Harry Reid: We’ll shut down government before we shut down Planned Parenthood funding

[Farsight001]

But, Catholic voters have an obligation to not vote for pro-a bortion rights politicians like Harry Reid.

This is not strictly true. Catholic voters have an obligation to vote along the lines of saving lives. If you believed, for example, that McCain would have been integral in starting WW3, resulting in the use of nukes and the loss a million lives in a matter of hours instead of over the course of a year, it would instead be your obligation to have voted democrat. Whatever you think will save more lives.

The Church teaching is not that we must vote pro-life, but rather that we must not vote pro-choice, meaning that we can vote for a pro-choice candidate, but certainly not because they’re pro choice.

As for the subject at hand - I agree with an earlier poster when they said that it’s obviously not about doing what they think is best for the people anymore, but rather about protecting their own interests.

 

[estesbob]

This is not strictly true. Catholic voters have an obligation to vote along the lines of saving lives. If you believed, for example, that McCain would have been integral in starting WW3, resulting in the use of nukes and the loss a million lives in a matter of hours instead of over the course of a year, it would instead be your obligation to have voted democrat. Whatever you think will save more lives.

Simply not true.

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope Benedict XVI

The Church teaching is not that we must vote pro-life, but rather that we must not vote pro-choice, meaning that we can vote for a pro-choice candidate, but certainly not because they’re pro choice.

Again incorrect. You can not support a pro-abortion canidate unless their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. Thus a Catholic could have vote for Jogn Mccain who supported abortion in caes of rape and incest but not Barrack Obama who support unretricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand.

As for the subject at hand - I agree with an earlier poster when they said that it’s obviously not about doing what they think is best for the people anymore, but rather about protecting their own interests.

One Party is trying to stop funing of Planned Parenthood. One party says they will shut the Govt down rather than let this happen. For a Catholic the Choice is crystal clear.

 

[Farsight001]

Simply not true.

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope Benedict XVI

I’m very certain that that does not say what you want it to say. It speaks of the ability to receive communion depending on who was voted for. It does not speak on the permissibility of one to vote for someone. I cannot believe that the Church would ever teach that one must vote for the candidate that will start WW3 and kill billions, over the candidate that is pro choice. In such a situation, that is blatantly contrary to the Church’s goal of preserving life.

Saying that one must vote for the pro-life candidate in every single case, no matter what other policies they hold or how many times they have outright said they plan to glass the middle east the first day in office is little less a self-serving position than Harry Reid’s. (though his is of course far more morally destitute) I’m all for saving the unborn. But at the expense of, say, 5 times as many lives? That’s not a fair trade.

 

[estesbob]

I’m very certain that that does not say what you want it to say. It speaks of the ability to receive communion depending on who was voted for. It does not speak on the permissibility of one to vote for someone. I cannot believe that the Church would ever teach that one must vote for the candidate that will start WW3 and kill billions, over the candidate that is pro choice. In such a situation, that is blatantly contrary to the Church’s goal of preserving life.

Saying that one must vote for the pro-life candidate in every single case, no matter what other policies they hold or how many times they have outright said they plan to glass the middle east the first day in office is little less a self-serving position than Harry Reid’s. (though his is of course far more morally destitute) I’m all for saving the unborn. But at the expense of, say, 5 times as many lives? That’s not a fair trade.

The Church does not say you MUST vote for a pro-life canidate. It says you CAN NOT vote for a pro-abortion canidate if his opponent is more pro-life than they are. I have never come anywhere close to a situation where is was the choice between a pro-life canidate who was going to kill billions and a pro-abortion canidate who was “only” going to support the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year… The problem we have is way to many catholics set up these absurd scenarios as an excuse to vote for a pro-abortion canidate. On his third day in office Obama released funds to overseas abortion providers (funds Bush had frozen) thus assuring his policies would result in far more deaths than anything George Bush did in his 8 years in office

 

[Farsight001]

The Church does not say you MUST vote for a pro-life canidate. It says you CAN NOT vote for a pro-abortion canidate if his opponent is more pro-life than they are.

I would love to see this clarified in official teachings. If that is, in fact, their wording, then it means we are required by Church teaching to vote for a genocidal maniac just because he’s pro life. It would have meant having to vote for Hitler, were someone like Obama is opponent. (I know nothing of who Hitler was up against or how he came to power. It’s just an example) I have always understood that the Catholic must vote whichever way they think will preserve/save the most lives, flat out. The vast majority of the time, this does mean voting pro-life. But not always.

I have never come anywhere close to a situation where is was the choice between a pro-life canidate who was going to kill billions and a pro-abortion canidate who was “only” going to support the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year.

Many people believe McCain was just such a candidate, especially after Bush.

The problem we have is way to many catholics set up these absurd scenarios as an excuse to vote for a pro-abortion canidate.

I would rather posit that some of these scenarios are quite a bit less absurd than you might think. With organizations like Al’queda wanting nothing more than to get a hold of a nuke and send it our way, the threat of nuclear war and retaliation and killing of innocents with nukes in response is considered a very real possibility by some.

On his third day in office Obama released funds to overseas abortion providers (funds Bush had frozen) thus assuring his policies would result in far more deaths than anything George Bush did in his 8 years in office

And McCain may have “pushed the button”, so to speak, on his third day in office. We simply can’t know. But if you thought he certainly would, would you still vote for him? I would feel morally obligated to vote against him to save lives if that is what I thought.

 

[ishii]

I’m very certain that that does not say what you want it to say. It speaks of the ability to receive communion depending on who was voted for. It does not speak on the permissibility of one to vote for someone. I cannot believe that the Church would ever teach that one must vote for the candidate that will start WW3 and kill billions, over the candidate that is pro choice. In such a situation, that is blatantly contrary to the Church’s goal of preserving life.

Saying that one must vote for the pro-life candidate in every single case, no matter what other policies they hold or how many times they have outright said they plan to glass the middle east the first day in office is little less a self-serving position than Harry Reid’s. (though his is of course far more morally destitute) I’m all for saving the unborn. But at the expense of, say, 5 times as many lives? That’s not a fair trade.

I give up, when has the choice been between a pro-abortion rights Democrat and a candidate who is against abortion rights but also wants to glass the middle east?

Ishii

 

[Farsight001]

I give up, when has the choice been between a pro-abortion rights Democrat and a candidate who is against abortion rights but also wants to glass the middle east?

Ishii

See post #67

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well, Harry Reid opposes abortion and in fact has voted in favor of pro-life legislation.

NARAL gives him a 29% approval rating.

That being said, I was concerned to see the headline that Lifesitenews used against him, so I tried searching to find out if Harry Reid and the 19 democrats really stated this.

Couldn’t find anything.

Instead, what I found is that he and other democrats, oppose the GOP version of spending cuts which defunds health-clinics across the spectrum.

So, these may be Planned Parenthood clinics, but it also includes those which are not.

Now, not knowing all the details, but it seems kinda anti-life to defund health clinics across the board, which many poor people rely on, to save their lives.

Anyway, as thing go in congressional fights, a senator may oppose the language of the legislation on a specific issue, such as defuning of all health-clinics, but he may support defunding some, like Planned Parenthood.

Also, funds that go to any health-clinic, including Planned Parenthood, can not be used for abortions.

That doesn’t make me feel good about funding Planned Parenthood at all, for I don’t trust them, but its part of the political football elected leaders like Reid have to contend with to get anything passed.

Jim

 

[ishii]

I give up, when has the choice been between a pro-abortion rights Democrat and a candidate who is against abortion rights but also wants to glass the middle east?

Ishii

Your post is utterly unconvincing. What it sounds like you’re doing is saying that in order to justify voting for the abortion rights candidate, you are going to smear the pro-life candidate and make him/her into some kind of Hitler/monster for which there is no credible evidence. The lengths people will go to, the contortions, mental gymnastics, sophistry, and hurdles they will jump in order to “feel good” about voting for pro-abortion candidates boggles my mind.

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

I would love to see this clarified in official teachings. If that is, in fact, their wording, then it means we are required by Church teaching to vote for a genocidal maniac just because he’s pro life. It would have meant having to vote for Hitler, were someone like Obama is opponent. (I know nothing of who Hitler was up against or how he came to power. It’s just an example) I have always understood that the Catholic must vote whichever way they think will preserve/save the most lives, flat out. The vast majority of the time, this does mean voting pro-life. But not always.

Many people believe McCain was just such a candidate, especially after Bush.

I would rather posit that some of these scenarios are quite a bit less absurd than you might think. With organizations like Al’queda wanting nothing more than to get a hold of a nuke and send it our way, the threat of nuclear war and retaliation and killing of innocents with nukes in response is considered a very real possibility by some.

And McCain may have “pushed the button”, so to speak, on his third day in office. We simply can’t know. But if you thought he certainly would, would you still vote for him? I would feel morally obligated to vote against him to save lives if that is what I thought.

I know you are going to rationalize your vote regardless of what i or anyone else says. I posted a quote form the Pope-you responed with some nonsense about Mccain staring a nuclear war on his third day in office. People have rationalized their support of evil since Cain slew Abel. Nothing new here.

 

[sidbrown]

Catholic voters have an obligation to vote along the lines of saving lives.

But is that possible in the USA? The USA politicians have shown that they will go to war on the slightest pretext. And atrocities against innocent people will happen in those wars as it has been shown that they do occur. How many people were killed under the Bush administration? And Obama already has started two wars, Afghanistan and Libya. the Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, and this has been ignored.

 

[Farsight001]

I know you are going to rationalize your vote regardless of what i or anyone else says. I posted a quote form the Pope-you responed with some nonsense about Mccain staring a nuclear war on his third day in office. People have rationalized their support of evil since Cain slew Abel. Nothing new here.

You posted a quote from the pope, yes. But it was wholly, entirely, and utterly irrelevant, having nothing whatsoever to do with voting. Now if you would please stop calling into question my line of thinking or simply labeling it nonsense and actually respond to it, I would be appreciative. Accusing me of evil thinking is unhelpful, especially since from my perspective, you seem to be saying you would rather have a nuclear holocaust than legal abortion.

 

[SwizzleStick]

You posted a quote from the pope, yes. But it was wholly, entirely, and utterly irrelevant, having nothing whatsoever to do with voting. Now if you would please stop calling into question my line of thinking or simply labeling it nonsense and actually respond to it, I would be appreciative. Accusing me of evil thinking is unhelpful, especially since from my perspective, you seem to be saying you would rather have a nuclear holocaust than legal abortion.

Legal abortion is a real holocaust, whereas the scenario you posted was theoretical.

 

[DawnInTexas]

I would love to see this clarified in official teachings. If that is, in fact, their wording, then it means we are required by Church teaching to vote for a genocidal maniac just because he’s pro life. It would have meant having to vote for Hitler, were someone like Obama is opponent. (I know nothing of who Hitler was up against or how he came to power. It’s just an example) I have always understood that the Catholic must vote whichever way they think will preserve/save the most lives, flat out. The vast majority of the time, this does mean voting pro-life. But not always…

Our Bishops (Shepherds) were very clear in the last several elections.

Very clear.

Here’s a link-right here at Catholic Answers for you to peruse:
catholic.com/support/voters_guide.asp

Priests for Life:
priestsforlife.org/vote/votingwithclearconscience.htm

EWTN:
ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

If you don’t have life-the rest doesn’t matter, now does it?

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

 

[estesbob]

You posted a quote from the pope, yes. But it was wholly, entirely, and utterly irrelevant, having nothing whatsoever to do with voting. Now if you would please stop calling into question my line of thinking or simply labeling it nonsense and actually respond to it, I would be appreciative. Accusing me of evil thinking is unhelpful, especially since from my perspective, you seem to be saying you would rather have a nuclear holocaust than legal abortion.

I am sure what the Pope says is irelevant to those who jusitifes their support of abortion under the guise that pro-life people want to blow up the world. there really is no reasoning with such an attitute

 

[Erich]

I know the standard response is they have moved beyond her Racist views but figures dont lie. African Amercians make up 12% of the population but 40% of abortions.

PP can hardly be said to have “moved beyond” Margaret Sanger’s views when their highest honor (their designation, not mine) is the Margaret Sanger Award.

If you ever have a chance to see “Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America” do it! This is one documentary that should get wide circulation, especially in the black community.

From Abortion and Race:
According to the most recent census data available for race (2000), black women make up 12.3% of the female population in America2, but accounted for 36.4% of all U.S. abortions in 20063 – that according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The Guttmacher Institute (AGI) puts the percentage of black abortions at 30% of the U.S. total4. Their most recent numbers are from 2008. Similarly, AGI tells us that Hispanic women5 accounted for 25% of all U.S. abortions in 20086, though they made up just 12.5% of the female population in 20007. The CDC lists the percentage of Hispanic abortions in 2006 at 20.1%8. Compare those numbers to non-Hispanic, white women, who make up 69% of America’s female population9, but account for only 36% of all U.S. abortions10 (36.1% according to the CDC11).
…
The Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest African-American pro-life group in the country has produced a chart which shows that from 1973-2001, abortion has claimed more than two and a half times as many African-American lives as the next five leading causes combined. In 2005, a total of 292,808 blacks died in the U.S. That same year, almost twice as many blacks (roughly 447,700) were killed by abortion. In 2004, the black population in the U.S. stood at 36 million. Between 1973 and 2004, roughly 15 million blacks were aborted, which means that, as of 2004, nearly 30% of the black population has been lost to abortion! And that doesn’t even factor in all the children that would have been born to those aborted a generation ago. Population estimates show that blacks will soon lose their status as the nation’s largest minority group. To put it bluntly, abortion has thinned the black community in ways the Ku Klux Klan could have only dreamed of.

 

[estesbob]

Our Bishops (Shepherds) were very clear in the last several elections.

Very clear.

Here’s a link-right here at Catholic Answers for you to peruse:
catholic.com/support/voters_guide.asp

Priests for Life:
priestsforlife.org/vote/votingwithclearconscience.htm

EWTN:
ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

If you don’t have life-the rest doesn’t matter, now does it?

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

You are aware that Mother Angelica wants to start a nuclear war and thus anything EWTN says can not be trusted?

 

[Farsight001]

Legal abortion is a real holocaust, whereas the scenario you posted was theoretical.

As I explained in a previous post, many believe it to be quite a bit less than theoretical, but rather, inevitable if the wrong person is in charge.

 

[Farsight001]

I am sure what the Pope says is irelevant to one who jusitifes his support of abortion under the guise that pro-life people want to blow up the world. there really is no reasoning with such an attitute

I demand that you retract this statement and apologize immediately. This was EXTREMELY offensive. I literally almost blacked out with rage at reading this. If I had, I would not have a computer to type this right now. I do not support abortion. I never have. I never said I did. I never implied it. Take it back. RIGHT NOW. Or consider yourself on ignore and reported.

 

[Farsight001]

Our Bishops (Shepherds) were very clear in the last several elections.

Very clear.

Here’s a link-right here at Catholic Answers for you to peruse:
catholic.com/support/voters_guide.asp

Priests for Life:
priestsforlife.org/vote/votingwithclearconscience.htm

EWTN:
ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

If you don’t have life-the rest doesn’t matter, now does it?

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

Thank you for the links, Dawn. I’m here taking a bit of a break from studying for the GRE, which I have to get back to soon, so I can’t read the lengthy links at the moment, but I guarantee that I will.