N
Newbie2
Guest
Ducking the questions, eh?
- Status
N
Nate13
Guest
If your dem is more pro-life then your republican vote for him. We have seen Democrats in the House stand up for abortion rights in the past or at least try to. It’s up to the voter to determine who they believe is more truthful in their convictions about abortion and to examine their past record. To argue that voting for the dem is allowing for the overall agenda of the dems to progress is folly.
In terms of point number two tell me you really have believed there was a candidate who was going to use nuclear warfare to kill innocents in anything but a dire situation where American lives are at stake? This is an incredibly hard sell in my opinion and I sure as hell haven’t seen any candidates pushing to use nukes to fix problems in a serious manner. Using our nukes a “silent threat” is definitely a legitimate political maneuver and shouldn’t be confused with actually being on the verge of using them. If your conscience can hold this up go for it, but even a nuke is going to have a hard time racking up the death toll that abortion has racked up. I’m sure we have killed ourselves off at least once over with abortion, the day after pill, and the normal pill’s aborting ability by now.
E
estesbob
Guest
I have answered your questions repeatedly expressing not my opinion but stating facts supported by direct quotes from bishops the Pope. and Vatican documents. It is not a matter of not answering your questions-it’s a matter of you not liking the answers.
E
estesbob
Guest
Agreed Again, it is not a matter of a candidates party affiliation. It is a matter of whether they support abortion or not. . I personally find it is not productive to get involved in the “. If candidate A is pro-life but has a raygun that he will use to blow the universe into smithereens once he is elected can I vote for canidate B who supports taxpayer-funded abortion on demand?” hypotheticals
N
Newbie2
Guest
You vote for the pro-life Democrat. The Democrats now have the power to advance their agenda whereas if the RINO was elected, they could not.
Folly?
No Sir, that’s how politics work; it’s about numbers.
The vote for the pro-life Democrat in such a scenario is a vote to advance the Democrat agenda (unless, and I say this as charitably as possible, the voter is completly ignorant of what a Democratic majority means in terms of them being able to advance abortion…and this is completely possible. Many voters do not look beyond the individual candidate.)
In our State, for example, we can cross party lines in voting in the Primary. I did so, and voted for the most liberal (pro-choice included) Democrat to win the Democratic Party primary. He won, and was trounced by the Republican candidate (whom I voted for in the general election), mainly because he was so extremely liberal. Many other Republican voters did the same, in hopes that he would win the primary.
Did we all sin by voting for him in the Primary? Of course not. We did so as to increase the chances that the Republican pro-life candidate would win.
Sometimes you have to look past the individual candidate.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Get real, Bob.
If you indirectly and knowingly strengthen the party that can do the most damage, are you not sinning as well?
YES or NO, please.
N
Nate13
Guest
haha that goes against what I’m saying though. If you vote for a pro-life dem and then he doesn’t vote pro-life, then was he really pro-life? If a man is alone in the forest and there are no women around, is he still wrong? I believe your point is you voted for a non-pro life dem so a pro-life republican would win correct? I’m not saying there is anything wrong in this because there isn’t. This is perfectly acceptable political maneuvering. However if in voting for the non-pro life dem you allowed for him to beat a pro-life dem who was much better than the republican that ended up winning, I believe you are in error. Get the most pro-life candidate you can into office using legal means regardless of party affiliation, end of story
You vote for the pro-life Democrat. The Democrats now have the power to advance their agenda whereas if the RINO was elected, they could not.
Folly?
No Sir, that’s how politics work; it’s about numbers.
The vote for the pro-life Democrat in such a scenario is a vote to advance the Democrat agenda (unless, and I say this as charitably as possible, the voter is completly ignorant of what a Democratic majority means in terms of them being able to advance abortion…and this is completely possible. Many voters do not look beyond the individual candidate.)
In our State, for example, we can cross party lines in voting in the Primary. I did so, and voted for the most liberal (pro-choice included) Democrat to win the Democratic Party primary. He won, and was trounced by the Republican candidate (whom I voted for in the general election), mainly because he was so extremely liberal. Many other Republican voters did the same, in hopes that he would win the primary.
Did we all sin by voting for him in the Primary? Of course not. We did so as to increase the chances that the Republican pro-life candidate would win.
Sometimes you have to look past the individual candidate.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Yes, of course it is an incredibly hard sell…it’s a very unlikely but not impossible hypothetical to illustrate the point.
See, that’s exactly my point…if someone in good conscience were to think such and vote that way, it seems you agree this would be a viable exception to the “we must always vote against the pro-choice candidate” mentality.
And that’s my argument, that there ***could be ***, not that there necessarily IS or ARE situations where one has to take other things into consideration when choosing an candidate.
N
Newbie2
Guest
YES! That’s all I’m saying. We’re on the same page.haha that goes against what I’m saying though. If you vote for a pro-life dem and then he doesn’t vote pro-life, then was he really pro-life? If a man is alone in the forest and there are no women around, is he still wrong? I believe your point is you voted for a non-pro life dem so a pro-life republican would win correct? I’m not saying there is anything wrong in this because there isn’t. This is perfectly acceptable political maneuvering. However if in voting for the non-pro life dem you allowed for him to beat a pro-life dem who was much better than the republican that ended up winning, I believe you are in error. Right, I agree with you there. Get the most pro-life candidate you can into office using legal means regardless of party affiliation, end of story
What Bob is saying is that doing so is *always *unacceptable i.e. that he doesn’t understand what political manuvering, as you correctly put it, is. He is claiming that under **all **circumstances it is always sinful to vote for a pro-choice candidate, even when it is clear that in doing so it would be more likely to stop or slow abortions more so than voting for another candidate.
Most charitably, I think Bob does not understand what political manuvering is and that it is sometimes necessary to achieve our pro-life goals. I think this is why he refuses to answer my direct questions.
Whatever. He and I have disagreed on this matter before. 
I totally agree that we should do what we can voting-wise to stop or slow abortions through the political process. Sometimes that takes manuvering.
E
estesbob
Guest
if you have convinced yourself that is okay that may lessen your culpability but still does not detract from the fact you have directly rejected the teachings of the church. . Just because one is irrationally paranoid does not give them carte blanche to support evil.
N
ndeparis88
Guest
jrgiancola. First the only reason the government is around is because of us. The government doesn’t make revenue. by that I mean it doesn’t produce a product. The only way it is able to remain in a place like the capital building is because of YOU and ME. now I don’t know if you know, but presidents, and for that matter other state workers but for now we’ll stick with the president so I can get my point across, makes 450,000 a year about. You know what he gets at least 80% pf that for the rest of his life. Now any president is at the top of things a public servant, if Lincoln was in fact a live he would wonder why a guy is getting paid so much to sit behind a desk. now in my state of Massachusetts, cops and firefighters can get disability for being cops or firefighters, now these guys can be completely healthy and have not a scratch on them, bear in mind when cops in Andover Mass stand at a construction truck they make about 80 dollars an hour, compared to a U.S Marine making 30K. while the cop is making around 85k a year a Marine is making way less and dodging RPG’s. There are many business owners who are very giving, like the CEO of Southwest, and the CEO of Chik-Fil-A, and no these are not rarities. The only good Program the GOv’t has ever had is the post office and in case you decide to come back with anything, my dad worked for the post office for more than 10 years, and he doesn’t seem it to be fair that they have about 3 managers for every 10 people at his plant in shrewsbury. whom I might add make about the salary of two to three mail handlers.
Now how bout this, instead of making wealthy people, say guys that make over 250,000 a year pay about 45-50 percent in taxes, by the way there is a biblical law that the worker is entitled to his wage. It’s written like “never muzzle and ox while he is threshing grain” Jesus also said I did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. I know there are may loopholes but lets set aside that for a minute. any way as for the big tax percentage that owner of a small shop is un abel to hire help weather you like it or not that’s the case. now if those taxes were lower on him he can then use it to hire more help. like if the CEO of Exxon took a 1 percent paycut. that’s millions and millions that could go tot he workers.
My grandfather was a WORKER. an Italian just like you, and when he was working for the city he fell under the thumb of Unions who for the most part worked for better conditions. this conditions I speak of I don’t translated to more money but were for better places of work and better hours, now he worked for 8 years I’m pretty sure of and he was getting the same pay as a kid who was working there for only three months. In Methuen where I live there is two admins working in the town hall, and only one of them is doing work, they are getting 60K a year, the football stadium where the roof fell or collapsed, what kind of workers put that up? Unions did.
In Lawerence MA, welfare is an epidemic, I can’t even tell you how much is dished out for people who well just don’t want to do anything for a living. they have loads of kids, so they get more money from us. Remember if we didn’t pay taxes the gov’t would go broke. Now these people are not living on the streets, if they were I would be all for giving it to the TRULY needy the bums in the Boston Common, the vets who have no homes lying on park benches, not a woman who’s husband left her because uncle sam was paying the bills. I’m all for being charitable, but there are better ways to do it than to say Peter I am taking from you to give to Paul instead of Paul going up to you and asking you for help.
If you delve into the Catechism you should read the principle of Subsidiarity. It pretty much calls for a non humongous government.
In the end we have to fix the hearts of people. a greedy CEO is that way because the person him or herself is greedy not because Capitalism is bad. It’s like motor cycle gangs, whom really always have started out as a group of guys who just wanted to ride, then here comes a bad apple and then they start running guns and selling meth.
If you say you pay enough in taxes then why are you saying the government should raise taxes because that spurs growth. Reckless spending is the culprit. But more over loss of God. don’t pin a side to what Jesus would do he would scold both sides, which even as a conservative I would do to, we live in a secular place where in the name of “tolerance” tolerance is being abolished. When we see Mr.Jones getting a head we blow our stack. what about A-Rod huh you know how much mullah that guy makes, for hitting a ball, but you still bash the CEO’s. WE made this country not government. the gov’t is suppose protect our rights and provide means to defend out Constitution. Which states that every one has a right to LIFE which also means children in the womb because well you even say they are people. Life is never going to be perfect because if it was it would be heaven.
Now how bout this, instead of making wealthy people, say guys that make over 250,000 a year pay about 45-50 percent in taxes, by the way there is a biblical law that the worker is entitled to his wage. It’s written like “never muzzle and ox while he is threshing grain” Jesus also said I did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. I know there are may loopholes but lets set aside that for a minute. any way as for the big tax percentage that owner of a small shop is un abel to hire help weather you like it or not that’s the case. now if those taxes were lower on him he can then use it to hire more help. like if the CEO of Exxon took a 1 percent paycut. that’s millions and millions that could go tot he workers.
My grandfather was a WORKER. an Italian just like you, and when he was working for the city he fell under the thumb of Unions who for the most part worked for better conditions. this conditions I speak of I don’t translated to more money but were for better places of work and better hours, now he worked for 8 years I’m pretty sure of and he was getting the same pay as a kid who was working there for only three months. In Methuen where I live there is two admins working in the town hall, and only one of them is doing work, they are getting 60K a year, the football stadium where the roof fell or collapsed, what kind of workers put that up? Unions did.
In Lawerence MA, welfare is an epidemic, I can’t even tell you how much is dished out for people who well just don’t want to do anything for a living. they have loads of kids, so they get more money from us. Remember if we didn’t pay taxes the gov’t would go broke. Now these people are not living on the streets, if they were I would be all for giving it to the TRULY needy the bums in the Boston Common, the vets who have no homes lying on park benches, not a woman who’s husband left her because uncle sam was paying the bills. I’m all for being charitable, but there are better ways to do it than to say Peter I am taking from you to give to Paul instead of Paul going up to you and asking you for help.
If you delve into the Catechism you should read the principle of Subsidiarity. It pretty much calls for a non humongous government.
In the end we have to fix the hearts of people. a greedy CEO is that way because the person him or herself is greedy not because Capitalism is bad. It’s like motor cycle gangs, whom really always have started out as a group of guys who just wanted to ride, then here comes a bad apple and then they start running guns and selling meth.
If you say you pay enough in taxes then why are you saying the government should raise taxes because that spurs growth. Reckless spending is the culprit. But more over loss of God. don’t pin a side to what Jesus would do he would scold both sides, which even as a conservative I would do to, we live in a secular place where in the name of “tolerance” tolerance is being abolished. When we see Mr.Jones getting a head we blow our stack. what about A-Rod huh you know how much mullah that guy makes, for hitting a ball, but you still bash the CEO’s. WE made this country not government. the gov’t is suppose protect our rights and provide means to defend out Constitution. Which states that every one has a right to LIFE which also means children in the womb because well you even say they are people. Life is never going to be perfect because if it was it would be heaven.
N
ndeparis88
Guest
I don’t say these things in aggravation, I say these things because in order to follow in The Way THe Truth and The Life you have to put that before politics. now if you ban abortion by law aren’t you putting that before the Lord, no I’m not because the Lord has said thalt shall not kill, and by the way sacrificing is completely different. I am sorry for all the losses you have ever faced. But the good news isn’t suppose to be therapy, it’s the Truth the higher truth, above Government and above the flesh. Democracy is imperfect because it is made by man. We blame everybody else for our own hardships, like people owe us something. Neighbors would be neighbors because god said so not because Obama or bush or Kennedy said so even though JFK was Catholic, he didn’t act like one when he had an affair. It’s not Washington job to solve the problems of humanity it’s ours. not that I want to get rid of government, but really it’s not there job it’s not what I’m paying my governor of the state more than 100K a year. good families are losing there homes because we pay for coach bags for people on wic and food stamps. God helps those who help themselves. We need more responsibility not more interest rates on school loans to help pay for medicare. I have a friend who went to med school and her payments increased as a way to pay for medicare. by the way her mothers business closed down because of the outrages fees charged for baking for people. if you want another example of wasteful spending on th HIll, in orlando I had a school buddy there well she had a kid and went on food stamps, and W.i.C now they give her this food list I guess, and how much she gets she has one kid and get enough formula to feed four. Yeah I know this is hard to track down but it’s there.
Politics has been grimy since Tammany Hall, read Paddy Whacked by T.J English if you don’t believe me.
again I am sorry for your losses to the sincerest depths of my heart. Death is part of the Human condition, and Jesus ransomed himself for the many, for all of us. Soldiers do the same when they shed blood for there brothers and sisters and for us. When you join the forces you take and oath to defend the Constitution not the president and not us. that’s why we have the best Military the world has ever seen, because we fight for an idea, for something higher than ourselves. I may not know what it’s like to be in a situation like you have been, and if God puts me in one I pray I can be as strong as Jesus is but I know I won’t for I am not even worthy of looking at him. But I will not demean the sacrifices of men and Women who dies for this nation of Life and Freedom so people can have there way. Millions and Millions will live few will still die. It’s harsh but I will not condone genocide annually. If you have anything to say I have probably heard it all from a good buddy of mine who thinks the way you think. But if you take away nothing but one thing from what I have said, take away my humility my sorrow my condolences, for you, because I may not know you, but if you were being robbed and the robber was about to shoot you, as a Son of Christ I would be derelict in my duties if I didn’t jump in to get you out of harms way. Would you be able to do the same? As it is said the flesh is against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh. I am not my own and neither are you.
Politics has been grimy since Tammany Hall, read Paddy Whacked by T.J English if you don’t believe me.
again I am sorry for your losses to the sincerest depths of my heart. Death is part of the Human condition, and Jesus ransomed himself for the many, for all of us. Soldiers do the same when they shed blood for there brothers and sisters and for us. When you join the forces you take and oath to defend the Constitution not the president and not us. that’s why we have the best Military the world has ever seen, because we fight for an idea, for something higher than ourselves. I may not know what it’s like to be in a situation like you have been, and if God puts me in one I pray I can be as strong as Jesus is but I know I won’t for I am not even worthy of looking at him. But I will not demean the sacrifices of men and Women who dies for this nation of Life and Freedom so people can have there way. Millions and Millions will live few will still die. It’s harsh but I will not condone genocide annually. If you have anything to say I have probably heard it all from a good buddy of mine who thinks the way you think. But if you take away nothing but one thing from what I have said, take away my humility my sorrow my condolences, for you, because I may not know you, but if you were being robbed and the robber was about to shoot you, as a Son of Christ I would be derelict in my duties if I didn’t jump in to get you out of harms way. Would you be able to do the same? As it is said the flesh is against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh. I am not my own and neither are you.
N
Nate13
Guest
haha if a candidate was running with the intentions of using a nuclear bomb to handle threats but on the other hand was incredibly pro-life I wouldn’t vote for him IF he was running for president. The presidency is the only place one psycho like that could do any real damage with those views. However his views on using a nuclear bomb would make me question how much he really cared for life…
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I asked specific questions in post #75 that your quote by Archbishop Chaput does not address. I think you should go back and read it again before you conclude that you have answered me.
As for your quote by Archbishop Chaput, it is clearly commentary based on his own opinion, not official Church teaching binding on all faithful Catholics. Not every word spoken by every bishop is binding truth. I can show you some bishops’ comments that you are very likely to disagree with.
Once again, the questions I asked of you in post #75, paraphrased and summarized, are:
- Are faithful Catholics bound by Church law to do everything withing their power to combat an evil, such as abortion? (Before you answer, read my examples that prove this is not so.)
- Can you cite a single one of the “voluminous evidence” you said exists that a Catholic cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless his opponent is more pro-abortion than they are? Remember, official binding Church teaching only, not opinions, even of bishops.
- If there is an offical list of proportionate reasons that Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of, where is this list?
Please understand I am not arguing on the merits of your position. It is fine position, and you make a good case defending it - as a personal position. The only objection I have is when you try to force all Catholics under pain of mortal sin to share you position. You do not speak for the Church, and if this rule were true, then Church officials would have long ago made it very clear.
Another thing to keep in mind is that when voting, you are not really choosing between abortion and some other issue. You are choosing a person. It is matter of chance what effect that choice may have on any specific abortions. A reasonable person may well conclude that the chance that any good will come out of voting for a particular person is too small to sacrifice the higher possibility of a competing good. If you do not believe me, then tell me if it is a sin to buy the sports car I mentioned in post #75.
E
estesbob
Guest
We have never had a situation even close to this in my lifetime, and the possibility that a candidate would win his party’s nomination who had such a view are little and none.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Yeah, I’ll bet that people in the 30s and 40s probably thought a dictator like Hitler would never come to power.
Bob, the idea of a hypothetical is simply that; posing a situation that may be highly unlikely but still possible in order to clarify or argue a point. Just because it’s never happened and is extremely unlikely to happen doesn’t mean it never will.
And the “irrationally paranoid” crack is a bit unwarranted, no? We are discussing this in the hypothetical.
N
Nate13
Guest
yes we are discussing the hypothetical but it just proves to show what kind of disaster would be necessary to dwarf the issue of abortion as number 1. If this does occur you will have far more important things to think about other than who you are going to vote for haha.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Agreed.
Under normal circumstances, it’s pretty clear who is pro-abortion and who is not, and whom we should vote for.
J
jrgiancola
Guest
Estebob, I have decided that the agenda needed for the 300 million LIVING Americans is more important than the agenda of anti-abortionists. Yes, you are correct. Especially since there will never be a total ban on abortion; the people will simply not support this. Living (already born) people have more rights than unborn people. Sorry again. I would support a total ban on abortion with an exception to abort to save the life of the mother. Abortion is important to me. But 300 million living, struggling Americans take precedence in my opinion. It’s a matter of priorities. I will not vote for a Republican who will destroy the lives and livelihoods of 300 million Americans just to satisfy their own personal greed.
E
estesbob
Guest
At least you admit that your political agenda is more important than life itself. Many,Catholics, actually try and reconcile their support of Abortion with their faith. It is not a pleasant thing to observe.
BTW-obligatory" Repubilicans are the fount of all evil" nonsnese is duly noted.
- Status