Gabrielle Giffords Endorses Clinton

[Lily_Bernans]

Whether Lily does or does not think Sanders or Clinton will decrease abortions is beside the point. And that point was made by pianistclare, and perhaps you share it too. And that is that binding Catholic doctrine prohibits under pain of mortal sin any Catholic from voting for a pro-choice candidate. This is quite different from arguing to advance one’s one prudential judgement on who we should vote for. The question at hand is whether Catholic teaching takes this voting decision out of the hands of prudential judgement. Projections of what will happen if so-and-so is elected are clearly not a matter of Church teaching. It is a matter over which people of good faith may disagree. Lily may think abortions will decrease under Sanders. You may think otherwise. Both of you are entitled to your opinion. Neither opinion is immoral.

If I knew Sanders was going to sign executive legislation that would cause the number of abortions to increase, then I would definitely be culpable in voting for him. Not as culpable as the abortionist or the hypothetical Sanders, but somewhat culpable. However, I don’t believe he’s going to do that. Heavens, I don’t even think he stands a chance of being president! On the other hand, I have no way of knowing that a Republican candidate won’t sign legislation causing the number of abortions to increase. They might SAY they won’t, but all of us know what politicians - all of them to one degree or another - say and do are different things altogether. So, as LbN said, neither opinion is immoral. I would never knowingly participate in anything that increased the number of abortions or even facilitated one. I would never drive someone to an abortion clinic, for example. That would make me culpable.

It’s one of those very gray areas in Catholic bioethics.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Well, it was not my analogy. I was just pointing out it’s flaw.

It’s not my analogy, either. You would have to contact Smith and Kaczor. I should have given them credit in the first place, but I didn’t have the book handy then as I do now, and I couldn’t remember Kaczor’s name. You can find their addresses in my post above. Do you want the page numbers?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

A more relevant analogy would be a doctor who suspects the painkillers might have a certain probability of killing the patient. Voting for a pro-choice candidate is not “certain” to cause anyone to get an abortion. You can argue probabilities, but not certainties on the consequences of someone being elected.

I think you stated it well Leaf.

 

[Jeanne_S]

If I knew Sanders was going to sign executive legislation that would cause the number of abortions to increase, then I would definitely be culpable in voting for him. Not as culpable as the abortionist or the hypothetical Sanders, but somewhat culpable. However, I don’t believe he’s going to do that. Heavens, I don’t even think he stands a chance of being president! On the other hand, I have no way of knowing that a Republican candidate won’t sign legislation causing the number of abortions to increase. They might SAY they won’t, but all of us know what politicians - all of them to one degree or another - say and do are different things altogether. So, as LbN said, neither opinion is immoral. I would never knowingly participate in anything that increased the number of abortions or even facilitated one. I would never drive someone to an abortion clinic, for example. That would make me culpable.

It’s one of those very gray areas in Catholic bioethics.

Both Hillary and Bernie Sanders have publicly vowed their allegiance to PP and abortion.Doesn’t get any mor clear than that!:

 

[Sy_Noe]

Oh, I’m sorry. I must have misheard because I do recall what you posted now that you mention it. I will try to find out what I misheard!

Edit: I can’t find it now, but here is a list of Clinton endorsements:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016

Hi Lily, 2 former SC governors did endorse Hillary. Jim Hodges who held the office until 2003 and Dick Riley. And US Congressman Clyburn from SC did recently.

Btw allow me to join Good Tidings in thanking you for your contributions to CAF. I too enjoy them and find them most valuable to our discussions. God bless you Lily Bernans!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Hi Lily, 2 former SC governors did endorse Hillary. Jim Hodges who held the office until 2003 and Dick Riley. And US Congressman Clyburn from SC did recently.

Btw allow me to join Good Tidings in thanking you for your contributions to CAF. I too enjoy them and find them most valuable to our discussions. God bless you Lily Bernans!

I must have been thinking of a former governor, Sy. Thank you. I didn’t know there were two, I only heard about the one. Thanks! I did know the current one endorsed a Republican, but I’ll admit, I forgot.

Thank you for your good wishes, Sy, and let me say that I greatly enjoy your posts, too, and I learn a lot from them. I’m glad you’re here on CAF! God bless you and your family, too.

 

[meltzerboy]

How did this thread become a discussion concerning abortion? If anything, it should be about probably the main reason why Gabrielle Giffords has endorsed Hillary Clinton, which is the latter’s strong position on the regulation of guns.

Carry on…

 

[Lily_Bernans]

How did this thread become a discussion concerning abortion? If anything, it should be about probably the main reason why Gabrielle Giffords has endorsed Hillary Clinton, which is the latter’s strong position on the regulation of guns.

Carry on…

I agree, and as I do support stricter gun control, I liked Giffords endorsement, especially since it looks more and more like Clinton will be our first female president.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Gabrielle Giffords has made a rather emotional endorsement for Hillary Clinton. I think it’s a powerful endorsement because it would take a very hard-hearted person not to feel sympathy for Giffords. She fought a very hard battle, and I don’t know that it isn’t still on-going, though her voice sounded strong and fine in the ad. I agree with Giffords that we do have a gun problem in the US and that Clinton isn’t afraid to stand up to gun lobbyists.

And, no surprise, but the governor of South Carolina has also endorsed Clinton.

Whatever one thinks of Clinton, I hope all wish Giffords the best in her continuing fight to regain a normal and productive life. She is an inspiration to many.

I join you in wishing Gabby Giffords all the best. I saw her and her husband, retired navy Captain Mark Kelly on television visiting a Clinton campaign office, I think in Iowa but not sure now which state. She said a few prepared words, reading from a note and at one point Capt Kelly helped her. But I hadn’t realized when she claps, she can’t. When her husband spoke and campaign staff applauded, Congresswoman Giffords had to clap on her leg instead of being able to use both hands. She indeed is an inspiration. May God bless her.

 

[Mark121359]

If I knew Sanders was going to sign executive legislation that would cause the number of abortions to increase, then I would definitely be culpable in voting for him. Not as culpable as the abortionist or the hypothetical Sanders, but somewhat culpable. However, I don’t believe he’s going to do that. Heavens, I don’t even think he stands a chance of being president!

Oh, you don’t think he will allow abortions to increase? I’m not so certain. Read here about his abortion voting record. One thing’s for sure, he certainly doesn’t plan to decrease it, and Hillary has nothing over him when it comes to abortion. There is one thing you say that I do strongly agree with though. It’s the last sentence from your quote above. And thank the Good Lord for that! One last thing. Maybe you should have a look at what the popes have said about socialism. Here is the link.

Peace, Mark

 

[Sy_Noe]

How did this thread become a discussion concerning abortion? If anything, it should be about probably the main reason why Gabrielle Giffords has endorsed Hillary Clinton, which is the latter’s strong position on the regulation of guns.

Carry on…

How? You are kidding right? This thread made it to post #6 by my count. Although I have seen threads make it further on topic before straying off topic and onto the topic of abortion.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

How did this thread become a discussion concerning abortion? If anything, it should be about probably the main reason why Gabrielle Giffords has endorsed Hillary Clinton, which is the latter’s strong position on the regulation of guns.

Carry on…

I’m discovering that here on CAF, how easy it is for discussions to be sidetracked to the abortion issue (or homosexuality). I agree with you totally, Melzerboy, that Gabrielle Giffords’ endorsement should bring the discussion to our obsession with guns and the horrendous repercussions we have had to live with. Have we even gone there with some seriousness?

 

[7_Sorrows]

How did this thread become a discussion concerning abortion? If anything, it should be about probably the main reason why Gabrielle Giffords has endorsed Hillary Clinton, which is the latter’s strong position on the regulation of guns.

Carry on…

I guess because Giffords endorses Clinton and Clinton endorses Planned Parenthood.

 

[I_trust]

We, as Catholics, look primarily to the shepherds that Christ has chosen to lead us (for guidance on moral issues), rather than theologians…

In July, 2004, in a document sent to Cardinal McCarrick (who chaired a committee dealing with Catholic pro-abortion politicians and Communion), Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, provided moral guidance:

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons” (“Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles”).

The proportionate reasons principle is included because the Church has over 2000 years of experience with leaders of countries throughout the world, and knows there have been crimes equal to or greater than the million legal abortions annually in America (Adolf Hitler being only one example).

The principle of course does not apply to our America.

We do not have nor would our legislative, executive and judicial branches of government permit the killing annually of a million citizens through starvation or freezing. Nor do we have candidates advocating an unjust war that would involve a first-strike nuclear attack on millions of innocent persons.

“There are no ‘truly grave moral’ or ‘proportionate’ reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion.” (Archbishop Joseph Naumann)

lifenews.com/2012/10/26/archbishop-catholics-cant-vote-for-pro-abortion-candidates/

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We, as Catholics, look primarily to the shepherds that Christ has chosen to lead us (for guidance on moral issues), rather than theologians…

lifenews.com/2012/10/26/archbishop-catholics-cant-vote-for-pro-abortion-candidates/

The quotes by bishops you quoted do not imply one may not vote for a pro-choice candidate. Part of what you quoted, however was this:

The proportionate reasons principle is included because the Church has over 2000 years of experience with leaders of countries throughout the world, and knows there have been crimes equal to or greater than the million legal abortions annually in America (Adolf Hitler being only one example).

The principle of course does not apply to our America.

We do not have nor would our legislative, executive and judicial branches of government permit the killing annually of a million citizens through starvation or freezing. Nor do we have candidates advocating an unjust war that would involve a first-strike nuclear attack on millions of innocent persons.

Which is not a quote from any bishop, but is the opinion of the author of the article.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I’m discovering that here on CAF, how easy it is for discussions to be sidetracked to the abortion issue (or homosexuality). I agree with you totally, Melzerboy, that Gabrielle Giffords’ endorsement should bring the discussion to our obsession with guns and the horrendous repercussions we have had to live with. Have we even gone there with some seriousness?

Maybe we should all have to look at a graphic video of the damage a gun can do to an innocent person.

I’m glad Gaby Giffords recovered as much as she has. She is very courageous.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Maybe we should all have to look at a graphic video of the damage a gun can do to an innocent person.

I’m glad Gaby Giffords recovered as much as she has. She is very courageous.

I am also happy she has recovered as much as she has. I am sure it has not been easy. I have not seen her ad, but I remember what happened in Tucson that day.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Maybe we should all have to look at a graphic video of the damage a gun can do to an innocent person.

The voice of the wounded and dead? Oh I agree as does GK Chesterton, but we will have to admit all the wounded and dead in America who paid the ultimate price for the rights of this country. And frankly I can’t see any change coming this year when in fact the constitution itself is so highly contested, I really don’t even see the conversation on the table for debate this year. But sure lets talk the violence. Are we talking hand guns or military assault rifles?

 

[jcwit]

Maybe we should all have to look at a graphic video of the damage a gun can do to an innocent person.

I’m glad Gaby Giffords recovered as much as she has. She is very courageous.

How bout taking a look at an unharmed perp that was stopped by a person with a handgun that did not need to be fired, the threat alone was enough to stop him.

I speak from experience, and no I am not a police officer. Just a common citizen with a handgun license.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Becomes rights confused and proposed to be at odds with each other. The first right in this order of priority it the right to protect yourself, family, friends, business, home etc. The fact that someone with a mental heath issue commits a crime doesn’t negate the right to protect yourself in fact it reinforces it as the freedom of the right. Gabrielle had the right to protect herself or not and still does, and so forth, the fact she indeed in this case unfortunately become a victim and a consequence of these rights abused certainly doesn’t negate them properly assimilated to.