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

  • Thread starter Thread starter jofa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
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?
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, I wrote in a candidate for President last election and the election before that. (I think I may have voted for John McCain, in spite of his hare-brained choice as a running mate.)

When I register to vote, it has to do with which local primary I think my vote would make the biggest difference in. My state does not have open primaries, and frankly by the time the Presidential primary gets here, it is pretty much a done deal. Generally speaking, I think the GOP is too invested in protecting materialism and exclusion of migrants and the Democratic party is too invested in promoting license and the erosion of moral understanding to call myself a supporter of either.

Usually, when I talk to Republicans, they end up assuming I am a Democrat and when I talk to Democrats, they end up assuming I am a Republican. Why? My sense is that it is because I am willing to criticize their party. I do feel that while they may have each tried to further different virtues in the past, they both seem to each advocate for different sets of vices now, with a few bones and diversions thrown to the Christian voters. People seem to like to pretend that their political party is above criticism and so they assume that anyone who criticizes their party’s platform must belong to the other party.

There is nothing in Christianity that implies that advocating for virtue will put you into political power, so…
 
Last edited:
BTW, you did answer my question - I now see it was someone else that didn’t :+1:t3:

Well, agree to disagree. I believe that “when good men do nothing” they are in reality taking a negative action:
  1. Abortion kills God’s children
  2. Therefore not fighting it in every possible way is our duty as Catholics
  3. Therefore, in my opinion, if a prolife candidate is available, Catholics should cast their vote that way
My opinion
 
jofa said:
And don’t pretend those aren’t Dems doing it when they only attack MAGAs and ProLifers…
Click to expand...
In Oregon, the violent ones tend to think the GOP and the Democrats are Coke and Pepsi, frankly.
 
BTW, I respect that you are critical of both parties, and I apologize and ask your forgiveness if/when I offended you.
Peace!
 
PetraG said:
I am not saying that abortion is a morally neutral personal choice any more than you are saying that overconsumption of the kind that brings on or exacerbates incapacitation and deadly chronic diseases is a morally neutral choice
Click to expand...
I understand where you’re going with that argument, but with abortion I’m killing another. With heart disease, I’m hurting myself. Huge difference. Plus, as you know many heart patients have it from genetics, - there is no moral agency even in hurting themself. Yes you’re right that some have it from lifestyle, but I just think its not a good comparison because much of it is simply natural cause unrelated to lifestyle. But I do see what you mean more now
PetraG said:
I am only saying that whether you want to save lives that would be lost to suicide or abortion or yes, even murder, just passing laws is insufficient to do it
Click to expand...
But isn’t it true that passing laws will never eliminate all of anything? So the “people will still do it” argument seems like a red herring.

Also,
(1) practicality of a ban is different issue than
(2) the choice of candidate A v. candidate B based on whether they support a ban.
PetraG said:
You have to think about why people are tempted to believe the lies that make them think any of this is OK.
Click to expand...
but if that’s true, then we shouldn’t make rape illegal until we encourage the rapists why raping women is bad, or we shouldn’t make murder illegal until we encourage the murderers why murdering someone is bad. I don’t think you’d believe that.
PetraG said:
I don’t know if you caught the post where I posted this, but I’ll say it again: Worldwide, the rate of abortions may respresent as many as twice the losses of the Black Death every year. The problem is even worse in developing countries than it is here. The numbers are staggering.
Click to expand...
Yes I see that and 100% agree, I think all those points were great, which is why I found the other points a bit baffling
 
Last edited:
jofa said:
BTW, I respect that you are critical of both parties, and I apologize and ask your forgiveness if/when I offended you.
Peace!
Click to expand...
No worries. There has never been a time when discussing politics didn’t require a thick skin. People are very serious about it and it has very serious ramifications, so that shouldn’t be too surprising, I guess.
 
Maximus -
  1. Trump has defunded Title X programs for Planned Parenthood.
  2. Trump has nominated/appointed Supreme Court justices and judges to lesser courts as well, which I expect will help on the abortion problem.
 
Let me clarify: I do not think abortion ought to be legal. Like rape, though, I think that reducing its occurence also requires improving the way we form consciences. It involves helping people avoid feeling “trapped” into that temptation, as well. People become terrorists and criminals very often because they don’t have a lot of good options in life. Sometimes, they have no one to give them what they ought to get from a parent or they don’t see a future for themselves. That isn’t an excuse, but it is a reason, and the fewer reasons people have to believe the lies of the tempter, the better.

Besides, if the reason that people steal is that they fear going without food to eat, do they bear their guilt alone? I don’t think so, not if those that charity required to help them find food were also failing.

In other words, yes, we have to protect the innocent. We also have to concern ourselves with how those who commit mortal sins are going to find their way to Heaven. Our Lord died for them, Our Lord thirsts for them, and we need to have that same thirst for their reclamation.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Let me clarify: I do not think abortion ought to be legal. Like rape, though, I think that reducing its occurence requires improving the way we form consciences. People become terrorists and criminals very often because they don’t have a lot of good options in life. Sometimes, they have no one to give them what they ought to get from a parent or they don’t see a future for themselves. That isn’t an excuse, but it is a reason, and the fewer reasons people have to believe the lies of the tempter, the better.
Click to expand...
Well my mistake I thought you opposed a ban. I agree with what you’re saying, that we can’t only ban it, we have to look at causes and conditions and do all we can to reduce its instance. Absolutely.
PetraG said:
Besides, if the reason that people steal is that they fear going without food to eat, do they bear their guilt alone? I don’t think so, not if those that charity required to help them find food were also failing.
Click to expand...
Well Aquinas did say in the Summa that if someone has no food to eat, then all property becomes common property and thus them taking another’s food isn’t theft.
 
Last edited:
Ender stated:
“I know I’ve already mentioned this, but it is literally not possible to overturn a right found in the Constitution.“

In case he/she was referring to abortion,
The right to abortion is not found in the Constitution. Nor is it implied.
 
Emeraldlady -
Really, just a yes or no would suffice. Any political platform can doublespeak.

In your opinion, is it a Socialist, or pro-socialism party?
 
jofa said:
Emeraldlady -
Really, just a yes or no would suffice. Any political platform can doublespeak.

In your opinion, is it a Socialist, or pro-socialism party?
Click to expand...
No of course not. It’s a social justice party that perfectly aligns with Catholic teaching.
 
Voting is often driven by ego - our demand that political goals be accomplished solely via our preferred method. It is also driven by devotion, or lack of devotion to the teaching of the Church. Devotion comes at a cost, and we are often unwilling to pay the cost.

We live in an age rife with disobedience to the Church. We live in an oppressively secular culture. We live in an age of fantasy often being allowed to determine reality. It can be illogical and even irrational.

Care for the poor? Good - but only if done according with my preferences. Abortion? Well, look at how this pregnancy will impose a burden upon the mother and her other children. Some good always comes from scientific endeavor, so cloning will help alleviate many diseases. Thousands of embryos have been created to “take one for the team” so to speak. This continues with all major teachings of the Church, for the sake of party allegiance or personal preferences.

God’s personal preference is that we are obedient.

notice the exact same thought processes used among disobedient Catholics as used by atheists. They are looking, sometimes with a magnifying glass, to find cause for disbelief or dissent. Of course, potential reasons are always found, as the ego which has been placed in charge will be satisfied.

We are a culture wealthy with activism while suffering from a poverty of obedience.
 
Aquinas11 said:
Well Aquinas did say in the Summa that if someone has no food to eat, then all property becomes common property and thus them taking another’s food isn’t theft.
Click to expand...
One of the best homilies on abortion I ever heard basically said, “If you’re considering an abortion, this is why you shouldn’t have one. If you aren’t, though–and let’s be honest, most of us probably are not, at the moment, anyway–ask yourself this: what are you doing that is either making that decision to keep a baby in a difficult situation easier or harder? Does someone listen to the way you talk about un-wed mothers and think, 'I could tell him, I could count on help from her”? And so on.

That is why it is so good that the pro-life movement doesn’t only involve legal efforts to reduce access but also efforts like Birthright that help women in difficult circumstances through their pregnancies and through the difficulties of having small children.

Yes, there has to be both. I think both parties need serious pressure to add what they don’t have. It is not good enough to be the “lesser of two evils,” so to speak. It is necessary to get better. Catholics in the Democratic Party–where is the pressure to see abortion as violence against the vulnerable? Catholics in the Republican Party–where is the pressure to see women considering abortion as so often people in difficult situations? Why are we content to choose one as “the least bad” and not own the fact that we’re a big fraction of both parties? We have clout. Why aren’t we using it? Why are we letting Nancy Pelosi define what it means to be Catholic and a Democrat? Why are Republicans not having their feet to the fire about the poor? If we’re committed to one party or the other, we ought to do that.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Catholics in the Republican Party–where is the pressure to see women considering abortion as so often people in difficult situations? Why are we content to choose one as “the least bad” and not own the fact that we’re a big fraction of both parties? We have clout. Why aren’t we using it? Why are we letting Nancy Pelosi define what it means to be Catholic and a Democrat? Why are Republicans not having their feet to the fire about the poor? If we’re committed to one party or the other, we ought to do that.
Click to expand...
As Catholics, we might start by finally acknowledging that neither party does much of anything for the truly poor, and hasn’t for a long time. The last thing of any consequence was the Earned Income Credit and that was Reagan’s. As Saul Alinsky put it, there aren’t enough truly poor people in the U.S. to affect politics. So both parties court the middle classes where the big numbers are.

So, given that it’s an even slate when it comes to the poor, we need to realize that’s not even a factor in political decisionmaking. All there is to compete with abortion is middle class welfare and welfare for the wealthy. There’s not much difference in the parties in those respects except that the Dems tend to give more middle class welfare than the Repubs, or at least they promise it. Delivering is another thing.

But when it comes to abortion, no issue is more important and there’s no question that most Repub politicians are prolife while most Dems are pro-abortion.
 
Ridgerunner said:
As Saul Alinsky put it, there aren’t enough truly poor people in the U.S. to affect politics.
Click to expand...
How many people work jobs and yet don’t have a place to live? How many children? Why should there be any people working every day who can’t afford to eat and give themselves shelter, in a nation as wealthy as ours? What is our excuse, exactly? How can it be that we can’t figure out how to do that?

What are we actually doing to give addicts a viable way to get out of addiction? Why is this not a priority? Our suicide rate is climbing. This is severe poverty, when someone thinks their life is not worth living!

“The greatest disease in the West today is not TB or leprosy; it is being unwanted, unloved, and uncared for. We can cure physical diseases with medicine, but the only cure for loneliness, despair, and hopelessness is love. There are many in the world who are dying for a piece of bread but there are many more dying for a little love. The poverty in the West is a different kind of poverty – it is not only a poverty of loneliness but also of spirituality. There’s a hunger for love, as there is a hunger for God.”
Mother Teresa

This profound and pervasive spiritual poverty, by the way, is one of the reasons that mothers who love their children would abort them: that is, the mothers want to “spare” not just themselves but their children a “bad life.” They really believe that life as a poor person, that the kind of life the parents can offer their unborn child, is a life that really isn’t worth living. People actually think like that! People actually commit suicide because they lose their wealth or their status, too! People also say things like, “if you want to have children, you take of them. It is all on you” or “who would bring a child into a world like this?”

That spiritual despair is among the sources of the abortion mentality, it really is.
 
Last edited:
jofa said:
Being forced to buy health insurance is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Click to expand...
That has yet to be determined by the courts. And it is irrelevant in a discussion of morals.
Assuming that would help women who don’t want their baby is flawed. It helps no one, because the government screws up almost everything it sticks its paws in.
Click to expand...
Does that include sticking its paws into the abortion question? I don’t think so. If it is OK for the government to address abortion by making it a crime is also OK for government to address abortion by other means too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top