How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

[Rau]

It seems that the USCCB document contains sufficient wiggle room to allow multiple Catholics to come to opposite conclusions citing the same document. How is that useful?

It’s unavoidable. Your vote is about your intentions and your honest assessment (prudential judgement) about the balance of consequences flowing from your vote.

 

[Rau]

There needs to be a definite evidence that a country is going out of existence. That just isn’t evident right now. A sincere belief is not enough. Catholics must form their belief and conscience on the truths of the Faith, the priorities put in place by the Church, and what is actually happening in the world.

But there is no definitive evidence that a vote for one candidate will change the abortion statistics. Your candidate may hold to that goal, but the judgement to be made is about delivery. If another voter concludes the pro-life candidate is whistling in the wind, there’s not much imperative to vote for him.

 

[Rubee]

An anti-abortion position that acknowledges the right of the mother to choose would be ideal, but that looks impossible.

There’s nothing “ideal” about this and there isn’t s moral right to choose to destroy human life that is not directly threatening you. The Catholic church is clear. What you are describing is an alleged right to commit murder. There is no such thing under the sun. The permission by modern human society to kill unborn babies is not any different from the ancient Roman “right” of fathers/husbands to kill their wives and children.

 

[farronwolf]

The issue for me is that of the make-up of the Supreme Court. We need Roe v Wade to be reversed because as long as abortion is seen as a right, we will not be able to get laws passed against it.

So you are advocating for activist judges? Judges who make law instead of interpret the laws which legislators have passed and determine their validity?

If I remember correctly, this has always been a gripe by some. That the activist judges need to go away.

What this tells me is that people, who are wishing for the SCOTUS to make things right in this country regarding abortion, have realized that if left up to the American people it won’t happen. They are relying on 9 people to correct the ills in society. That is quite presumptive, since GOD himself can’t correct the ills in society. That is to me a losing line of thinking.

 

[Dovekin]

Yes, this “ideal” seems impossible, just as I said.

The permission by modern human society to kill unborn babies is not any different from the ancient Roman “right” of fathers/husbands to kill their wives and children.

I would say the ancient Roman right you describe is more like the modern right of government to intervene in a woman’s pregnancy. Ancient Rome settled this issue by giving authority to the father/husband; modern prolife groups want to give the same authority to the government.

How do you think your denial of a woman’s rights furthers the anti-abortion cause? Do you think it will help us outlaw abortion? How?

 

[Annie]

So you are advocating for activist judges?

No, I am advocating constructionist justices who will properly overturn Roe v Wade, just as justices overturned Plessy v Ferguson in Brown v Board of Education.

Judges who make law instead of interpret the laws which legislators have passed and determine their validity?

The USSCJ are supposed to rule on the constitutionality of laws.

Plessy ruled that separate but equal was constitutional. It was hard to do anything about that as long as that decision stood, but it was clearly a bad decision.

Brown directly overturned Plessy, righting a longstanding wrong and rendering our laws to be more in line with the Constitution.

If I remember correctly, this has always been a gripe by some. That the activist judges need to go away.

Activist justices are the ones who find bizarre interpretations of the Constitution and legislative intent in order to change laws.

What this tells me is that people, who … have realized that if left up to the American people it won’t happen.

Not at all. Because of the Roe v Wade ruling and others, even when the American people pass a law, it is ruled, in line with Roe v Wade, unconstitutional.

They are relying on 9 people to correct the ills in society.

No, just to overturn an unfair ruling so that when people legislate against abortion, it isn’t cut down because of Roe v Wade.

 

[PaulinVA]

I am a former Republican; I left when Trump was elected.

I will vote against him. That means voting for Biden.

My analysis is that Trump is not “the greatest pro-life President ever”. He’s the guy that, before the election, when asked what to do with women who had abortions said they should be jailed. He knew that little about the pro life movement.

I’ve said this over the years - the ends don’t justify the means. Trump might be a useful idiot for the pro life cause, but he is only pro Trump. Not pro life.

Besides, abortions are trending down. The President has little affect on the abortion rate. Other things, that the President has a direct effect over, are more important.

The country is under an existential threat, and I will vote against that threat.

 

[farronwolf]

You make a good point in your use of cases which the SCOTUS corrected previous decisions, however those decisions are not relevant to the ROE case.

In the cases you site, they were decisions based on persons who are recognized as citizens and who have rights established by the Constitution or amendments to the Constitution.

Fetus’ have no such rights. You would be granting the SCOTUS the authority to give rights beyond what legislators have chosen to do.

Secondly, take for example the same sex marriage cases. A marriage performed in state A must be recognized in state B even though state B doesn’t allow same sex marriages and must be recognized by the federal gov as well. Again this is based on the fact that the two parties who got married are recognized as persons under federal law. If a state says a person can marry a dog for instance, this won’t hold up in another state or for fed purposes because the dog does not have the rights of a human.

If for some reason the SCOTUS did overturn Roe and it goes back to the states what issues will this create without federal law addressing the issue. State A bans all abortions, state B allows them like today. A woman who is a resident of state A goes to state B and gets an abortion. Is her doctor in state A required to report the event so she can be punished according to state A laws? Who would have standing to sue or prosecute for her actions.

Can state A give rights and recognize the fetus beyond what is allowed under federal law. Think back to the dog/marriage.

Can a husband or father sue state B for the murder of their child? Does this suit take place in state A or state B or in federal court? Can the husband sue the mother, or demand she be prosecuted for murder?

This is much much more complicated than a civil rights case where it is clear that rights are established under our Constitution.

Relying on the SCOTUS to correct this ill is not the answer, it is a scapegoat plan.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

But nothing is more important than abortion. That includes keeping taxes low. If it is a choice between keeping taxes low or reducing abortions, we much always chose reducing abortions, right?

I agree though no one that I have heard in the Democratic party is proposing paying for the delivery of babies in the same way school is paid for in our taxes. It is nowhere in their platform. Instead the Democratic party is proposing abortion be paid the same way school is paid for, with our taxes.

That makes it hard for me to follow that as a proposed line of defense to vote Democrat.

It is if you add in the fear of complications. And how “major” does it have to be to warrant attention? Shouldn’t even a “minor” reason for abortion be worthy of attention?

but the Democrat solution to fear of complications in pregnancy is abortion.

Again nowhere are they proposing paying for delivery of the baby. They are wanting to extend women’s “right” to kill the baby.

Please provide your source when you say that “the Church has made it the top priority.”

If you are looking for an encyclical or an official document from the Church stating that abortion is their top priority, as far as I know you would probably be correct that there isn’t one but if you are inferring that the Catholic church has not made abortion a top priority in their mission to saves souls and respect every human life you would be incorrect.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-ac...ignity/abortion/respect-for-unborn-human-life

I would also check out the Ten Commandments, written by God. One in particular says, thou shalt not kill.

and Guadium et spec

For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man.

sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law
(abortion is not just murder but a type of birth control)

Abortion always has the intention of killing.

My own opinion is that there is zero chance of abortion being illegal in four years.

A possibility, true. It make take years afterward. Maybe a different Supreme Court will overturn Roe v Wade starting the path of making it illegal.
I would rather hope than give up and give it to the other side.

Perhaps a third party vote is an option for some if that vote doesn’t give Democrats the win and increase the number of abortions.

But there is no definitive evidence that a vote for one candidate will change the abortion statistics. Your candidate may hold to that goal, but the judgement to be made is about delivery. If another voter concludes the pro-life candidate is whistling in the wind, there’s not much imperative to vote for him.

Again, I would rather hope and work toward that goal than give up and give it to the other side.

Luke 8:25 Where is your faith?

 

[TMC]

There is nothing wrong with the Past Popes, the Pope, and bishops telling us why we have to believe these things, it is wrong for them to tell us how we have to believe.

Seriously? So the Church cannot tell Catholics how to respond to other issues, I assume, like gay marriage or abortion? The Church can only say those things are bad, and not tell us what to do about that. I have never heard that, and would love to see some authority for that proposition.

 

[TMC]

Why does the church teaching create a moral duty to follow “certain policies” ?

Am I wrong in assuming these are governmental policies?

Because the Church says it does, of course. Why does Church teaching mandate opposition to legal abortion, or legal gay marriage? Why can’t Catholics simply say that they agree those things are wrong, but that they are not obliged to support specific government policies against them? If its not enough for a Catholic to just not get an abortion or get gay married, why is it not enough for a Catholic to respond similarly to all of the many other Catholic moral issues?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Again, I would rather hope and work toward that goal than give up and give it to the other side.

Luke 8:25 Where is your faith?

Faith and optimism are two different things.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Yes but they can work together and are both good.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Why can’t Catholics simply say that they agree those things are wrong, but that they are not obliged to support specific government policies against them?

Because that would be working with those who enable such things. It would be morally wrong.

 

[Rubee]

I would say the ancient Roman right you describe is more like the modern right of government to intervene in a woman’s pregnancy. Ancient Rome settled this issue by giving authority to the father/husband; modern prolife groups want to give the same authority to the government

That’s frankly nonsense. You and the Romans both think some people should be allowed to murder others whereas the pro-life position is that no one–not the govt, husbands, fathers, or mothers–has a moral right to commit murder. The only way you don’t see the parallel with ancient Rome is if you don’t really think those unborn babies are as human and invaluable as the ancient wives and children who Roman fathers had an evil “right” to choose to kill.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But nothing is more important than abortion. That includes keeping taxes low. If it is a choice between keeping taxes low or reducing abortions, we much always chose reducing abortions, right?

I agree though no one that I have heard in the Democratic party is proposing paying for the delivery of babies in the same way school is paid for in our taxes.

If the Democrats had their way with the ACA, it would have guaranteed universal health care, including these delivery services. But I agree that no Democrat is proposing a subsidy for only OBGYN services, which I would find preferable to the overly broad proposals that cover all sorts of things that should not be part of any universal package. I mention this proposal not as a simple defense of voting for a Democrat, but more as a challenge to Republicans to incorporate this proposal into their platform. This is along the lines of Republican pro-life people tell Catholics who identify with Democrats on issues other than abortion. They are told to lobby for a reversal of the abortion policy within the Democratic party. In the same way that the Republicans say that Democrats will never give up their abortion position, I am saying (or mildly suggesting) that Republicans will never give up their love of low taxes and minimal government to support universal OBGYN services. But I would love to be proven wrong. Then I might be much more inclined to support Republicans.

 

[upant]

My own opinion is that there is zero chance of abortion being illegal in four years.

the judges picked will be on the court, hopefully, for a lot longer than four years

the immediate concern is to get the right judges on the supreme court.

So you are advocating for activist judges?

i advocate for judges who fix the errors of prior activist judges.

How do you think your denial of a woman’s rights

what right? there is no right to kill an unborn child, it is just bad law.

Besides, abortions are trending down. The President has little affect on the abortion rate. Other things, that the President has a direct effect over, are more important.

Biden will expand abortions here and abroad. when he codifies it into law, even states against it will be powerless to reduce it. your vote because of a dislike of trump will help to increase abortions. Biden will make the taxpayer pay for abortions here and worldwide. trending down? 50 million abortions yearly worldwide, needs more than trending down.

 

[Dovekin]

That’s frankly nonsense. You and the Romans both think some people should be allowed to murder others whereas the pro-life position is that no one–not the govt, husbands, fathers, or mothers–has a moral right to commit murder. The only way you don’t see the parallel with ancient Rome is if you don’t really think those unborn babies are as human and invaluable as the ancient wives and children who Roman fathers had an evil “right” to choose to kill.

And the only way you do see a parallel is by denying any rights to the pregnant mother.

You are welcome to believe that, but it does not further your cause in any significant way. It leaves you isolated from a majority of Americans and unable to even discuss what might lead to some change of the law.

 

[farronwolf]

i advocate for judges who fix the errors of prior activist judges.

Why don’t you advocate for legislators to fix the law so there is no question as to the judges decisions?

Do we not have slavery any more in this country because of judges decisions or is it because of an amendment to the Constitution?

An amendment would remove any question unless further amended at a later time like alcohol was.

Again, folks are relying on a majority 9 people to do the will of some. People disagreed with the Roe decision because there was no basis for it in the Constitution or law. Now they want the same thing to happen to reverse what they thought was a bad decision without any changes in law.

Unfathomable.

 

[upant]

Unfathomable.

only 9 created this rule