Gabrielle Giffords Endorses Clinton

[Little_Sheep]

When I was younger (21 - mid 30s), I was a one issue (abortion) voter. I’m knocking on 50 these days and that has not been true for me for a while.

Possibly political threads in this forum will always turn into an abortion rights discussion because of the Catholic Church’s official position that it is not okay to vote for a pro-choice candidate. However, it is clear that many individual Catholics do not vote in lock-step with the Church’s dictates here.

 

[estesbob]

When I was younger (21 - mid 30s), I was a one issue (abortion) voter. I’m knocking on 50 these days and that has not been true for me for a while.

Possibly political threads in this forum will always turn into an abortion rights discussion because of the Catholic Church’s official position that it is not okay to vote for a pro-choice candidate. However, it is clear that many individual Catholics do not vote in lock-step with the Church’s dictates here.

I am sure you are still a single issue voter. For instance if a candidate espoused reintroducing Jim Crow Laws I am sure you would not vote for him no matter how well he is on the “other” issues. Refusing to vote for someone who supports abortion does not make one a single issue voter. A candidates opposition to abortion does not mean we HAVE to vote for him-it merely means we can vote for him.

 

[Little_Sheep]

I am sure you are still a single issue voter. For instance if a candidate espoused reintroducing Jim Crow Laws I am sure you would not vote for him no matter how well he is on the “other” issues. Refusing to vote for someone who supports abortion does not make one a single issue voter. A candidates opposition to abortion does not mean we HAVE to vote for him-it merely means we can vote for him.

You make a good point and you are correct - if a candidate espoused a single position that I found outrageously immoral, it probably would overshadow everything else. Of course, in my political lifetime, I don’t think I’ve heard a serious candidate espouse a position that struck me as outrageously immoral until this election!

I certainly don’t begrudge someone voting because of a single issue that they find outrageous. I was just thinking about my own journey with all of that.

 

[estesbob]

You make a good point and you are correct - if a candidate espoused a single position that I found outrageously immoral, it probably would overshadow everything else. Of course, in my political lifetime, I don’t think I’ve heard a serious candidate espouse a position that struck me as outrageously immoral until this election!

I certainly don’t begrudge someone voting because of a single issue that they find outrageous. I was just thinking about my own journey with all of that.

So you don’t consider supporting abortion to be outrageously immoral? What is it in this election that you find more outrageously immoral than abortion?

 

[Little_Sheep]

So you don’t consider supporting abortion to be outrageously immoral? What is it in this election that you find more outrageously immoral than abortion?

I do not consider abortion to be outrageously immoral. I consider abortion to be complex and confusing. I respect many opinions on the subject, but in the end, I believe the person who has the right to make that particular decision is the pregnant woman - not her neighbors and certainly not her “government.”

Donald Trump has said some things that sound outrageously immoral to me. But honestly, I haven’t followed his campaign closely enough to know if he really means them or if he’s just jabbering, you know? I think he likes to shock and he wants to win, so I tend to take most of his soundbites with an enormous grain of salt.

There’s not really any one thing he has said that I have found outrageously immoral enough to convince me to not vote for him outright. The truth of the matter is that I was never going to vote for him regardless of what he may or may not say. I’ve know which candidate I planned to support (barring any new, jarring information that might come to light) in this election for many years.

 

[estesbob]

I do not consider abortion to be outrageously immoral. I consider abortion to be complex and confusing. I respect many opinions on the subject, but in the end, I believe the person who has the right to make that particular decision is the pregnant woman - not her neighbors and certainly not her “government.”

Donald Trump has said some things that sound outrageously immoral to me. But honestly, I haven’t followed his campaign closely enough to know if he really means them or if he’s just jabbering, you know? I think he likes to shock and he wants to win, so I tend to take most of his soundbites with an enormous grain of salt.

There’s not really any one thing he has said that I have found outrageously immoral enough to convince me to not vote for him outright. The truth of the matter is that I was never going to vote for him regardless of what he may or may not say. I’ve know which candidate I planned to support (barring any new, jarring information that might come to light) in this election for many years.

There is nothing complex about it. Our country allows women to pay someone to kill their child. I can think of nothing more morally outrageous than that. I have most certainly have not heard Donald Trump say anything as morally outrageous as this. May God have mercy on this country

 

[meltzerboy]

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.

And you should have the right to legally own and carry a gun. I admit, however, that I have doubts about concealed weapons on college campuses. I know there are some arguments in favor of this but there are also plenty of good reasons to oppose it which make sense to me.

Military assault weapons are another issue. I don’t see how the ordinary citizen should be in possession of these for protection of home and business. Guns for hunting and collecting, fine; but assault weapons, not so fine. Comprehensive background checks and closing the loopholes at gun shows are also reasonable restrictions. Training in the proper use and safe storage of firearms away from children is a no-brainer as well. So is discretion on lending weapons to those people who should not be in possession of them.

As I see it, the main problem regarding those who are opposed to sensible measures of gun control is the near-paranoia that the government is conspiring to eventually take away ALL guns from the public and do away with licensed handguns. I see no evidence of this, yet some earnestly believe it is some kind of leftist plot.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Vatican has codified that we can not enable abortion without falling into a grave state of sin.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

One’s vote is mentioned per above as well.

The word “vote” only appears once in the first reference. And it is here:

Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.

The passage is specifically addressing voting for a law that allows abortion. In that case, abortion is the one and only issue in question. That passage says nothing about voting for a candidate for other reasons, a candidate who just happens to favor such a law, but you are not voting for him for that reason. So no, you have not demonstrated that the Church has codified that one may not vote for a pro-choice candidate.

 

[Path_Finder]

I do not consider abortion to be outrageously immoral. I consider abortion to be complex and confusing.

Substitute “slavery” for “abortion” and see how this sounds.

Let alone, even a lot of pro-lifers don’t buy into the Democratic view that abortion can be done right up to the child being given birth too. How anyone can go along with that in good conscience and in all cases is highly questionable; yet, if one has voted for it, they have got to defend it.

 

[Path_Finder]

The word “vote” only appears once in the first reference. And it is here:

Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.

The passage is specifically addressing voting for a law that allows abortion. In that case, abortion is the one and only issue in question. That passage says nothing about voting for a candidate for other reasons, a candidate who just happens to favor such a law, but you are not voting for him for that reason. So no, you have not demonstrated that the Church has codified that one may not vote for a pro-choice candidate.

If it is really important to vote for individuals that promote the snuffing out of lives, I’m not there. I would think right or wrong is pretty easy to see there.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Remember I told you I was related to Father Frank Pavone? And I am actively involved in Priests for Life? Frank sent me this from Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI:

‘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 (with evil), which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

religionnews.com/2016/02/08/yes-catholics-may-vote-bernie-sanders-commentary/

I don’t see how one can disagree with the man who was pope.

There are many gray areas in Catholic bioethics.

Just curious,what exactly would those proportionate reasons be,that they override absolute endorsement of abortion?Enlighten us,please.

 

[Little_Sheep]

There is nothing complex about it. Our country allows women to pay someone to kill their child. I can think of nothing more morally outrageous than that. I have most certainly have not heard Donald Trump say anything as morally outrageous as this. May God have mercy on this country

I respect, but do not share, your views on the subject.

I do share your prayer for God’s continued mercy on our beautiful country and all countries on this planet.

 

[Brendan]

Substitute “slavery” for “abortion” and see how this sounds.
.

Interesting thought experiment…

"I do not consider slavery to be outrageously immoral. I consider slavery to be complex and confusing. I respect many opinions on the subject, but in the end, I believe the person who has the right to make that particular decision is the plantation owner- not her neighbors and certainly not her “government.”

Doesn’t sound too good…

I wonder how someone would answer that statement.

If one accepts that the concept that of which humans get human rights is not set in stone, then slavery (and abortion) would be morally acceptable.

But believes that ALL humans are entitled to human rights, the statement would be very difficult to support, and abortion along with it

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Just curious,what exactly would those proportionate reasons be,that they override absolute endorsement of abortion?Enlighten us,please.

I did not make the statement. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI did. You know where to find him to ask your question. I do not speak for Benedict XVI. I simply follow what our Holy Fathers have said.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Substitute “slavery” for “abortion” and see how this sounds.

Let alone, even a lot of pro-lifers don’t buy into the Democratic view that abortion can be done right up to the child being given birth too. How anyone can go along with that in good conscience and in all cases is highly questionable; yet, if one has voted for it, they have got to defend it.

I’m not sure that I understand your first sentence, PF. The truth is that my world and my Church have struggled with the morality/immorality of slavery for years. Today, we as a people (and a church) have reached the belief in concert that it is immoral for one human being to own another human being - that it is always immoral. We didn’t always believe that. Some people in some places still don’t believe that.

The world (and its churches) have certainly not reached a belief in concert that abortion is immoral. The fact that there are so very, very, very many views highlight the complexities and confusions of the subject.

I believe the single person who has the right to make a decision regarding abortion is the pregnant woman. I want the pregnant woman to be able to make her decision in consult with her doctor and I want her to have safe, accessible care. I am happy to defend that stance.

I’ve not heard of a situation where a woman and her doctor thought an abortion was necessary right up to the child being born, so I do not know how to speak to that hypothetical.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And the only proportionate reason enunciated by the Church is when a candidates opponent is more pro-abortion that they are, They have specifically excluded a candidates view on the economy, war, the death penalty, immigration, taxation ,etc as being a proportionate reason for voting for a pro-abortion candidate.

That is your interpretation, and you are entitled to it. But others can have other interpretations.

if you can find a single member of the Magestrium or any church document that lists any of the positions Bernie Sanders hold as being proportionate enough to allow a Catholic to vote for him in spite of his support for unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand please do so.

As I pointed out before, the absence of explicit approval does not constitute condemnation.

]Note that “proportionate reasons’] does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions

Bishop Joseph A. Galante

This is Bishop Galante’s opinion. But if that’s what Cardinal Ratzinger meant when he penned those words, why did he not clarify them this way? I would also point out that your interpretation of “proportional reasons” is not even mathematically faithful to the meaning of the word “proportional”. The word “proportional” means exactly what Bishop Galante is saying it does not mean. Your interpretation has nothing to do with proportional. It is better described as an absolute comparison with no proportionality factor taken into account.

"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

I don’t know who you are quoting here, but the definition of “formal cooperation” is mixed up. Formal cooperation is this (according to a EWTN reference):

*Formal cooperation takes place whenever one takes part in the immoral action of another, while at the same time adopting the evil intention of his associate. *

Voting for Kerry would not necessarily constitute adopting the evil intentions of his abortion policies. Sharing the evil intention is a necessary component of formal cooperation. If the evil intention is not there, it is at most remote material cooperation.

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

Archbishop John J. Myers

Again, this is a prudential judgment and not binding doctrine.

What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason? . . . It is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be
Cardinal Burke

Even Cardinal Burke does not come right out and answer the question here. He just says it is difficult to imagine. What is difficult for one person to imagine may be fairly easy for another person to imagine.

 

[Path_Finder]

I respect, but do not share, your views on the subject.

I do share your prayer for God’s continued mercy on our beautiful country and all countries on this planet.

So, is one saying that they are agreeing that a baby can be aborted up to a minute before being born? Really? That is the Democratic Party’s position. They must have a lot of heart.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Just curious,what exactly would those proportionate reasons be,that they override absolute endorsement of abortion?Enlighten us,please.

It is not necessary that the reasons be enough to justify endorsement of abortion, because voting for a pro-choice candidate is not the same as endorsing all of his policies.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

And you should have the right to legally own and carry a gun. I admit, however, that I have doubts about concealed weapons on college campuses. I know there are some arguments in favor of this but there are also plenty of good reasons to oppose it which make sense to me.

Military assault weapons are another issue. I don’t see how the ordinary citizen should be in possession of these for protection of home and business. Guns for hunting and collecting, fine; but assault weapons, not so fine. Comprehensive background checks and closing the loopholes at gun shows are also reasonable restrictions. Training in the proper use and safe storage of firearms away from children is a no-brainer as well. So is discretion on lending weapons to those people who should not be in possession of them.

As I see it, the main problem regarding those who are opposed to sensible measures of gun control is the near-paranoia that the government is conspiring to eventually take away ALL guns from the public and do away with licensed handguns. I see no evidence of this, yet some earnestly believe it is some kind of leftist plot.

I believe hunting rifles are fine. I’m no fan of hunting myself, but I do see the need to “thin the herd” at times, and hunting fulfills that. I don’t consider hunting a sport because in a sport both sides have given consent to play. In hunting only one side has, the hunter. But still, I’m not totally against hunting and don’t want to take anyone’s hunting rifles away.

I also see why some people feel the need for a gun in their home for protection. I do not, but I can understand why other do.

I am for stricter gun control laws, though, but I do stop short of being rabid about them.

 

[Path_Finder]

It is not necessary that the reasons be enough to justify endorsement of abortion, because voting for a pro-choice candidate is not the same as endorsing all of his policies.

Yet, the Catholic Church is against abortion, period and anyone who promotes it, period. One thinks they found a loophole in that statement about “propaganda and vote” but that is merely semantics.