How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

[Shakuhachi]

Simple math disproves that.

 

[JSRG]

JSRG:

Which is exactly why I believe people should refuse to vote for either Biden or Trump.

If, indeed, you are prolife, failing to vote at all is exactly supporting Biden and abortion. Exactly. If you are not prolife, then it’s better that you throw away your vote.

I have already explained how my vote has virtually no chance of changing the outcome of the election. Thus, in a practical sense, I am giving no support for Biden (or Trump) in by refusing to vote for them.

If we are talking about supporting them in a moral sense, then voting for a third party candidate is not supporting Biden (or Trump) either, because my moral support is after another candidate entirely.

 

[Ridgerunner]

To no one in particular. I think those of us who turn up our noses at the only prolife candidate (unlike Sister Byrne) might want to . . . reconsider their decisions.

 

[StudentMI]

Again, hang on a minute. I have never disagreed with or criticized the teaching of the Church on abortion. Please go back and read my posts–that’s NOT what I have been saying!

Then I fail to understand your point. You keep bringing up how the teaching was implemented as if that raises questions. The teaching of the Church is clear. Considering the Catechism calls for the state to prevent the manufacture and distribution of pornography, I don’t think the Church is exactly in favor of allowing ‘choice’ when it comes to abortion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m sorry, but you might as well go whisper your beliefs down a well as to vote for some party that has absolutely no chance of winning.

This analysis assumes this is the only election that will ever matter. In fact there will be another one in 4 years and hopefully many more after that. A party that has “no chance” of winning this year may very well have a chance in some later year. And racking up votes now is the main way in which parties get noticed.

Your vote, on the other hand, are essentially meaningless if they don’t decide the election, at least in our election system.

As I just showed, your vote determines not only who wins today, but who has a chance of winning in the next election. So it is not meaningless.

 

[Dovekin]

Says who that they have an inherent right to “decide”? “Decide” to kill someone?

God? The Constitution? The Supreme Court? How do you recognize rights?

Do i have a right to “decide” (to kill someone) if they are too darn inconvenient, or expensive?
How is that a right?

Not that I know of. Who says that you do? Has God placed that person inside your body? Has the Supreme Court said you have that right? I do not understand your question.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Racism and hating your neighbor is the prime ideology behind Planned parenthood and the whole abortion agenda, which is why many abortion clinics are strategically placed in poor neighborhoods.

PP clinics are placed where the demand is the highest. It has nothing to do with hating or racism. Rich people don’t need PP for abortions. They can pay top dollar and go anywhere. There is no sense placing a PP clinic in a rich neighborhood.

 

[27lw]

MagdalenaRita:

Racism and hating your neighbor is the prime ideology behind Planned parenthood and the whole abortion agenda, which is why many abortion clinics are strategically placed in poor neighborhoods.

PP clinics are placed where the demand is the highest. It has nothing to do with hating or racism. Rich people don’t need PP for abortions. They can pay top dollar and go anywhere. There is no sense placing a PP clinic in a rich neighborhood.

Oops!
You’re not supposed to say that PP is for providing abortions! You’re supposed to say they’re for providing healthcare.

 

[27lw]

27lw:

Says who that they have an inherent right to “decide”? “Decide” to kill someone?

God? The Constitution? The Supreme Court? How do you recognize rights?

Do i have a right to “decide” (to kill someone) if they are too darn inconvenient, or expensive?
How is that a right?

Not that I know of. Who says that you do? Has God placed that person inside your body? Has the Supreme Court said you have that right? I do not understand your question.

Okay - I get it now! I am only allowed to kill someone if they are currently inside my body.
You’re not supposed to say that, in quite that way, I think.
Y’all must have had some kind of truth serum.

 

[Shakuhachi]

That is a good suggestion for everyone, starting at the top, and including yourself.

 

[nicholasG]

27lw:

Says who that they have an inherent right to “decide”? “Decide” to kill someone?

God? The Constitution? The Supreme Court? How do you recognize rights?

The Bible speaks decisively to this issue. Romans 13:1-2 says: "Obey the government, for God is the One who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the law of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow .

The Supreme Court has spoken.

 

[StudentMI]

That shows a woeful misunderstanding of Church teaching regarding government and obedience.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Then I fail to understand your point.

Here’s the point: The Church has declared that any abortion = murder. You believe that. I believe that. But the Church also talks about freedom of conscience–not just for Catholics, but for everyone. Do we have the right (or duty, as some would put it) to impose our particular theological views on the entire country (by making abortion illegal), when polls show that view is held by fewer than 20% of the population? And when all other major world religions have a different theological view of when abortion is acceptable and when it is not? Don’t we have any respect for their views and beliefs? Would you be willing to accept a ban on pork if 20% of the population were Muslim and somehow made eating pork illegal? You on board for that?

And please don’t go bringing up the standard “slavery” argument. And don’t bring up the irrelevant argument that morality isn’t decided by polls or ballots. And don’t say “But it’s murder!!!” – You think it’s murder. They don’t. You think it’s a person. They don’t.

And, again–I’m just about done with repeating myself–if you REALLY want to cut down on the number of abortions, attack the causes, not the results. And no, I really don’t care what your cousin said, or your neighbor. I care what the polls say–polls asking those who have had abortions why they did it.

And if you think making abortion illegal is somehow going to end it, you’re delusional. Take a look at one of the only major countries to still outlaw abortion–Argentina. Population 45 million. And they have approx. 500,000 abortions a year. The US–where abortion is theoretically legal–has a population about 7.3 TIMES that of Argentina. And yet the US only had about 860,000 abortions last year–less than twice as many as Argentina, with its much smaller population. So if you think making it illegal is the way to go, you need to explain away Argentina–which is an overwhelmingly Catholic country of course.

And of course, as I keep pointing out, the official position of the Catholic Church (that any abortion = murder) is a minority position–less than 20% of the US population believes that. Not even all Catholics. Not even all weekly Mass attending Catholics. And that percentage has gone down over the years, not up. So a rational person would say “Gee, my arguments have been counter-productive, no matter how right I think I am!” and they would adjust their arguments. And one major defect in the pro-life arguments is that they have several easily refuted points they rely on, which I’ve been politely trying to point out. If I believe a giraffe is a plant, and my church tells me that’s true, and I try to support my argument by saying giraffes have roots, I don’t think I’m going to be taken seriously.

 

[nicholasG]

That shows a woeful misunderstanding of Church teaching regarding government and obedience.

You mean like “Thou shall not kill”?
Person not fetus. No mention of abortion in the Bible.
A woeful misunderstanding of the Bible.

 

[StudentMI]

Just going to throw these out there.

Truth is not a matter of numbers. If x is x and most people believe it’s y, that doesn’t make it so. Stating this even if no one accepts it doesn’t change the fact that x is x.

Law must be based in truth. If we have the misfortune of living in a democracy with a demoralized populace then we must work to change their minds to change the law.

 

[StudentMI]

You mean like “Thou shall not kill”?
Person not fetus. No mention of abortion in the Bible.
A woeful misunderstanding of the Bible.

We’ve been through this before. Catholics don’t believe in sola scriptural as you know. And if you’re going to charge that the Church has a woeful misunderstanding of the Bible but you are correct in your private interpretation of it, there’s no point in really continuing the conversation.

 

[JimG]

I would not want to impose my theology on anyone else. But embryology is a different matter. We know when a new human being begins. If the law wants to declare that no one is a human being until his 6th birthday, that would be wrong. It is still wrong to declare that a child is a human being one second after birth but not human one second before birth.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Truth is not a matter of numbers.

Law must be based in truth.

But WHOSE truth? You truth? My truth? My neighbor’s truth? If you are a Catholic, you believe the Church teaches truth. If you are Muslim, you think the Qur’an teaches truth. If you are Buddhist, you think the Buddha is truth. And so on. Each is convinced he alone has truth and the others are sadly mistaken. Or as someone famously said, “I alone can fix it.” Autocratic leaders throughout history have said “I know the truth.” Did they?

So let’s amend what you said: Law must be based on truths that are generally accepted by everyone.

 

[StudentMI]

But WHOSE truth? You truth? My truth? My neighbor’s truth? If you are a Catholic, you believe the Church teaches truth.

That’s very close to a relativistic statement.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

We know when a new human being begins.

Sorry, that is theological / philosophical knowledge. You BELIEVE you know when a new human being begins. Others believe differently. They have a right to do that.