Hypothetical election please vote

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Does ‘Pro-life’ mean that they’re actually going to pass a law against abortion, or just that they oppose abortion, but can’t really do anything about restricting it?

In political life it just means to pay lip service to get themselves into office and to keep votes coming election cycle after election cycle. The same can be said for the oft used but purposely vague and misleading “pro-family” statement.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

In political life it just means to pay lip service to get themselves into office and to keep votes coming election cycle after election cycle. The same can be said for the oft used but purposely vague and misleading “pro-family” statement.

Unfortunately, yes.
But even for sincere pro-life candidates, with the majority of the population against criminalizing abortion, it simply might not be possible for any number of sincere politicians to stop abortion.

 

[HannahLisa]

My problem with things like this (and, indeed, the actual candidates) is that I am pro-life, and I will not vote for a candidate who is pro-choice. However, I do not necessarily agree with the pro-life candidate’s other positions.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Unfortunately, yes.
But even for sincere pro-life candidates, with the majority of the population against criminalizing abortion, it simply might not be possible for any number of sincere politicians to stop abortion.

Actually, most of the US population would be for reducing abortion options, but not a blanket ban. Health of a mother is a popular reason, along with worries about needing safeguards that would not interfere with doctors’ abilities to do their work and not be restricted by a overly broad interpretation of a law.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

None of the above.

The candidate I’m planning on voting for is:

• Pro-life (includes anti-euthanasia, anti-(embryonic) stem cell research, & anti-Iraq war), anti-ssm, anti-“Patriot” Act.

Chris

 

[beckycmarie]

None of the above.

The candidate I’m planning on voting for is:

• Pro-life (includes anti-euthanasia, anti-(embryonic) stem cell research, & anti-Iraq war), anti-ssm, anti-“Patriot” Act.

Chris

Methinks we like the same candidate. Ron Paul?

 

[surfinpure]

Methinks we like the same candidate. Ron Paul?

Not unless Ron Paul has changed his position on embryonic SSR. Last I checked (since he’s in our district), he was in favor of it.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Methinks we like the same candidate. Ron Paul?

Since discussion of political candidates is banned on CAF, I find it necessary to take the 5th.

Not unless Ron Paul has changed his position on embryonic SSR. Last I checked (since he’s in our district), he was in favor of it.

I disagree, but you’re quite welcome to PM me if you wish to discuss the issue.

God bless,

Chris

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

NOTICE: As a reminder to all, due to our status as a 501(c)(3) organization, particular candidates may not be discussed or alluded to. Please self-edit prior to hitting the submit button.

God Bless,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[bilop]

I am shocked that anyone who professes to be a faithful Catholic would not vote for A.

Catholics can disagree in good faith about a war (whether it is just or not), tax policy, a spending plan, etc.

They CAN NOT disagree about abortion (or SMM etc.).

How can you vote for someone who supports abortion if there is any reasonable alternative?

If the only anti-abortion candidate was Stalin, maybe, but not in the U.S.

God Bless

 

[goofyjim]

I am shocked that anyone who professes to be a faithful Catholic would not vote for A.

Catholics can disagree in good faith about a war (whether it is just or not), tax policy, a spending plan, etc.

They CAN NOT disagree about abortion (or SMM etc.).

How can you vote for someone who supports abortion if there is any reasonable alternative?

If the only anti-abortion candidate was Stalin, maybe, but not in the U.S.

God Bless

Not voting for A doesn’t mean they are voting for B or C. There are simply not enough choices and one is always free to write in a candidate of their own choice. It amazes me that anyone would ever say any vote is wasted.

 

[bilop]

Not voting for A doesn’t mean they are voting for B or C. There are simply not enough choices and one is always free to write in a candidate of their own choice. It amazes me that anyone would ever say any vote is wasted.

OK. That makes more sense.

But at what point does the clear moral issue over-ride the disagreement on the prudential issue?

If Candidates B and C were advocating enslaving a particular ethnic group, would you still do a write-in vote b/c you disagree about Iraq?

God Bless

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I am shocked that anyone who professes to be a faithful Catholic would not vote for A.

It’s because of all the poison pills attached. That’s why I said “none of the above.”

 

[bilop]

It’s because of all the poison pills attached. That’s why I said “none of the above.”

I can understand disagreement with the conduct of the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act, but view them as issues on which reasonable people, and faithful Catholics can differ. I don’t see how they over-ride the life issues.

God Bless

 

[iamrefreshed]

I can understand disagreement with the conduct of the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act, but view them as issues on which reasonable people, and faithful Catholics can differ. I don’t see how they over-ride the life issues.

God Bless

They don’t over-ride the life issues. Unfortunately many people hate the present administration so much that they would not vote ‘A’ or as has been said ‘the catholic position’.

 

[surfinpure]

They don’t over-ride the life issues. Unfortunately many people hate the present administration so much that they would not vote ‘A’ or as has been said ‘the catholic position’.

I think that the percentage of the population that “hates” the current administration is greatly exaggerated by the mass media. In the last poll I saw on Bush’s approval, it was split nearly down the middle. I think the left-wing media elites want very much for all of us to **believe **that many people hate the present administration.

 

[bilop]

They don’t over-ride the life issues. Unfortunately many people hate the present administration so much that they would not vote ‘A’ or as has been said ‘the catholic position’.

I understand secular leftists hating this administration, and I myself, despite being a Catholic conservative, have a lot of issues with Bush et. al.

But still, what has Bush done that would make a faithful Catholic hate him so much as to vote for candidates that uniformaly support the culture of death?

Even if you think the Iraq war was a bad idea, do 20-30,000 deaths in Iraq out-weigh millions of abortion deaths EACH YEAR?

God Bles

 

[LCMS_No_More]

They don’t over-ride the life issues. Unfortunately many people hate the present administration so much that they would not vote ‘A’ or as has been said ‘the catholic position’.

How dare you imply my feelings. It’s not hatred, it’s disgust.

Further, unnecessary wars and police state laws don’t foster a culture that places life at the head of cultural values.

 

[bilop]

Further, unnecessary wars and police state laws don’t foster a culture that places life at the head of cultural values.

Having family who has lived in real police states, and died b/c of those police states, I think it is offensive to refer to the U.S. as having “police state laws”.

God Bless

 

[ChrisWRIT]

“None of the above”, especially since there are more choices than “A”, “B” or “C”. (Even if there weren’t, one could still vote differently by write-in.)

If nothing else, it should be noted that A, the only choice which includes “pro-life”, should probably be changed to read “Anti-Abortion”, since “Anti-Stem Cell research”, and “Pro-Iraq War”, are not necessarily “pro-life”.

The papal “Declaration on the Production & the Scientific & Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells” notes that “Methods for obtaining them are still being studied”, which allows that there may be methods that do not end in the destruction of human life. One of those possible methods is by obtaining them from embryos that have already died of natural causes, like miscarriage. Others are obtaining them from amniotic fluid or umbilical cord blood, neither of which require the destruction of life either.

As such, embryonic stem cell research is possible without violating Church teaching. Whether embryonic stem cell research is even worth the trouble or effort, given it’s poor to non-existent success, is probably another issue. Personally, I don’t see a need to keep pursuing ESCR, since it has been relatively unfruitful, compared to other research methods which have seen success.

Chris