposes.

Once you set the precedent that a person has no rights - anything can happen. Maybe not next year, but in 20 or 30 years.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

As I mentioned in my post, yes, I am willing to change my mind, and have on some issues already.

Which way did you go?

So, you don’t really want to engage in discussion at all? You just want to post?

Consider what discussion is to be had here. Almost entirely conservative, with the exception of someone like Bellasbane. But, I myself will discuss on other than hot-button items.

I post because I *want *to discuss, to understand the other person’s point of view, to persuade the other person or to see where I am wrong. To me, this is a way of getting to truth.

I don’t see how such leads to “truth.” Persuasion is pretty much out the window on the Forum unless you think that some of our pro-life posters might go pro-choice or vice-versa. Furthermore, persuasion is a long-term process. I don’t think that people have a “Road to Damascus” experience on the basis of a dozen or so posts.

Human nature keeps most people from “seeing where they are wrong.”

 

[scipio337]

Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights#cite_note-autogenerated1-1

A ban on elective abortion on the basis of personhood WOULD place a specific restriction on a woman’s reproductive rights - because the child’s right to life trumps a woman’s right to have an abortion.

Any other restriction would have to pass the same test. That is how it should be.

Courts decide between competing rights all the time. The important thing is that the rights of both parties are recognized as inherent to the person and not open to public referendum like Scalia proposes.

Once you set the precedent that a person has no rights - anything can happen. Maybe not next year, but in 20 or 30 years.

Okay, and who is taking away reproductive rights? Is there a proposed condom ban I’m unaware of?

And this surely in my mind wouldn’t be enough to supporting someone who favors unrestricted abortion to one who is pro life.

 

[qui_est_ce]

To what end? Think you might change your way of thinking to theirs or that they will go over to your side? Yes, I’m a liberal, but I see no way that either I or the conservatives are going to change our positions, so I avoid “debate.” It is IMO just presenting my position and they presenting theirs. Round and round the mulberry bush otherwise.

The purpose of discussing ideas is to understand one another, even if we don’t agree with one another.

I agree with St. Francis. Liberals usually appeal to the emotional when defending their POV’s. Then when the conservative responds with points of fact, liberals cut them off them “We’ll just have to agree to disagree.”

I was cornered by my neighbor at the pool on the 4th. She went on and on about her liberal ideas OW’s, etc. She’s 77, so she should know better. (She repeated her age several times, and does it every time I run into her, I guess it’s her way of letting me know she has wisdom). Well, she started talking about how she supports PP. That morning, the homily was on Catholics not being afraid to bring their faith into the public square. She said pro-life people were terrorists. I said, “No PP are terrorists. They kill babies.” She was SHOCKED!! How could I be pro-life? Did I know they killed Dr. Tillman in CHURCH??? What about the 10-year old girl who was pregnant from incest, hun??? (I really think she made that up). After about 15 minutes I politely excused myself and thanked her for the conversation. Rich, she said the same thing you said. “Let’s not fool ourselves, neither of us has changed our positions.” I said I nevertheless enjoyed the conversation.

Is this all about agreeing with people? NO, but you have to keep conversation open!! You just can’t demonize people who disagree with you.

The next day several people told me they agreed with me on what I said about PP and OW being terrorists. They didn’t want to talk politics at that point either, just offer support.

Why do so many liberals think they can spout off everything they believe in in inappropriate venues and then shut down the conversation???

 

[bellasbane]

Obama, who has never run anything in his life, with a bunch of propeller head academic, socialists for advisors, knows ANYTHING about economic security. Is that a joke or something?

.…a bunch of propeller head academic, socialists for advisors…

Sounds like my kind of people!

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

.…a bunch of propeller head academic, socialists for advisors…

Sounds like my kind of people!

I’d prefer people who actually accomplish things rather than speculate on what it takes to accomplish things.