Election 2012 - Who to vote for?

[Mickey]

we still have that problem of answering and everyone agreeing on when an embryo or fetus becomes a person whose personhood rights surpass those of the woman carrying the embryo or fetus in her body.

The child in the womb has no rights at the moment…and no choice. The child in the womb is murdered on demand.

In a sense it could be argued a woman is not free if she can not even choose for instance whether or not she will be a mother after being raped

The rape is a tragic situation…but it is not the child’s fault…and yet the child is murdered for it.

or when her own human life is at stake.

If a two year old ran out in front of a car, do you think the mother would remove the child from harm’s way knowing that she would be killed by the car instead. Most mothers would sacrifice their own lives for their children. And yet…because the child is in the womb, he/she is somehow less than human and it is okay to murder them.

Yet the Catholic Church opposes this freedom even in those cases.

As well She should…She goes by God’s law…not man’s butchery laws.

We may never agree on personhood rights

You should think and pray long and hard about it.

 

[CMatt25]

You’re back with the same IMO weak arguments talking about “when life begins” or when an unborn baby’s rights “surpass those of the woman.”

A) There is no question when a separate, unique and individual person begins and that is at conception. There is no other standard that definitive, that clear or that well supported by science. The only difference between an embryo in the womb and a person who made the trip out safely is time and stage of development. Any standard such as “abortion only before 3 months” which I believe was the standard in Roe, only creates a movable and unverified point in time that can and has been changed.

B) When you claim the rights of the unborn “exceed” those of the woman you make absolutely no sense. There is not a time during the pregnancy when the baby has the choice to kill the pregnant woman. IOW the baby’s rights cannot and will never “exceed” the woman’s right to kill that baby. The baby has no power. You are speaking riddles that don’t stand up

C) Roe was based on vague arguments and a lack of scientific knowledge that has become not only more clear but more available with advances in technology. Ultrasound pictures are the biggest deterrent to abortion in those women who have taken steps toward termination of the child’s life. Women have been fed a lie that they are “removing a blob of tissue” When they see a baby with fingers and toes and a beating heart, it’s far more difficult to say “Yeah go ahead and kill it.”

D) The slavery analogy works because the slaveholder had power of life or death over his slaves just as the pregnant woman has the power of life or death over her child. Neither the father, society or even other close relatives have any power.

E) You trot out the usual canards of “rape or incest” or “life of the mother.” Look at the statistics. Abortion is after sex birth control in the vast majority of changes. Even a pro abort would not say well we have to sacrifice 49,999,900 unborn babies because there are a few cases where the life of the mother is truly in danger. Somehow I don’t think those odds hold up.

Lisa

As you believe, think and voice your opinion Lisa, may God bless you along your faith journey. Peace.

 

[onmyknees]

Lots of use of the word “may” in there. Not “can’t”.

And I don’t speak for those Catholics voting for Obama but I suppose their reasons might include concern for the lives of people already born. For instance those people Jesus talked about in Matt 25. The poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick who don’t have adequate health care coverage. All while Romney goes about supporting the Ryan budget and wants to repeal health reforms that are already law. Reforms including human beings not being denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions and younger people being able to remain on their parents’ health care coverage longer. Some might also have concerns for instance about who is advising Romney on foreign policy and concern about getting even deeper into war than we are. Which of course affects the lives of many humans. Maybe some Catholics voting for Obama will come along though and try to help you understand their reasons. .

The voter can give to the poor, the homeless, the hungry, and the sick himself and then vote for the candidate that supports Catholic teaching.

This is what my father did and I do this too. I make sandwiches and give them to the poor, volunteer in a nursing home, (I visit the sick), and give $ to Catholic charities.

World War II had the most deaths of any war in history estimated between 40,000,000 and 72,000,000. The second highest deaths of any war in history is estimated between 30,000,000 and 36,000,000.

There have been approximately 52,000,000 babies killed in the womb since Roe vs. Wade.

 

[LisaA]

As you believe, think and voice your opinion Lisa, may God bless you along your faith journey. Peace.

And I hope you will re-consider your position in the face of having no argument to support it. And thank YOUR mother for choosing life for you.

Lisa

 

[CMatt25]

The voter can give to the poor, the homeless, the hungry, and the sick himself and then vote for the candidate that supports Catholic teaching.

This is what my father did and I do this too. I make sandwiches and give them to the poor, volunteer in a nursing home, (I visit the sick), and give $ to Catholic charities.

That’s terrific that you do those things on an individual basis as your means and time allow and God bless for it. I never said we as Christians and voters could not. I believe Jesus would take any help He could get.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Bad analogy.How does that line up with abortion NOT being murder?

Question: do they have capital punishment in your state?

 

[colmywaykurtz]

I think this opinion goes much farther that the Church ever has with good cause, except perhaps in the sense we are all complicit with abortion for our role we play in voting. I voted for Reagan. Yet his judicial appointments continued to promote abortion rights. Does that make me complicit? If one reads Faithful Citizenship, he will find a more balaced statement based on Catholic moral teaching.

This raises an interesting dilemma for people who define “complicity” with a brush this broad. The logic of their own position would force them to say that even winning the Cold War (as Reagan is alleged to have done) should have been forced to wait while a more suitably pro-life candidate was found and elected—and it would also force them to turn a deaf ear to the fact that some of their fellow Republicans would be saying that the world couldn’t have afforded to wait on that, and that the world might have paid the price for waiting in the form of nuclear war—which potentially could have killed more people than abortion ever did.

 

[MidnightSun12]

You should always be humble, because while certain teachings of the Church are infallible, you are not and your interpretations of Church teachings are subject to error.

Peace

The Catholic church is already providing an interpretation of the word of God. Are you suggesting that we can mis-intrepret the intrepretation? I respectfully disagree on this point. I know for 100% certainty that abortion, contraception, gay marriage and euthanasia are always wrong regardless of the circumstances… there is simply no room for interpretation on these issues. Any view-point that suggestst that abortion is OK even 1% of the time is simply incorrect. I don’t think humility comes in to play at all here (in fact, it would be prideful for us to think that we know better then what Christ’s Church teaches as being true).

That said, the way that we choose to deliver this message is most certainly subject to error (and I think this is where humility comes in to play). One has to be tactful and sensitive when evangelizing and the purpose of the conversations need to be centered on our love for our neighbour rather then being concerned about winning an argument for ourselves. Here, I definitely agree that pride can be a problem and we all have to be careful not to step over that line.

 

[Mickey]

This raises an interesting dilemma for people who define “complicity” with a brush this broad. The logic of their own position would force them to say that even winning the Cold War (as Reagan is alleged to have done) should have been forced to wait while a more suitably pro-life candidate was found and elected—and it would also force them to turn a deaf ear to the fact that some of their fellow Republicans would be saying that the world couldn’t have afforded to wait on that, and that the world might have paid the price for waiting in the form of nuclear war—which potentially could have killed more people than abortion ever did.

Wrong. You are playing what-if games here. Furthermore, we act according to our consciences in conjunction with the commandments of God. What eveyone has been saying here is: There is no way that a God- fearing Christian, in good conscience, could cast a vote for the most pro-death president (Obama) in the history of this country.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Wrong. You are playing what-if games here. Furthermore, we act according to our consciences in conjunction with the commandments of God. What eveyone has been saying here is: There is no way that a God- fearing Christian, in good conscience, could cast a vote for the most pro-death president (Obama) in the history of this country.

I don’t think I’m wrong. If you don’t define complicity with that broad a brush, well and good.

And I don’t think it’s that black-and-white, as my previous posts have shown.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Still waiting for Jeanne S to answer my question.

 

[irishpatrick]

I think you know you’re asking the wrong person if you want me to take 3 separate issues, apples, oranges, and apricots and make a comparison of the Holocaust and slavery to the issue of pro choice.

One problem with the slavery analogy is you equate abortion with owning a human person. And even if we answer the question of when life begins, we still have that problem of answering and everyone agreeing on when an embryo or fetus becomes a person whose personhood rights surpass those of the woman carrying the embryo or fetus in her body. That’s what a society of plural beliefs in an imperfect world attempts to answer for its law of the land. There was a SCOTUS ruling 4 decades ago next Jan.

The slavery analogy could also be used as an argument for choice. Slavery is about losing one’s freedom over one’s body and life. In a sense it could be argued a woman is not free if she can not even choose for instance whether or not she will be a mother after being raped or when her own human life is at stake. I know anti choice people like to say those are rare cases. Yet the Catholic Church opposes this freedom even in those cases.

We may never agree on personhood rights or when the rights of the unborn should trump the woman’s rights under secular law, but we know women and slaves and Jews are people.

Here is a real simple mental litmus test for every pro-legal-abortion person: Imagine if a person went back in time to the period when they were growing in the womb of their mother. What would happen to the pro-legal-abortion person if they aborted themselves at that stage?

Why, exactly, do you think the Church insists on protecting life from natural concpetion to natural death? It is because the Church sees those lives as people–the Church does NOT see those lives as cells that have not attained personhood. Your unmoving position means you put yourself against Jesus and His Church, for the Church has formally declared all abortion to be evil…killing cells is NOT evil, killing innocent people is evil.

Your slavery point holds no water for the simple fact that you would fight against slavery even though slavery is a lesser evil than abortion.

The Holocaust took 6,000,000 lives, and you can be sure that included innocent children, and babies, and yes many women were likely pregnant when they were slaughtered. When you choose to slaughter 6,000,000 people, there are going to be plenty women in that group with babies growing.

I cannot think of the last time I heard a couple say, “I have some cells growing in me.” No, instead, every pregnant couple says, “I/we are having a baby!” People know that pregnancy means baby, unless they don’t want the baby–then the poor innocent becomes cells that can be killed.

Finally, not to be offensive, so please take no offense, yet where would we be if Mary chose to abort her baby? !!!

 

[irishpatrick]

As you believe, think and voice your opinion Lisa, may God bless you along your faith journey. Peace.

Matt, I believe you are a strong Catholic, and you appear to have a great love for the poor and needy. So, with genuine respect, why are you so cold-hearted about the most vulnerable among us (the unborn trying flourish)? Can you honestly say that you believe Jesus would be fine with killing an innocent life that He has allowed?

Matt, it takes a change–a very real change–to see Christ in every unborn person. It is not easy for a great many people, and life’s circumstances oftentimes create a coldness that prevents people from seeing the obvious. Please, take your love for the poor and needy and transfer that in even greater measure to the unborn, and see that every single pregnancy has been allowed by our Lord–every single pregancy.

 

[Mickey]

And I don’t think it’s that black-and-white, as my previous posts have shown.

It is very black and white. Thou shalt not kill.

 

[CMatt25]

Question: do they have capital punishment in your state?

Aw come on Colmywaykurtz, play fair now. No one could possibly believe that’s taking human life. You know it makes a difference whether or not you add the adjective “innocent” before “human life”.

 

[CMatt25]

Wrong. You are playing what-if games here. Furthermore, we act according to our consciences in conjunction with the commandments of God. What eveyone has been saying here is: There is no way that a God- fearing Christian, in good conscience, could cast a vote for the most pro-death president (Obama) in the history of this country.

God fearing Christian in very good conscience casting a vote for Obama.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Still waiting for Jeanne S to answer my question.

It took me a while to find your post as I wsn’t on computer last night. To answer your question,yes, what is your point

 

[Elizabeth502]

Jeanne, He asked you if you had capital punishment in your State.

 

[pnewton]

What proportionate reasons would allow a Catholic to vote for obama? .

Again, I am not going to broadcast my vote. I merely am pointing out the Church teaching on the matter. Clearly, it there is not proportionate reason, then one can not vote pro-abortion. There are various reasons why this might be the case, like the president not being the one to pass laws on abortion or overturn it in court, or for a Republican who may vote for someone like Romney, even if another candidate is more in line with Church teaching, based on Romney’s electability.

 

[pnewton]

Aw come on Colmywaykurtz, play fair now. No one could possibly believe that’s taking human life. You know it makes a difference whether or not you add the adjective “innocent” before “human life”.

In Catholic moral teaching, it really does make a difference. You may equate the two issues, but the Catholic Church does not. I think it important though to think beyond the “five non-negotiable” sound bite. That was something the Catholic Church did not come up with, but was a CA pamphlet. If we were to hold fast to it, and disregard proportional reasons, I would not be able to vote for either Obama or his counterpart, Romney.