Frustrated over single issue pro-lifers

  • Thread starter Thread starter mrld20
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If a politician is pro-choice I won’t vote for them… But at the same time I won’t vote for a pro-life person who doesn’t support the welfare system, someone who supports lower taxes, war etc…
Lower taxes? Lower taxes give more money for citizens to keep to spend and help the economy and give to charities which help the poor. But we can agree to disagree on this. 🙂
There are plenty of pro-life Democrats out there who support the welfare system, support higher taxes, and are against war…
I wouldn’t say plenty, but luckily there still are some.
One of my college professors when I did dual enrollment classes in high school was Father Robert Drinan. He was militantly anti-war, supported higher taxes, and was a Democrat who served in Congress all while being an active Jesuit priest!
There are plenty of options on voting… But if a Catholic is a Republican and that said Republican supports typical Republican positions outside of being pro-life; I won’t vote for him pro-life or not.
Even pro-life from conception to death? In my definition, pro-life includes pro-family as well, because family “creates” more life.
Just like if a person is pro-choice I probably won’t vote for them even if they are a Democrat who subscribes to most of my views. However, if they are so called “neutral” while being personally pro-life and and offer a comprehensive plan to reduce abortions drastically then I can get behind them and vote for them.
But being pro-choice is generally a dis-qualifier from getting my vote. And if faced with a conservative goose stepping Republican as the alternative… I’ll just stay home…
 
The GOP’s track record on racism is very poor? The Democrats are the party of slavery, Jim Crow, putting the Japanese in internment camps, and segregation. It was the Democrat governors of the South who refused to allow black students into white schools. Can you name one Republican governor that did that? Just one?

Calvin Coolidge–probably the most conservative Republican president of the 20th century (even more than Reagan)–signed some of the most toughest anti-lynching laws of his time. FDR “supported” anti-lynching laws in “principle,” but didn’t push them because he needed the southern Democrat senators to pass his New Deal. In other words, pushing his neo-socialist agenda was more important than equal rights for the blacks.

Given all this, you say the GOP’s record on racism is poor because they don’t support government-sponsored racism?
It’s interesting that the internment of Japanese-American citizens was pushed by both Franklin Delano Roosevelt and liberal icon Earl Warren. The only member of FDR’s administration that took a stand against it and argued that it was unconstitutional was… J. Edgar Hoover.
 
Higher taxes fund welfare services? Preferential option for the poor? Listen don’t be a bunch of robots. With the exception of the pro-life issue don’t let being Catholic dictate your political views! I’m Catholic and I’m a liberal flat out the way it is.

My best friend is Catholic and a hard core Tea Party Constitutionalist… The Church never said support either ideology. The Church lets Catholics choose their political views outside being pro-life.

I’m sure there are other liberal Catholics, Conservative Catholics, libertarian Catholics, Communitarian Catholics, socialist catholics, anarchist catholics… There’s all kinds of Catholics out there… The Church doesn’t and shouldn’t dictate to me what political views I have (with the exception of being pro-life. But I use somethings from the Church to base my views off of.
True about taxes…but most of the money goes to administration purposes rather than the poor unfortunately.

But to be honest, once you get taxes and government size out of the way, I’m pretty liberal economically. Basically I try to follow what the bishops support.
So luckily the Church lets us choose our economic views. 🙂

But communism is condemned by the Church if I’m not mistaken.

Socialism is also (in the Communist sense) unless you mean the Sweden type of socialism. 😛
 
It’s interesting that the internment of Japanese-American citizens was pushed by both Franklin Delano Roosevelt and liberal icon Earl Warren. The only member of FDR’s administration that took a stand against it and argued that it was unconstitutional was… J. Edgar Hoover.
True.

But Catholics back then would vote for Democrats because they had social justice teachings closer in line to what the Church taught. And Democrats supported Catholics in the same sense that Republicans support Christians today. There are many things that could’ve been more in line with Church teaching for Democrats then, just ast there are more things that could be in line with Church teaching today with Republicans.
 
Here’s a couple of interesting quotes from Catholics Vote Catholic (ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm)

Concerning abortion and the death penalty:

“It is not correct to think of abortion and capital punishment as the very same kind of moral issue. On the one hand, direct abortion is an intrinsic evil, and cannot be justified for any purpose or in any circumstances. On the other hand, the Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor may resort to the death penalty if no other means of defense is sufficient. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is “rare, if not virtually nonexistent.” Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a “rare” case arises that warrants the death penalty. Moreover, if such a rare case does arise and requires resorting to capital punishment, this societal act of self-defense would be a morally good action even if it does have the unintended and unavoidable evil effect of the death of the aggressor. Thus, unlike the case of abortion, it would be morally irresponsible to rule out all such “rare” possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately.”

Concerning abortion and giving to the poor:

“Serving the poor is not only admirable, but also obligatory for Catholics as an exercise of solidarity. Solidarity has to do with the sharing of both spiritual and material goods, and with what the Church calls the preferential option for the poor. This preference means that we have the duty to give priority to helping those most needful, both materially and spiritually. Beginning in the family, solidarity extends to every human association, even to the international moral order… First, when it comes to the matter of determining how social and economic policy can best serve the poor, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches proposed, and therefore legitimate disagreement among voters and candidates for office. Secondly, solidarity can never be at the price of embracing a “disqualifying issue.” Besides, when it comes to the unborn, abortion is a most grievous offense against solidarity, for the unborn are surely among society’s most needful. The right to life is a paramount issue because as Pope John Paul II says it is “the first right, on which all the others are based, and which cannot be recuperated once it is lost.” If a candidate for office refuses solidarity with the unborn, he has laid the ground for refusing solidarity with anyone.”

I hope this helps clarify where the Church stands on the level of importance of these social/moral issues.
 
The only member of FDR’s administration that took a stand against it and argued that it was unconstitutional was… J. Edgar Hoover.
J. Edgar Hoover was a reputed…well, I won’t say the word. (So much so that when Clint Eastwood contacted the FBI for his upcoming biopic about the guy, the FBI declined to comment on the matter.) What do people on here call it? SSA? Sounds like he was a textbook case of that. IOW, history hasn’t been the kindest to the guy and I’m skeptical he was the epitome of family values.
 
An additional issue is what kind of organizations my federal taxes support, and the distance between the people deciding where the money should go and where the money winds up.

The current administration has fought to preserve funding for Planned Parenthood. In 2009, President Obama repealed the Bush administration rules against providing funding for overseas organizations that provide abortion. He has required a litmus test for all U.S. delegates to aid and population conferences, that they be pro-abortion.

If I choose where my charity donations go, through the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, I know my money will go to local causes and will not go to support abortions. I know the people in the local St. Vincent de Paul, and they don’t spend lavish salaries on their staff, or waste my donation on expensive retreats and think-tanks. By keeping it focused and local, the money will get where it needs to go, and support the people who need it most.

This view stands in contrast to the people currently participating in the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, who feel that the answer to Government corruptly providing handouts to big corporations is…more government.
 
J. Edgar Hoover was a reputed…well, I won’t say the word. (So much so that when Clint Eastwood contacted the FBI for his upcoming biopic about the guy, the FBI declined to comment on the matter.) What do people on here call it? SSA? Sounds like he was a textbook case of that. IOW, history hasn’t been the kindest to the guy and I’m skeptical he was the epitome of family values.
I didn’t say that, did I? JEH might not have been the nicest man, and he may have been wrong about other issues, but if someone is on the right cause of a particular issue, particularly when liberals were clearly NOT on the right side, such as the illegal imprisonment of American citizens, is it really appropriate to say, “Well, some people think he might have been gay”? :confused:
 
This view stands in contrast to the people currently participating in the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, who feel that the answer to Government corruptly providing handouts to corporation is…more government.
There’s not a monolithic “people currently participating” in OWS, and as such, no leader calling for more government. Some of them do, some of them don’t. Broad generalizations are as inaccurate as they are for the…um, Tea Party - the majority of whom who want government to keep their entitlements (specifically the ‘P-word’ described by Perry.) So, why is it ok for the Tea Party to want “more government” for that entitlement but it’s not ok for OWS to want “more government” when it’s essentially the same thing? 🤷
 
There’s not a monolithic “people currently participating” in OWS, and as such, no leader calling for more government. Some of them do, some of them don’t. Broad generalizations are as inaccurate as they are for the…um, Tea Party - the majority of whom who want government to keep their entitlements (specifically the ‘P-word’ described by Perry.) So, why is it ok for the Tea Party to want “more government” for that entitlement but it’s not ok for OWS to want “more government” when it’s essentially the same thing? 🤷
I’d agree. I saw the local OWS demonstration yesterday and saw posters espousing government repayment of student loans (presumably by people who have discovered that their very expensive BA in Gender Studies will not provide them the ability to support their Starbucks lifestyles), the end of all corporations (presumably by people who are using their iPads to communicate), 9-11 “Truther” conspiracists, atheists who had signs calling for the abolition of religion, anti-Catholics, anti-Zionists who called for the destruction of Israel, along with some actual legitimate concerns. Most of them looked as crazy as moon-bats, to make a broad generalization.

What is the “P-word”? Pensions?
 
I’d agree. I saw the local OWS demonstration yesterday and saw posters espousing government repayment of student loans (presumably by people who have discovered that their very expensive BA in Gender Studies will not provide them the ability to support their Starbucks lifestyles), the end of all corporations (presumably by people who are using their iPads to communicate), 9-11 “Truther” conspiracists, atheists who had signs calling for the abolition of religion, anti-Catholics, anti-Zionists who called for the destruction of Israel, along with some actual legitimate concerns. Most of them looked as crazy as moon-bats, to make a broad generalization.

What is the “P-word”? Pensions?
Ponzi. Won’t spell it out. And, yes, as a matter of fact, I do agree student loans should be eligible for bankruptcy protection. If corporations can write off their debts, why can’t individuals? Someone in debt from law school or medical school is going to contribute more value to our society than the Koch Brothers pallin’ around with the Iranians who would nuke Israel off the map.
 
Ponzi. Won’t spell it out. And, yes, as a matter of fact, I do agree student loans should be eligible for bankruptcy protection. If corporations can write off their debts, why can’t individuals? Someone in debt from law school or medical school is going to contribute more value to our society than the Koch Brothers pallin’ around with the Iranians who would nuke Israel off the map.
Why not spell it out? Most of us know what a ponzi scheme is. If government didn’t dip into pension funds and social security programs to fund big-government schemes of social re-engineering (including funding pro-abortion programs), while punting the bill to next generation, this wouldn’t have been a problem,

I doubt many people with law school or medical school student loans will be unable to pay their debts.

The student who majored in Social Grievances, probably so. And I doubt they will be able to use their degree to make our lives better. Should you be able to write off a stupid debt?
 
I haven’t read this whole thread but the title itself struck a chord for me.

I too get frustrated with people who are correctly against abortion, but then do everything they can politically to avoid taxes which would help the poor or single mothers. Either you are pro-life, which includes caring about humans after they are born, or you are not.

It’s simple and yet of all the things I find annoying, this is probably near the top. It’s illogical and morally wrong to expect people to have children that as a society we vote to allow to starve, lack medical care or live without education or any dignity.

And it’s against Church teaching to turn your back on the poor. I love Catholic theology but I think many Catholics who strongly adhere to pro-life seem to miss pro aftercare of those born babies.
 
When it comes to reducing poverty, I wish the nation had paid more attention to William Galston, who worked in the Bill Clinton administration. He said this:

“You need only do three things in this country to avoid poverty: finish high school, marry before having a child, and marry after the age of 20. Only eight percent of the families who do this are poor; 79 percent of those who fail to do this are poor.”

Federal and State policies which encourage those three things help to reduce poverty. Federal and State policies which enable opposite behaviors help to increase poverty.
 
I haven’t read this whole thread but the title itself struck a chord for me.

I too get frustrated with people who are correctly against abortion, but then do everything they can politically to avoid taxes which would help the poor or single mothers. Either you are pro-life, which includes caring about humans after they are born, or you are not.
Here, here -! :clapping:

There is a difference between “anti-abortion” and truly pro-life.
 
Here, here -! :clapping:

There is a difference between “anti-abortion” and truly pro-life.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees this. 😛

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and God bless you. 🙂
 
I haven’t read this whole thread but the title itself struck a chord for me.

I too get frustrated with people who are correctly against abortion, but then do everything they can politically to avoid taxes which would help the poor or single mothers. Either you are pro-life, which includes caring about humans after they are born, or you are not.

It’s simple and yet of all the things I find annoying, this is probably near the top. It’s illogical and morally wrong to expect people to have children that as a society we vote to allow to starve, lack medical care or live without education or any dignity.

And it’s against Church teaching to turn your back on the poor. I love Catholic theology but I think many Catholics who strongly adhere to pro-life seem to miss pro aftercare of those born babies.
A Catholic can not fullfill their obligation to help the poor merely by voting for someone who promises to take other peoples money and use it to care for the poor. The Church has not position on the proper level of taxation or the proper programs(liberal or conservative) to help the poor and needy. The idea that I should pay higher taxes to fund the Left wing view on how to best help the is not only specious but violates the Church teaching on subsidiarity.
 
A Catholic can not fullfill their obligation to help the poor merely by voting for someone who promises to take other peoples money and use it to care for the poor. The Church has not position on the proper level of taxation or the proper programs(liberal or conservative) to help the poor and needy. The idea that I should pay higher taxes to fund the Left wing view on how to best help the is not only specious but violates the Church teaching on subsidiarity.
I disagree but I respect your right to your opinion.

Actually the Church says that the resources given to a community of people in the land belong to the people of the land, not a specific few. Some people might be politically, capitalistically or intellectually capable of taking more than their fair share of resources through immoral legal loopholes, however this does not make it right. I’m referring here to the working poor whose wages are unjust and still live in poverty.

If most people received just wages according to the CCC, they would not be poor. Even the disabled or single mothers in such a world would have relatives that had incomes that would allow them to be taken care of privately. We do not live in such a world and unregulated capitalism frankly does not inspire such a situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top