How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

[Dovekin]

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

Why do people go straight to denying opposing arguments, without any support?

The government has no right to interfere with a woman’s pregnancy! I can make unsupported allegations as well. Where will that get us?

The preferred solution seems to be packing the Supreme Court. Your idea of it is closer to reLity than others, who are just seeing SC as a supreme power who can behave as an autocrat. You at least seem to have some concept of a better theory of law that should be implemented.

I see the court packing idea as wholly unamerican. Instead of treating the Court as a Court, it sees it as a legislator with authority over and above Congress and the President. This disrupts the balances, and the checks, built into the Constitution. It politicizes the Court in a way that should not happen, if we see it as a way to enact the will of a minority.

 

[PaulinVA]

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

Women and men are responsible for abortions, not Presidents.

Abortions did not go up under Obama. They went down. So, there’s that.

 

[upant]

Why do people go straight to denying opposing arguments, without any support?

it is a question, where is killing unborn children defined as a right? the nonsense of unborn children not having rights is just law, if the fetus isn’t sacrificed it will be a child. it is alive and growing and abortion kills the baby.

why talk about just the fetus when the democrats push abortion until birth and some infanticide just after. it is the killing of children, why can’t people see this?

I see the court packing idea as wholly unamerican

do you disagree with the democrat idea of adding justices to overcome the conservative majority?

Abortions did not go up under Obama. They went down. So, there’s that.

abortions have been on a downward trend since 1981, yet 18% of pregnancies end in abortion. is this acceptable?

Obama did not make it a law that states couldn’t restrict abortion, Biden pledges to do so. Obama didn’t have the government pay for it, Biden pledges to do so. these acts will increase abortions

did abortions go down worldwide under Obama or increase because he canceled the Mexico City policy and paid for abortions abroad?

according to Guttmacher

in the United States. States are not required to submit abortion data to the CDC, but the overwhelming majority do.

California the most populous U.S. state, doesn’t report to the CDC

bottom line is that we really don’t know how many abortions actually are performed

a downward trend may be an illusion. yet the number of verified abortions is horrendous.

 

[farronwolf]

only 9 created this rule

You missed the entire point. The hypocrisy of wanting justices to rule on laws you say don’t exist, while saying that they were wrong for ruling in opposition to your view in the first place based on laws that don’t exist.

That is what is unfathomable, since you missed it the first time.

 

[upant]

The hypocrisy of wanting justices to rule on laws you say don’t exist, while saying that they were wrong for ruling in opposition to your view in the first place based on laws that don’t exist.

they created the law, they can overturn it

 

[Ender]

It is likely that abortion will be kept legal regardless of who is elected…

That likelihood depends on who is elected president and who controls the Senate. But sure, let’s pass on the best opportunity in a generation to repeal Roe because it’s not a sure thing.

…one can vote for Biden/Harris not for the purpose of keeping abortion legal, but for the purpose of preventing an existential threat to the nation…

I think I would agree with this, but the idea that Trump presents such a threat is as fanciful as unicorns.

When it comes to opinions about existential threats, there is no such thing as absolute. A sincere belief is good enough.

We are required to act as our consciences dictate, but that does not absolve us of the responsibility for making bad choices here any more than truly believing abortion is acceptable absolves us of responsibility for that choice. But I would like to hear more about the existential threat Trump poses.

We have had 4 years of Trump and abortion is still legal.

This would be disappointing from anyone, but you surely know better. Abortion is legal because it is constitutionally protected by the SCOTUS ruling on Roe. The only way to make it illegal is to overturn Roe, and the only way to do that is by replacing the justices who support the ruling. And the only way to do that is by electing Republican presidents and Senators. That is, the one thing that can ever make abortion illegal is precisely the thing you (apparently) refuse to do.

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?

The USCCB document does not provide guidance on how one should vote; it provides cover for voting however one is already inclined. It is an abysmal document, which is why both sides cite it in support of their positions.

 

[Ender]

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.

There is but a handful of issues that truly involve moral decisions, and the church is obviously justified in commenting on them. This is why she has said that laws allowing abortion are immoral.

Why does Church teaching mandate opposition to legal abortion, or legal gay marriage?

Because these issues involve grave, intrinsic evils where the position opposing them is moral and the opposite position is immoral.

…why is it not enough for a Catholic to respond similarly to all of the many other Catholic moral issues?

Because all those other issues involve practical judgments, not moral choices. The command to “heal the sick” says nothing about whether we should support universal health care. That is a prudential judgment on which opposing positions are both moral. The choice of how to deliver that care is not a moral one.

 

[Inquisitor85]

The problem is not so much that overturning Roe v Wade is impossible, as that it is extraordinarily unlikely. Both the right and the left like to pretend that we are one vote away, but that is just fund raising drivel. The reality is that there is only one sure vote on the SC to overturn RvW - Thomas. Every other Justice (right and left) has either expressly said they will not overturn it, or has passed on the opportunity to go on record in favor of overturning. Its just not going to happen. RvW is too entrenched in the jurisprudence, and has echos outside of the abortion context. I can’t see it happening in this generation, and probably not ever.

Even it is overturned the impact is likely to be negligible, abortions will still be legal in some (most?) States, and in those where it’ll be illegal it’ll still go on. Most studies I’ve seen suggest the background rate remains pretty flat regardless of legality.

You’ll obviously have an increase in deaths from back alley con artists, but there are collectives learning how to perform abortions safely. These collectives have been stockpiling both the morning after pill, and 10 week abortion pills since the 2016 election. They’ve been increasing training and purchasing equipment since the first “heartbeat bills” were enacted.

Is there not also a risk of criminalising miscarriage? At the end of the day every miscarriage will need to be investigated to ensure it’s not an abortion. I feel for the police officers, I can guess how that protest will go down. (And it won’t be violent.)

 

[Ender]

If the Democrats had their way with the ACA, it would have guaranteed universal health care…

The Democrats did have their way with Obamacare, and it did imply universal health care. That it didn’t live up to its promises and was economically unsustainable was no greater surprise than seeing the sun come up in the morning.

 

[Inquisitor85]

Yeah, they’re own way. I mean sure if you ignore Republican meddling and watering the bill down. Also it’s not unsustainable to have universal healthcare, every other developed country manages.

 

[Ender]

Even it is overturned the impact is likely to be negligible…

One plea that arisen repeatedly in this debate is to work on changing “hearts and minds” about the appropriateness of abortion. I think overturning Roe would be a major step in that direction in that it would allow for the first time a meaningful discussion about abortion.

That really hasn’t happened precisely because legislatures have not been able to pass laws banning abortions, and so the debate about why abortion should be allowed up to X weeks but not further hasn’t been held. That would be an entirely different discussion than the ones we’ve been having.

The nearest thing to a real abortion debate was the one regarding partial birth abortions. That’s the kind of debate that is needed to change opinions, and that’s probably not the kind of debate that will work out well for those supporting the dismemberment of children.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

 

[PaulinVA]

abortions have been on a downward trend since 1981, yet 18% of pregnancies end in abortion. is this acceptable?

Obama did not make it a law that states couldn’t restrict abortion, Biden pledges to do so. Obama didn’t have the government pay for it, Biden pledges to do so. these acts will increase abortions

Unless the Trumpists lose the Senate and the Presidency, as well as not take the House, this won’t happen.

Evaluate real possibilities. I am anti-abortion. In all instances.

 

[YADA]

Hopefully they get louder and the rest of the Democratic party listens to them and changes because that is not what the lead politicians, and especially those who want in the White House right now, in the Democratic party want. It is NOT their platform.

I used to support Democrats for Life … though I did not support the Democratic Party, I had friends in the Democrats for Life movement and I wanted them to succeed so donated in support for them and their cause.

Sadly the Democrats for Life are not gaining any ground - in the last 20 plus years their membership numbers have dwindled and their influence - if they ever had any - has disappeared. They just provided cover to the real Democratic party positions for those who feel squeamish about abortion.

You can see this in the Democratic platform that has become more and more radically pro-abortion … Once upon a time the Democratic platform stated that abortions should be ‘safe, legal and rare’ … but alas - now there is no thought of it being rare and I am not even sure they care of it is safe … alas it was never “Safe” for the child being murdered - but it is also not safe for the mother …

Planned Parenthood and NARAL own the Democrat Party today … the Platform is more and more radically pro-abortion …

Prominent pro-life Democrat quits party

Dan Lipinski, One of the Last Pro-Life Democrats, Discusses Abortion and His Party| National Catholic Register

Sanders, Buttigieg tell pro-lifers to leave Democratic Party | Victor Joecks | Opinion | Opinion Columns

 

[Dan123]

Again nowhere are they proposing paying for delivery of the baby.

Not sure how you missed this but there’s a large push on the left for universal healthcare, which would do exactly that.

 

[YADA]

There are probably just as many cases of federal employees misdirecting funds for their own personal enrichment than at the local level …as a fed myself I know this is true … and at times I am amazed that they get away with it - for long periods of time … you probably dont see it reported in the local papers as often as the local school board member or Boys and Girls club Treasurer make bigger news … but it happens and just as often … criminals exist everywhere and people can justify their own bad behavior - sadly

 

[Gertabelle]

TMC:

Neither party is completely consistent with the Church. All Catholic voters have to consider that in making their voting decisions. But it is simply disingenuous for one side to pretend they have the stamp of approval from the Church. Not true.

That’s the reason I first posted in this thread, when I usually try to avoid the political fray. I don’t mind it when my fellow Catholics declare whoever it is they’re voting for. That’s their choice. But when they insist on getting other Catholics like me to vote their way, and especially when they try to use what I see as blackmail tactics, like declaring we’re risking our eternal salvation if we don’t vote their particular way, I cannot abide with that, not when the Church clearly teaches otherwise. How dare anyone assume that I or any one of us have not considered all the issues when it comes to voting? I put much thought and prayer into aligning my vote with what the Church allows, and what I know to be right, when I consider the position, qualifications and past record of each candidate.

Gold star for jumping into the fray and jumping back out again. I’m registered as an independent, but I suspect you and I probably have similar political views, ya old hippy.

And that’s as deep into this mess as I’ll venture. Yikes, it’s just plain horrible in this place, isn’t it?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Not sure how you missed this but there’s a large push on the left for universal healthcare, which would do exactly that.

I didn’t miss it but that large push for universal healthcare would also force companies to provide abortion and contraceptives labeled under the title of “women’s reproductive healthcare” as we have seen the issues that happened with the Little Sisters of the Poor.

 

[farronwolf]

I didn’t miss it but that large push for universal healthcare would also force companies to provide abortion and contraceptives labeled under the title of “women’s reproductive healthcare” as we have seen the issues that happened with the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Has that since been rectified? Yes. And so the ill that has gone away, yet many more people are covered for health care. In the end, would you not say that it had a positive outcome?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Has that since been rectified? Yes. And so the ill that has gone away, yet many more people are covered for health care. In the end, would you not say that it had a positive outcome?

It is not a positive outcome if it takes away peoples religious freedom.

It has been settled as of now thanks to President Trump.

but what could possibly be coming since Mr. Biden disagreed with the rectification:

Joe Biden plans to end contraception exemption for Little Sisters of the Poor | Catholic News Agency