Election 2012 - Who to vote for?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey said:
Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jer 1:5
Click to expand...
Indeed, but it is not part of any state’s Code. And, that is what counts when making a case against abortion in a court of law.
 
LisaA said:
I will go on record as saying any Catholic who votes for Obama is complicit in the death of babies…
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jeanne_S said:
I have to agree,good points!
Click to expand...
As another friend put it:

"She can wipe the floor with Biden, and then wax it with Obama.
Then sit down and play the Rachmaninoff Concerto #3.

And then call in an airstrike on Iran, after telling Putin to shove it."
qui_est_ce said:
What is BDS?
Click to expand...
Bush Derangement Syndrome. To most voters, Condi represents the Bush admin.
 
Jeanne_S said:
Ohhhh.now I see,regardless ,you are obfuscating,answer my question:D No,kidding aside,answer my question,please
Click to expand...
As for definition, I consider abortion to be the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. As a Catholic, I consider it a grievous sin to obtain or participate in an abortion.
 
pnewton said:
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.
Click to expand...
*“In a nation set so firmly on a path of violation of the most fundamental moral norms, Catholics and others who adhere to the natural moral law are pressured to think that their religious commitment to the moral law as the way of seeking the good of all is a merely confessional matter which cannot have any application in public life,” Burke said.

“Apparently, a number of Catholics in public life have been so convinced,”

“How often do we hear Catholic legislators who vote in favor of anti-life and anti-family legislation claim that they are personally opposed to what the legislation protects and fosters, but that they as public officials may not allow religious beliefs to affect their support of such legislation?”

“How often do we hear fellow Catholics supporting candidates for office, who are anti-life and anti-family, because of political-party loyalties or for reasons of other policies and programs supported by the candidate, which they deem to be good?”

“How often is such thinking justified by the claim that religious faith is a purely private matter and has no place in the public forum?” “On the contrary, the common good depends upon the active engagement of religious faith in the public forum.”

Cardinal Burke*
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
As for definition, I consider abortion to be the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. As a Catholic, I consider it a grievous sin to obtain or participate in an abortion.
Click to expand...
So,are you saying that since abortion is legal,while you personally don’t condone it,as a Catholic,you don’t have an issue with voting for the most pro abortion president in our history?:confused:
 
pnewton said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, when I read Faithful Citizenship, I definitely see a balanced approach to voting 🙂
 
Jeanne_S said:
So,are you saying that since abortion is legal,while you personally don’t condone it,as a Catholic,you don’t have an issue with voting for the most pro abortion president in our history?:confused:
Click to expand...
I’ve said more times on this Forum than I care to count that I intend to vote neither for Obama nor for Romney in November. How do you translate that statement into having no issue with voting for Obama??? 🤷
 
Mickey said:
There is no such thing as “pro-choice.” The proper term would be “pro-death.” The child in the womb does not have a choice. 56 million babies have been murdered in the last thirty years. The blood of these voiceless martyrs cries out for justice! I pray that those who support so called “legal abortion” have a change of mind and heart prior to standing before the fearsome judgement seat of Christ attempting to justify why they supported politicians who favored “legal murder on demand” of our most vulnerable children.
Click to expand...
See, where you and I see a baby, created in the image of God, and deserving of all of the love and protection that is due to a child of the Most High.

Others…see it as a disease that requires prevention and treatment.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
I’ve said more times on this Forum than I care to count that I intend to vote neither for Obama nor for Romney in November. How do you translate that statement into having no issue with voting for Obama??? 🤷
Click to expand...
O.k. I must have missed that! However,I don’t understand not voting at all,what will that accomplish,other than depending on who you would have voted for,giving the other guy an advantage?
 
Rence said:
Yes, when I read Faithful Citizenship, I definitely see a balanced approach to voting 🙂
Click to expand...
  1. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between
    different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and
    intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception
    until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must
    always be opposed.
  2. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable
    position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
    Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to
    advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
    moral evil.
  3. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the
    conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the
    extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation,
    may decide to vote for the candidate
    deemed less likely to advance such
    a morally flawed position and more
    likely to pursue other authentic
    human goods.*
Faithful Citizenship

\What proportionate reasons would allow a Catholic to vote for Obama in spite of his supports of unrestricted taxpayer abortion on demand?
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
See, where you and I see a baby, created in the image of God, and deserving of all of the love and protection that is due to a child of the Most High.

Others…see it as a disease that requires prevention and treatment.
Click to expand...
Yes. And it breaks my heart more than words can portray. 😦
 
Jeanne_S said:
O.k. I must have missed that! However,I don’t understand not voting at all,what will that accomplish,other than depending on who you would have voted for,giving the other guy an advantage?
Click to expand...
It’s the only choice I have. It is clear from posts here that we as American Catholics are required to vote for the GOP candidates and for none other. I reject that and as it seems to be an article of faith on the Forum that one may not vote for a Democrat under any circumstances, the only alternative I have is to pretty much not vote at all (I do vote on the state, county, and municipal level, however.) So, I pass on the presidential candidates. 🤷.
 
estesbob said:
  1. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between
    different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and
    intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception
    until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must
    always be opposed.
  2. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable
    position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
    Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to
    advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
    moral evil.
  3. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the
    conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the
    extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation,
    may decide to vote for the candidate
    deemed less likely to advance such
    a morally flawed position and more
    likely to pursue other authentic
    human goods.*
Faithful Citizenship

\What proportionate reasons would allow a Catholic to vote for Obama in spite of his supports of unrestricted taxpayer abortion on demand?
Click to expand...
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. .
 
estesbob said:
Which is why I am careful to post Church documents or statements from the magestrium rather than my personal interoperation. For instance Evangelium vitae directly addresses those catholics who support “reproductive rights” and claim that a candidates support of it is a positive factor in deciding whether to vote for them:

*It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the “contraceptive mentality”-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church’s teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion arespecifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment “You shall not kill”.

But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are practised under the pressure of real- life difficulties, which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe God’s law fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfilment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception.
Ioannes Paulus PP. II
Evangelium vitae

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
Click to expand...
Thank goodness, because your interpretation of the meaning of these passages from Evangelium vitae is totally wrong. They have nothing to do with reproductive rights.

And even if you are just posting quotes, you are still selecting and filtering in order to make a point - which is a form of personal interpretation and subject to error.

Case in point, I learn more about your view of women from the passages you use to argue against my position, than I do about the Church’s view of reproductive rights. It sounds to me like you want a federal ban on birth control as well as abortion. That’s pretty radical considering not even the Bishops are calling for such a ban. In fact they keep explicitly stating that their fight with the Obama administration is NOT about birth control.

So tell me: How much control do you think men are entitled to have over women? Seems to me like that is the real debate between us. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top