How can Catholics vote for Joe Biden

[Ridgerunner]

The argument for coverage is compassion for the sick. And seeing no good argument against coverage, why not?

We’re back where we started. If I can afford my own insurance, why should I expect some poor fellow trying to support his family on meager earnings, to pay it for me? It is not “compassionate” to do such a thing.

 

[Greenybird]

Having a military is fine, but when innocent non combatants are regularly killed (example- drone strikes) with little to no oversight or attempt to prevent that from happening again in the future is definitely against church teaching. The two things are not identical, but it is still money going towards somebody getting killed.

 

[Billy76]

The population is aging. Old women do not get pregnant. Also, more use of chemical abortifacients like the ones obama ordered Catholic charities to provide.

Obama truly was, in my opinion, an evil man who attacked Christ’s Church mercilessly. Did he ever apologize for this?

 

[Juvenal]

It really is not as complicated or nuanced as some posters describe.

Just possibly, you might want to consider the fact that thoughtful posters can disagree, and more, that you might be simply wrong on this. I see no obstacle to a Catholic insisting that their government endorse public policy that is blind to their own religious beliefs. Any number of Catholic candidates have said as much. The principle of separation of church and state will sometimes disadvantage your own faith, but more often, it protects it against the oppression of others.

Imagine if it were illegal to teach the actual age of the earth in schools or the actual origins of the human species in order to privilege a religious belief. This is not hypothetical. This has happened, and has been attempted again as recently as 2005.

But given that Biden seems willing, ready, and able to proactively support abortion …

And this isn’t a mere difference of opinion. It’s simply false.

Granted, if it were the case, you’d have a good argument. But, to the contrary, and to the best of my knowledge, even the most ardent supporters of choice do not proactively support abortion. No one likes abortion. To wit, no one, to my knowledge, though there might be exceptions, has ever said, “I’m bored today. I think I’ll have an abortion. That’ll be fun.” Abortion is never seen as a positive choice. But sometimes, the alternatives are worse, and that’s why so many people who nominally or even religiously oppose abortion for themselves support choice for others.

A pro-life position that seeks to promote public policy that diminishes the negative consequences of continuing a pregnancy to term would reduce the number of abortions the best way, by guiding the free choices of others to the choice you’d prefer.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Merely because some countries have not yet implemented it fully does not mean they won’t in the near future.

This still does not prove that we can’t have universal health care without accepting euthanasia, which of course is nonsense. There is no reason why we can’t, even if other nations have gone down that route.

It isn’t a question of not being able to accept universal health care without euthanasia, it is a question of what will happen as a result of the acceptance. Your reasons or motivations will not offset the reality no matter how highly you think of your morivations or how much you project those on everyone else.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Again, sorry for asking so many questions. Like I said, I appreciate your and everyone else’s answers.

One of the consequences of President Trump’s “zero tolerance” border regulations is that some 500 plus children are to this day separated from their parents and do not know their whereabouts. If someone was aware of a vote from you for Trump, and was scandalized thereby into believing that this is a just governmental measure to deter illegal immigration, would you believe that you would be guilty of active scandal?

Not unless it was misrepresented, which would be calumny on the part of the other, not scandal on mine. Separation of minors from adults was mandated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to what are called the “Flores” decisions. That was ordered during the Obama administration, so Obama obeyed it and separated minors from adults. When Trump took office, the same decision was in force, so he did it too. Until and unless the courts reverse the “Flores” decisions, it won’t be any different.

And too, a lot of the children were unaccompanied by adults. Some of the “wavers” of illegals were nearly 100% minors. A lot of them were in the hands of sex traffickers who the children didn’t know and couldn’t identify. The traffickers , naturally, beat feet to avoid prosecution.

 

[HarryStotle]

If money going to Planned Parenthood is an issue then we should take issue with tax money going towards the military as well. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed as collateral damage over the past 40 or 50 years. This is problematic regardless of party. I don’t think the majority of our conflicts meet the just war criteria. Regardless of party, you can guarantee that your money is going towards problematic agencies and policies. Just something to consider.

Abortion is now “collateral damage?”

 

[bruisedreed]

My God have mercy on us. How clever we are at defending ourselves and how adept we are at criticizing others. Truly we are all, each and every one of us, just like the Great Accuser.

 

[Billy76]

But, to the contrary, and to the best of my knowledge, even the most ardent supporters of choice do not proactively support abortion.

“I don’t support genocide, but if it happens oh well ” See how ridiculous that sounds?

No one likes abortion.

Then why is it not outlawed?

A pro-life position that seeks to promote public policy that diminishes the negative consequences of continuing a pregnancy to term would reduce the number of abortions the best way, by guiding the free choices of others to the choice you’d prefer.

That is not a pro-life position, it is indifference towards the slaughter of children.

 

[Victoria33]

A pro-life position that seeks to promote public policy that diminishes the negative consequences of continuing a pregnancy to term would reduce the number of abortions the best way, by guiding the free choices of others to the choice you’d prefer.

This is totally unrealistic in that Planned Parenthood and the Democrat party fight against adoptions and even crisis pregnancy centers.

Planned Parenthood President Launches Disgusting Attack Against Crisis Pregnancy Centers – RedState

Also, per your discourse, the decision should be up to the states, we should hardly trust secularism to provide the right answers nor the federal government.

 

[Greenybird]

Collateral damage was very clearly in reference to the non-combatants

 

[Billy76]

But sometimes, the alternatives are worse, and that’s why so many people who nominally or even religiously oppose abortion for themselves support choice for others.

What exactly is worse than the murdering of a child?

 

[Greenybird]

Murdering anyone is pretty awful

 

[Billy76]

I agree, I meant the alternatives of killing a child in the abortion. If there is kill a child or X, what is the X that is worse than killing the child? Because apparently there is something worse.

 

[Greenybird]

I suppose some would view a life of poverty and having nothing as being pretty bad. I don’t see it that way, but I understand the reasoning.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The argument for coverage is compassion for the sick. And seeing no good argument against coverage, why not?

We’re back where we started. If I can afford my own insurance, why should I expect some poor fellow trying to support his family on meager earnings, to pay it for me?

I’ll answer that if you tell me why is should expect some poor fellow to pay for the wonderful network of bicycle trails around Minneapolis that I use but he never does.

 

[Billy76]

How? Because clearly they don’t want to kill poor people (at least I hope!).

 

[godisgood77]

It appears voting for pro-abortion candidates enabled the act of abortion, like aiding it. Can those who are so critical of Trump claim they have never aided abortion? One may be no better.

In addition, please remember that Trump supports some abortions. That’s not good; especially when added to his aggressive push to reinstate the death penalty… both anti-life stances.

 

[Billy76]

Except the Joe Biden’s stances takes away more life. There is proportionate view to Trump in terms of life. That is what the difference is.

 

[Greenybird]

I’m only speculating, but I’ve heard people contend that being born to someone who has nothing and will be unable to provide for the child would be cruel for the kid. I don’t see it that way, but I have heard someone argue that point before.