Follow up question: What voting issue could possibly outweigh the murder of millions of unborn babies?

[Jimbo]

Are you Catholic?

 

[undead_rat]

She warned that the killing of the unborn was the greatest offense our world was guilty of - thus, the coming chastisement.

I have reviewed the Warning and I do not think that this is correct. What I read was that mankind must repent of its evil, and I take this to mean our creation of nuclear weapons arsenals.
Please provide a reference.

 

[Victoria33]

I have reviewed the Warning and I do not think that this is correct. What I read was that mankind must repent of its evil, and I take this to mean our creation of nuclear weapons arsenals.
Please provide a reference.

So, you believe Russia, India, China, Pakistan, Iran, USA and Israel can be brought to the table of nuclear disarmament. That’s fine if one believes it. I can also consider such to be farfetched.

France has nuclear weapons, perhaps UK does. I’d think so. Nato as an organization certainly does.

 

[undead_rat]

jofa, the solution that I mentioned is unilateral nuclear disarmament which means that our country, the USA, destroys all of its nuclear weapons without regard for what any other country does. While this might seem like a radical solution, it is the only one which we could accomplish. It is within our power, and it would prevent a nuclear war between the USA and Russia.
You say that a nuclear war might never happen, but this catastrophe is predicted by the OT prophets. Another forbidden prediction indicates that this war will take place in the 21st century, first half.

 

[jofa]

First, Obama was ProChoice, and abortion rates have been slowly declining for at least a decade, due to educating people about it and prayer.

Second, Roe v Wade was an unconstitutional decision by politically motivated Supreme Court judges. They wrote that “penumbras “ of the Constitution cover a woman’s “right to choose “!
No, they don’t.

In order for the Supreme Court to overturn this decision, which ONLY effected cases that weren’t due to rape/incest (since they were already legal), they would first need to be presented (and accept) another abortion case.

This will happen eventually, by God’s grace.

Intentionally voting ProChoice when a ProLife candidate is available is a sin. At least for Catholics.

 

[undead_rat]

The USA and Russia are by far the major players in the nuclear weapons game. Allowing Russia to become the sole nuclear superpower might enable that country to force the minor nuclear players to disarm, and it would at least eliminate the possibility of many thousands of nuclear weapons being used in a war.

 

[jofa]

Again, legal abortion is NOT in the Constitution- neither specifically, nor implied.

 

[jofa]

JMMJ,
Since we can’t read minds, it MAY be true, but again, since we can’t read minds, it equally may NOT be true.

 

[Victoria33]

The USA and Russia are by far the major players in the nuclear weapons game. Allowing Russia to become the sole nuclear superpower might enable that country to force the minor nuclear players to disarm, and it would at least eliminate the possibility of many thousands of nuclear weapons being used in a war.

Yes, Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms in the early 1990s. We can see how well losing that deterrence has worked for them.

Though, to be totally honest, cause does not mean effect.

 

[jofa]

The KKK has always been Democrat. The White Supremacists have disparaged Trump now, since they realized he hates them. See, they, too, believed the Leftist “Mainstream Media” that Trump was a racist. Since he called them human garbage after Charlottesville, they realized their mistake.

So, yeah, Democrats.

 

[pnewton]

According to the Catholic Church, I am just as Catholic as anyone else who has been baptised in the Church

But in this case, you are rejecting one of the most important Catholic doctrines. And he did specify.

is is a follow up question to the USCCB vague voting guide for Catholics.

I was shocked at how many responses defended “you have to weigh all the issues”, etc.

As the Church teaches, abortion is Murder. Logically it follows that abortion murders millions of unborn babies.

You gave one answer for him, if you reject the right of the Church to teach doctrine, like abortion is murder. That might be one clue, that not all Catholics believe the Catholic Church’s doctrine, thus rejecting the authority behind the Church to teach doctrine. For if one accepts the authority to teach, one must accept what is taught. I would be no less surprised if one where to say he was an atheist Catholic.

However, I think what was asked for was more how a Catholic reconciles his vote with Catholic teaching. That is more nuanced than simply chopping off pieces of Church teaching.

 

[jofa]

I will try to find references, but in the meantime I know that the the Akita apparitions have been known to refer to abortion in Catholic ProLife movement -perhaps due to testimonies from that convent. Don’t remember, but will try to find out.

 

[pnewton]

Intentionally voting ProChoice when a ProLife candidate is available is a sin. At least for Catholics.

Again, this is not what the Church teaches. You should not go beyond what the Church teaches in this matter. Having an abortion is a sin. Performing an abortion is a sin. Assisting in an abortion is a sin. Voting for someone because you want to promote abortion is a sin. You read the voter’s guide, and I do not doubt you know the Catechism. What you are saying is not something the Catholic Church has taught.

We do not get to go beyond what the Church teaches to call something a sin for other people.

 

[F_Marturana]

If the vote were a referendum to directly vote to either ban or legalize abortion, then how to vote would be obvious.

But in the US it isn’t the case.

Voting for an anti-abortion presidential candidate is not a vote to directly ban abortion.

It is a vote to possibly have a judge appointed to the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn Roe vs Wade. Which already had been challenged and confirmed with planned parenthood vs Casey. A Reagan appointed justice reaffirmed and wrote the majority opinion. And added language that introduced terms like “undue burden.”

The last 4 justices appointed and confirmed by Republicans were Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Every single one of them stated that Roe v Wade was settled law, that the concept of “stare decisis” applied to those decisions.

Am I supposed to believe that all of them lied under oath? And that the court will hear a challenge and reverse Roe.

Assume then a challenge to Roe is taken up by the court. It could be reaffirmed. It could be overturned. If it’s reaffirmed, the Roe will be then reaffirmed for a second time.

If it’s overturned, it goes back to the states. Some states will outlaw it, some will limit it and others will liberalize current laws.

So the question is, if I vote for someone like Trump, how much is my vote ending abortion as opposed to permitting other things?

His rhetoric regarding torture during his campaign for example. The policy of separating children from their parents at the border. The deportation of a disabled Catholic to Iraq where he died. The abandonment of the Kurds, the refunding of Planned Parenthood are all things directly caused by Trump and his policies.

Plus add to that the scandal of being personally attacked as not being prolife enough because I’m a never trumper.

 

[jofa]

Let’s examine just the pure logic of nucleat disarmament by just the USA.

Here’s the scenario:

You are in a dark alley, late at night. You have a gun. You are suddenly surrounded by thugs that want what you have, and also have no regard for human life.

Do you
A. Throw down your gun?
B. Point the gun and tell them to walk away?

They flaw in your logic is that our enemies (Russia, China, Iran, etc.) want what America has. They are the Thugs, as well, with very different views on the worth of human life.

So it would be foolhardy to disarm ourselves and assume we would not be speaking Russianbor Chinese very soon after.

 

[jofa]

If you only listen to mainstream media, which is 96% Left, you probably missed the fact that separating ILLEGAL immigrant children from parents was happening under Obama first.

That being said, if the children were not separated from their parents they would have to be in the jail cell with their parents - who broke the law! - and, obviously, you cannot jail children.
These separated children are taken into custody of Children and Family Services. What exactly would you propose?

 

[F_Marturana]

1. Crossing into the US without proper documentation is a misdemeanor.
2. Refugees and asylum seekers are not to be penalized due to their status at crossing. That is established international law.
3. Asylum seekers are permitted to work pending their hearings.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Maybe because you don’t want to be forced to buy health insurance, possibly because you think Western medicine is a total con job. (This doesn’t describe me, but people do think this.)

Yet those who want to vote for a Democrat are told by Republicans that Church teaching forbids placing any concern above the concern for abortion. When the shoe is on the other foot, Republicans have a chance to show that they too are forbidden from placing any concern above the concern for abortion. That would include such political concerns as not wanting to be forced to buy health insurance. If being forced to buy health insurance is part of a package to also includes incentives of women to carry their pregnancy to term and avoid abortion, how can a Republican justify not supporting it?

 

[jofa]

The abortion issue should obviously be returned to the individual states. The federal government is infringing on states rights and overreaching their authority on this issue. But that’s another discussion.

One can rationalize that voting for a ProLife candidate doesn’t ensure the reduction of abortions, but it is just a rationalization. Because that candidate may have an impact, whereas a ProChoice candidate never has.

And as Church teaching is that abortion is a grave sin, we as Catholics are culpable when we minimize its importance. You may never have an abortion, but your vote can enable its perpetuation.

Here’s an analogy:
If it were legal to line up groups if toddlers and shoot them - millions of them since a 1972 court decision, but one candidate was against it, while the other would fight to keep it “safe and legal”, what other issue would be more important?

 

[Aquinas11]

The last 4 justices appointed and confirmed by Republicans were Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Every single one of them stated that Roe v Wade was settled law, that the concept of “stare decisis” applied to those decisions.

“Settled law” doesn’t mean “I’d never overturn it”

It simply means that the case is entitled to precedential weight under stare decisis, i.e. that any decision to overturn it would have to be based in a Constitutionally grounded argument that outweighs said precedential weight.

Voting for an anti-abortion presidential candidate is not a vote to directly ban abortion.

Strawman. That’s true for any policy involved in any presidential election.

Of course the presidential ballot doesn’t list a policy - it lists a candidate.

Assume then a challenge to Roe is taken up by the court. It could be reaffirmed. It could be overturned. If it’s reaffirmed, the Roe will be then reaffirmed for a second time.

Completely irrelevant to the voting decision of whether Candidate A or Candidate B is more pro life?

So the question is, if I vote for someone like Trump, how much is my vote ending abortion as opposed to permitting other things?

His rhetoric regarding torture during his campaign for example. The policy of separating children from their parents at the border. The deportation of a disabled Catholic to Iraq where he died. The abandonment of the Kurds, the refunding of Planned Parenthood are all things directly caused by Trump and his policies.

Wait, now you’ve contradicted yourself. You already said a vote for a candidate is not a vote to change policy. Now you’re saying it is.