Have I committed a mortal sin? On pro-abortion politicians

[jrgiancola]

Abortion is not the most important issue facing this country. Period. Unemployment (with families losing their homes and the ability to put food on their tables), lack of health care (Obamacare has not yet fully kicked in and millions still cannot get health care), the attacks on Medicare and Social Security (vital and essential to the lives of our seniors), the “slumming” of America (the crumbling bridges, roads, buildings, electrical grid, that is, our crumbling infrastructure) and violent crime are far more important issues. Theological issues are not on the top-ten list; America is a constitutional republic, not a theocratic state like Iran. Abortion may be the number one religious issue, but it is not the number one issue of a secular state. If America does not find a way to fix the secular problems, there will be no country in which to oppose abortion. Our very existence as a nation is at stake here. If the only problem you can see is abortion, then you need to become a citizen of Vatican City and leave the United States.

 

[jrgiancola]

I cannot see any reason why anyone, except a wealthy person, would vote Republican for anything. They stand for huge tax breaks to the rich, same for corporations (GE earned 14 billion in profit and paid not one cent of tax), lower wages for the working class, they care nothing about millions of people unable to receive health care when they are ill, they care nothing about the millions who are losing their homes, they want total non-regulation of Wall Street and the banks (which created this meltdown in the first place), codifying their moral code into law (which Jesus never advocated “Render unto caesar that which is caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s”; when Jesus stood before Pilate I don’t recall he issued a stunning denunciation of Roman injustice); abandoning the seniors by privatizing Social Security (which would make it subject to market fluctuations and the whims of CEOs), ending Medicare which is the only, absolutely ONLY means for non-wealthy seniors to obtain the medical care they need, abandoning Medicaid, which is the only way that unemployed parents can get health care for and feed their children (including the babies you want to force them to have delivered). Well, you go ahead, in the name of abortion and vote Republican. And within 30 years there will be no middle class, the banks will own all the homes and property, wages will go down to where they were before labor unions forced them up. The few rich will become the governing oligarchy of America and the rest of us will be reduced to the status of medieval serfs.

I have no problem with balancing the budget; but right now, the economy needs a huge investment by government and large corporations. The latter are sitting on trillions of dollars which they refuse to invest, and the former will never happen with Republicans in power. Balance the budget fairly; I pay enough in taxes; the wealthy and the corporations do NOT pay their fair share. They use the abortion issue to garner votes from anti-abortionists who honestly believe that the Republicans give a darn about whether poor (particularly minority) families abort their children. They care nothing about the poor, especially the poor minority groups. They will lie, cheat, steal elections, do anything to get into power. They corrupt the democratic process in any way they can and will ruin this nation.

 

[estesbob]

Abortion is not the most important issue facing this country. Period. Unemployment (with families losing their homes and the ability to put food on their tables), lack of health care (Obamacare has not yet fully kicked in and millions still cannot get health care), the attacks on Medicare and Social Security (vital and essential to the lives of our seniors), the “slumming” of America (the crumbling bridges, roads, buildings, electrical grid, that is, our crumbling infrastructure) and violent crime are far more important issues. Theological issues are not on the top-ten list; America is a constitutional republic, not a theocratic state like Iran. Abortion may be the number one religious issue, but it is not the number one issue of a secular state. If America does not find a way to fix the secular problems, there will be no country in which to oppose abortion. Our very existence as a nation is at stake here. If the only problem you can see is abortion, then you need to become a citizen of Vatican City and leave the United States.

Low unemployment, universal healthcare, modernize infrastructure, etc. etc. etc. are have no use to those denied the right to life. . You have decided that your political agenda is more important than life itself. .

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The pro-abortion spin put on the quote that you and Leaf referred to is a perfect example of the moral and verbal gymnastics the good Archbishop was referring to.

I am still waiting for you to answer the arguments in my posting #75. Perhaps you missed it because it was the last one on the previous page?

 

[Rence]

Orogeny: Obamacare actually will save money in the long run. There are websites that discuss this but I don’t have one handy, sorry. My anger with the Tea Party is over the debt crisis issue. The matter concerned debt already passed by Congress and signed by the President; it was already owed. The issue was not “let’s get more money to spend on more programs.” The simple question was: Are we going to pay the debt or default.

Instead, the Tea Partiers held the government ransom, demanding tax cuts be included in the bill. This was not the time to revamp the tax code, debate new ways to increase revenue, cut or increase spending. These issues obviously have to be, and will be, dealt with. In so doing, they created a crisis that may have global impact even though a deal was reached. The mere possibility of the US defaulting sent shock waves through every market in the entire world. We will know in the next few months if we’re heading into another recession, perhaps a global one. Their actions did damage to the fragile recovery we are in. They represent a minority of voters, but took it upon themselves to set us all up for another recession. I find that reprehensible. There is a time for every purpose under heaven. This was not the time to hold the nation and the world hostage for the sake of their agenda.

I don’t think many people realize that the Tea Partiers were willing to allow the destruction of the the country and its citizens to have their way. Everyone involved compromised and sacrificed for the sake of our country but them, except for the tea party as they managed to hold the country hostage. I don’t think many realize how close we came so close to disaster. It’s scares me to think that these people were willing to sacrifice our country for what they wanted, rather than do what was best for our country and its people. Even the more seasoned republicans were concerned about what the tea party pulled. I do not want people who have to “have their way” at the expense of the welfare of our country. I want them to compromise and work together. I will never ever ever vote republican as long as there is a tea party to hold their party and everyone else hostage. And I don’t think those who actually paid attention the weekend before August 2 will, if they were watching the same chain of events unfold like I did that weekend. From Thursday to Sunday, they were willing to let our country go into default rather than compromise and I will never forget it. Whoever doesn’t like the way I vote can go in the corner and suck their thumb and whine about it, because it’s not going to change anything for me. I want policitians to fight for our country, not their own personal interests.

Nate: There simply are not enough charities to replace Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Honestly, there are not. I don’t want to see “tent cities” again like there was in 1929. People must have these programs to live; without them, they will die. Period. I don’t know why young people do not want to take care of their parents anymore. That is a fundamental duty where I come from. I took care of my wife before she passed, I will take care of my mother when she needs me, and my children will take care of me when I need them. It’s just a part of our culture (Italian and Sicilian) I guess.

Maybe so. I take care of my mom too, and have no idea why others don’t do the same, but she’s still dependent on medicare, and even her pension is being threatened right now. The cost of healthcare is ridiculous though she’s not high maintenance. The tea party doesn’t seem to care about the elderly or the sick. Some of them want it cut drastically, or completely done away with. If that doesn’t send up a red flag to voters, I don’t know what will. Their idea of helping the economy is taking from the poor and sick so that the very rich don’t have to sacrifice at all. Some of them want to lower the minimum wage. They are not good for this country and the republican party does not need them. Fortunately, the baby boomers, their parents, and their kids, outnumber younger wippersnappers who only care about themselves, and if they stand together and vote accordingly, they have a chance.

But even if a child just wants to put his mother into a nursing home and let it be, even that costs money. If the child won’t pay it, it’s up to Medicare / Medicaid and Social Security to pay it. That’s why these programs are simply indispensible. Can they be made more cost-efficient? Yes. Can improvements be made? Sure. But to eliminate them completely will result in the death of millions of our seniors, and put millions of families on the streets. Somehow you just have to get a grip on this.

The majority of elderly are in nursing homes. Their social security checks go to the nursing home. If they can’t pay the nursing home, the nursing home can’t provide them care/services because the nursing homes won’t be able to pay their employees or suppliers. People who want medicare and medicaid done away with are not thinking. Yes, improvements can be made. But I truly hear an idiot when I hear someone say to just eliminate entitlement programs. You can’t just pull the rug out from people who are standing on it.

What I’d like to see is parents being held accountable more, rather than going on federal aid for handouts when they choose to get pregnant. That program really needs some strong restructuring…

 

[Rence]

I cannot see any reason why anyone, except a wealthy person, would vote Republican for anything. They stand for huge tax breaks to the rich, same for corporations (GE earned 14 billion in profit and paid not one cent of tax), lower wages for the working class, they care nothing about millions of people unable to receive health care when they are ill, they care nothing about the millions who are losing their homes, they want total non-regulation of Wall Street and the banks (which created this meltdown in the first place),

codifying their moral code into law (which Jesus never advocated “Render unto caesar that which is caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s”; when Jesus stood before Pilate I don’t recall he issued a stunning denunciation of Roman injustice); abandoning the seniors by privatizing Social Security (which would make it subject to market fluctuations and the whims of CEOs), ending Medicare which is the only, absolutely ONLY means for non-wealthy seniors to obtain the medical care they need, abandoning Medicaid, which is the only way that unemployed parents can get health care for and feed their children (including the babies you want to force them to have delivered). Well, you go ahead, in the name of abortion and vote Republican. And within 30 years there will be no middle class, the banks will own all the homes and property, wages will go down to where they were before labor unions forced them up. The few rich will become the governing oligarchy of America and the rest of us will be reduced to the status of medieval serfs.

I hope people have been paying more attention to politics this and last month…

I have no problem with balancing the budget; but right now, the economy needs a huge investment by government and large corporations. The latter are sitting on trillions of dollars which they refuse to invest, and the former will never happen with Republicans in power. Balance the budget fairly; I pay enough in taxes; the wealthy and the corporations do NOT pay their fair share. They use the abortion issue to garner votes from anti-abortionists who honestly believe that the Republicans give a darn about whether poor (particularly minority) families abort their children. They care nothing about the poor, especially the poor minority groups. They will lie, cheat, steal elections, do anything to get into power. They corrupt the democratic process in any way they can and will ruin this nation.

Something tells me that the republicans will not be in power soon…but only time will tell…

 

[Rence]

Low unemployment, universal healthcare, modernize infrastructure, etc. etc. etc. are have no use to those denied the right to life. . You have decided that your political agenda is more important than life itself. .

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I wouldn’t want to live if I lost everything and was living on the streets in a poor state of health, with no one to help me in my miseray, and no one to care. People are still worth something after they are born. They don’t cease to be important just because they have been born.

 

[estesbob]

I am still waiting for you to answer the arguments in my posting #75. Perhaps you missed it because it was the last one on the previous page?

I posted direct quotes from the Pope and Archbishop Chaput. They should suffice. If you can post a quote from a single member of the magestrium notingh there were proportionate reasons that would have allowed a catholic to vote for a pro-abortion canidate in any recent elction please do so.

 

[estesbob]

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I wouldn’t want to live if I lost everything and was living on the streets in a poor state of health, with no one to help me in my miseray, and no one to care. People are still worth something after they are born. They don’t cease to be important just because they have been born.

Since we have never been faced with a choice bhetween a canidate who supports abortion and a canidate who supports puting people on the street in poor health with no help your post is totally irelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[estesbob]

I hope people have been paying more attention to politics this and last month…

Something tells me that the republicans will not be in power soon…but only time will tell…

So you agree that ones politcal agenda should be more dear than life itself?

 

[Rence]

Since we have never been faced with a choice bhetween a canidate who supports abortion and a canidate who supports puting people on the street in poor health with no help your post is totally irelevant to the discussion at hand.

No it’s not irrelevent, because we don’t know who’s running against Obama in the next election. If it’s a tea partier who wants to eliminate medicare and medicaid and lower minimum wage, and reduce health care accessibility, then yes, it is relevant.

 

[Rence]

So you agree that ones politcal agenda should be more dear than life itself?

I agree that one is still imporant after they are born. I don’t agree that they become less important after they have been born. And I agree that there is more to living that just breathing.

 

[Humupower]

When I studied theology in college, one of my professors introduced me to a concept that has had a very powerful affect on me. It is the consistent ethic of life.

Neither the Republican party nor the Democratic party have a consistent ethic of life. The basic premise is that society ought to be ordered for securing the greatest good for life at all levels. This means justice for the poor and under-represented, protection for the unborn, the support of just wages for those who labor, and the protection of the elderly and vulnerable.

The Republican party is very ready to sell out the poor, the elderly, and deny just wages to those who labor in order to promote an unjust and unsustainable distribution of wealth. This causes particular suffering to the poor and to the children of the poor. They are complicit in the rule of greed over society, at the expense of the environment, and the weakest in society. By not protecting the environment, they allow things to happen that can potentially harm everyone.

The Democrats work to protect the weakest living elements of society, but are willing to allow the sacrifice the unborn to do so. They are also not good stewards of government funds wanting to promote an unsustainable growth in government funding and programs.

There is moral evil and the potential for great moral evil in both of these stances.

The problem is that neither party has a consistent ethic of life that cares for the poor, the elderly, the sick, the dying, and the unborn. People need to start from the whole moral perspective of human life and not get caught up on just one issue. An abuse of any of these groups is horrible, and as Catholics, I don’t think we can stand for them.

However, the moral evils which one undertakes speak more to the state of their souls and moral development than anything else. A person who loves God and sees God as the center of their life, their creator, and the source of their salvation will not participate in these sacrifices in the sphere of their own life.

This problem can be mediated, but cannot be resolved by a political solution when those bound by the political laws are still living in a state of personal evil and amorality.
Laws cannot make people love God or value life.

 

[estesbob]

No it’s not irrelevent, because we don’t know who’s running against Obama in the next election. If it’s a tea partier who wants to eliminate medicare and medicaid and lower minimum wage, and reduce health care accessibility, then yes, it is relevant.

Can you show us where the church’s has taught that political differences over how to best care for the poor and the proper funding for Medicare and Medicaid is morally equivalent to supporting abortion?

. Do you believe there were proportionate reasons that would allow a Catholic to vote for Barack Obama in last election and if so can you show us a single member of the magisterium that indicated this was true?

 

[estesbob]

When I studied theology in college, one of my professors introduced me to a concept that has had a very powerful affect on me. It is the consistent ethic of life.

Neither the Republican party nor the Democratic party have a consistent ethic of life. The basic premise is that society ought to be ordered for securing the greatest good for life at all levels. This means justice for the poor and under-represented, protection for the unborn, the support of just wages for those who labor, and the protection of the elderly and vulnerable.

The Republican party is very ready to sell out the poor, the elderly, and deny just wages to those who labor in order to promote an unjust and unsustainable distribution of wealth. This causes particular suffering to the poor and to the children of the poor. They are complicit in the rule of greed over society, at the expense of the environment, and the weakest in society. By not protecting the environment, they allow things to happen that can potentially harm everyone.

The Democrats work to protect the weakest living elements of society, but are willing to allow the sacrifice the unborn to do so. They are also not good stewards of government funds wanting to promote an unsustainable growth in government funding and programs.

There is moral evil and the potential for great moral evil in both of these stances.

The problem is that neither party has a consistent ethic of life that cares for the poor, the elderly, the sick, the dying, and the unborn. People need to start from the whole moral perspective of human life and not get caught up on just one issue. An abuse of any of these groups is horrible, and as Catholics, I don’t think we can stand for them.

However, the moral evils which one undertakes speak more to the state of their souls and moral development than anything else. A person who loves God and sees God as the center of their life, their creator, and the source of their salvation will not participate in these sacrifices in the sphere of their own life.

This problem can be mediated, but cannot be resolved by a political solution when those bound by the political laws are still living in a state of personal evil and amorality.
Laws cannot make people love God or value life.

Unfortunately, it appears that your professor advanced the bogus seamless garment theory. The church most certainly does not support this. No issue our combination of issues trumps abortion. Not higher welfare spending, not tighter environmental policies, not higher taxes on the rich, , not arguments over the proper funding of Medicare, Social Security, ADC, food stamps, etc. etc. etc. As Archbishop Chaput so eloquently put in the quote I posted earlier without right to life all other rights are meaningless. A child denied the right to has little care for what the proper funding for WIC programs is, affordable day care means nothing to this child nor does extended unemployment benefits or “fair” taxation of the rich

 

[Elizabeth502]

Neither the Republican party nor the Democratic party have a consistent ethic of life.

The Republican party is very ready to sell out the poor, the elderly, and deny just wages to those who labor in order to promote an unjust and unsustainable distribution of wealth. This causes particular suffering to the poor and to the children of the poor. They are complicit in the rule of greed over society, at the expense of the environment, and the weakest in society. By not protecting the environment, they allow things to happen that can potentially harm everyone.

The Democrats work to protect the weakest living elements of society, but are willing to allow the sacrifice the unborn to do so. They are also not good stewards of government funds wanting to promote an unsustainable growth in government funding and programs.

I also think that the Democrats are not so great on classically Catholic Life issues: They are particularly horrible at promoting The Gay Agenda and being eager to hand out contraceptives to 14 and 15-year olds, and to provide sex ed for students in middle school with no consideration of abstinence promotion. And the Republicans, in a composite way, are hardly universally pro-Life, either (abortion, SSM, etc.)

The leaders of both parties are mostly prostitutes for the voters they want to elect and re-elect them.

 

[Nate13]

I also think that the Democrats are not so great on classically Catholic Life issues: They are particularly horrible at promoting The Gay Agenda and being eager to hand out contraceptives to 14 and 15-year olds, and to provide sex ed for students in middle school with no consideration of abstinence promotion. And the Republicans, in a composite way, are hardly universally pro-Life, either (abortion, SSM, etc.)

The leaders of both parties are mostly prostitutes for the voters they want to elect and re-elect them.

Very true. If everyone would just come together on the abortion issue and get it solved, we could go back to our respective parties and battle this out like normal

 

[Newbie2]

\

When one takes a small portion of the Church document out of context they can twist it anyway they want to. Tthis section was specifically referring to the situation where both candidates in a race were pro-abortion. . You could in that case vote for the candidate who was less pro-abortion than the other BUT as this snippet ,taken in proper context, points out ,you could not vote for the less pro-abortion candidate because of his stance favoring abortion… . As the links we have posted have shown the Church has made it very clear that no issues rise the level of abortion when considering your vote. . It is complex only for those claiming to be pro-life but trying to rationalize their votes for pro-abortion candidates

The pro-abortion spin put on the quote that you and Leaf referred to is a perfect example of the moral and verbal gymnastics the good Archbishop was referring to.

First, I quoted directly from your post, so please don’t start throwing around accusations of selective quoting.

Second, while I cannot speak for Leaf, I’m not trying to justify abortion. Please STOP inferring that I am doing so.

Third, I’m still waiting for you to address the questions/scenarios I posted earlier:

1. Voting in a “pro-life” Democrat over a “wishy-washy” or PLINO (Pro-life in name only Republican) tips the power to the Democrats, giving them virtual carte blanche power to advance the abortion agenda.

Well, Bob? What about this situation???

This is totally realistic, and you seem to be avoiding addressing this very plausable scenario.

1. Pro-nuclear war monging candidate vs. Pro-abortion candidate. Imagining, of course, a world-war type scenario where there is a great liklihood of mass destruction with nukes.

(Far less likely than the first, of course)

Well??? Still waiting…

 

[Newbie2]

One of the standard rationalizations given by those who claim to be pro-life but continually vote for pro-abortion candidates is that Republicans really don’t care about abortion. Given the recent fights over abortion funding in the health care bill and funding Planned Parenthood.( just two examples) one wonders why anybody still advances this argument with a straight face. . In fact if Republicans really don’t oppose abortion one would have to wonder why pro-abortion organizations spend so much time attacking them.?

I think we’d agree that there are Pro-life Democrats, Pro-choice Democrats, Pro-life Republicans and Pro-Choice Republicans, so it’s wise not to paint with too broad a brush when talking about individual candidates or individual voters.

As well, we can probably agree that when talking about party politics, that is is different matter; we all know that one of the Democratic Party planks is “pro-choice”.

 

[estesbob]

First, I quoted directly from your post, so please don’t start throwing around accusations of selective quoting.

Second, while I cannot speak for Leaf, I’m not trying to justify abortion. Please STOP inferring that I am doing so.

Third, I’m still waiting for you to address the questions/scenarios I posted earlier:

1. Voting in a “pro-life” Democrat over a “wishy-washy” or PLINO (Pro-life in name only Republican) tips the power to the Democrats, giving them virtual carte blanche power to advance the abortion agenda.

Well, Bob? What about this situation???

This is totally realistic, and you seem to be avoiding addressing this very plausable scenario.

1. Pro-nuclear war monging candidate vs. Pro-abortion candidate. Imagining, of course, a world-war type scenario where there is a great liklihood of mass destruction with nukes.

(Far less likely than the first, of course)

Well??? Still waiting…

Thank you for expressing your opinion. Now can you show us any place where your opinion is backed up by the teachings of the church?

. Perhaps once again we should turn to the words Archbishop Chaput beore the 2008 election where many so-called progressive Catholics were similarly advancing the “PLINO” argument :ie that Obama was really the pro-life candidate in the race.

*To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred ‘‘prolife’’ option is to subvert what the word ‘‘prolife’’ means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ‘‘Obama’s Abortion Extremism,’’ and his follow-up article, ‘‘Obama and Infanticide.’’ They say everything that needs to be said.