I'm very liberal, considering Catholicism.

[jmcrae]

Hi. My name is Joseph. I am a liberal and Pro-Life. Nice to meet you.

Me, too.

I am always wondering how the contradiction occurs, where it’s the people who are in favour of the death penalty, and against public education and public health, are against abortion, but the people who are in favour of abortion are the ones who want to create a just society.

 

[estesbob]

Me, too.

I am always wondering how the contradiction occurs, where it’s the people who are in favour of the death penalty, and against public education and public health, are against abortion, but the people who are in favour of abortion are the ones who want to create a just society.

There is no contradiction other than for those who depend on caricatures for those who believe in smaller government and more personal responsibility.

everybody believes in good health care and education for children we just disagree at the means for providing this. I am fortunate in that the Republican Party, which has done more for the poor and uneducated in this country than the Democrat party will ever do, for the most part matches my political philosophy and I do not have to trade off the lives of 1.2 million children a year for political purposes ,as pro-life Democrats do.

I strongly oppose the death penalty but realize that my church does not and there is absolutely no moral equivalence between supporting abortion and supporting the death penalty

 

[jmcrae]

There is no contradiction other than for those who depend on caricatures for those who believe in smaller government and more personal responsibility.

everybody believes in good health care and education for children we just disagree at the means for providing this. I am fortunate in that the Republican Party, which has done more for the poor and uneducated in this country than the Democrat party will ever do, for the most part matches my political philosophy and I do not have to trade off the lives of 1.2 million children a year for political purposes ,as pro-life Democrats do.

I strongly oppose the death penalty but realize that my church does not and there is absolutely no moral equivalence between supporting abortion and supporting the death penalty

What Church do you belong to? The Catholic Church permits the death penalty only in cases of grave necessity, such as where there are no prisons available and the offender is highly likely to re-offend.

 

[jmcrae]

There is no contradiction other than for those who depend on caricatures for those who believe in smaller government and more personal responsibility.

everybody believes in good health care and education for children we just disagree at the means for providing this.

Yes; you believe that the families should pay for these things themselves, or else do without these luxuries, whereas we believe that society as a whole has a duty to provide these necessary things to everyone, for the improvement of society as a whole - plagues are best limited when everyone gets the vaccine; not just the extremely wealthy.

 

[estesbob]

What Church do you belong to? The Catholic Church permits the death penalty only in cases of grave necessity, such as where there are no prisons available and the offender is highly likely to re-offend.

The same one you do-the one that has always ,throughout its 2,000 year history ,allowed for the death penalty. Again , as the Pope made clear, Catholics can ineed disagree on the application of the Death penalty-the same can not be said for abortion. When one implies thay are on the same moral plane they are incorrect.

 

[estesbob]

Yes; you believe that the families should pay for these things themselves, or else do without these luxuries, whereas we believe that society as a whole has a duty to provide these necessary things to everyone, for the improvement of society as a whole - plagues are best limited when everyone gets the vaccine; not just the extremely wealthy.

There you go again-telling me what I believe. Are we out of straw yet?

 

[jmcrae]

There you go again-telling me what I believe. Are we out of straw yet?

If you believe in public education and public health, then guess what, you are a liberal, even if you vote Republican.

Conservatives believe in every man for himself. That is the essence of conservatism - you look after yourself, I look after myself, and it is God’s judgement on you for your sins, if you need help of any kind.

Liberalism is the idea of people helping each other and working together.

If you believe in working together as a society towards a common goal, then you are a liberal.

 

[estesbob]

If you believe in public education and public health, then guess what, you are a liberal, even if you vote Republican.

Conservatives believe in every man for himself. That is the essence of conservatism - you look after yourself, I look after myself, and it is God’s judgement on you for your sins, if you need help of any kind.

Liberalism is the idea of people helping each other and working together.

If you believe in working together as a society towards a common goal, then you are a liberal.

Still more strawmen. you make you own definitions and then knock them down.

 

[jmcrae]

Still more strawmen. you make you own definitions and then knock them down.

 

[Janet_S]

I also agree that the liberal party in America is not the friend of the poor. They spend half of their time pushing their destructive, progressive ideas which debilitate the family and the other half of their time setting up government programs to replace the very family their policies have destroyed. And, as of late, they have been sqeezing the family even more by becoming chummy with big business as well. It’s natural for them to support abortion, because they really don’t like people. I really think, to them, people are just a huge burden, and trees are much easier to love.

I used to be a member of that party, but I can say, without any doubt, they have done more to harm the poor than to help them.

 

[seekdatruth]

I’m laughing at myself because I just can’t leave this thread alone.
So there are moral arguments for both sides. Can we all agree on that? Maybe opinions differ on which side is best, but when discussing motives there are good ones on both sides, am I right? That’s why we have the freedom of voting for whoever we want. Because not all religious people are good judges of politics, right? There are abusers and manipulators on both sides, but not all who chose the “liberal” approach do so with selfish intentions, and the same goes for conservatives.
“Can’t we all just get along?” LOL

 

[estesbob]

I’m laughing at myself because I just can’t leave this thread alone.
So there are moral arguments for both sides. Can we all agree on that? Maybe opinions differ on which side is best, but when discussing motives there are good ones on both sides, am I right? That’s why we have the freedom of voting for whoever we want. Because not all religious people are good judges of politics, right? There are abusers and manipulators on both sides, but not all who chose the “liberal” approach do so with selfish intentions, and the same goes for conservatives.
“Can’t we all just get along?” LOL

One party supports the slaughter of the innocents-one does not. Abortion is the original sin of the Democrat party. It taints everything they do no matter how good intentioned they may be.

 

[Ender]

I would be interested in having this discussion at some point, yes.

It seems that most arguments by pro-life Democrats who voted for Obama - and I think this includes your comments as well - generally fit in one of three buckets.

• McCain is a swine.
• McCain couldn’t do anything about abortion if he wanted to and he doesn’t really want to anyway.
• Other issues are as important as abortion.

I am less than impressed with the first category. Personal characteristics are not inconsequential but an unpleasant person is not necessarily an unfit one and most of the comments are nothing more than simple nastiness. Virtually all of what goes in this bucket is mere slander, nothing more.

Category two is a dodge. There is no honest way to view McCain’s past actions and conclude that he is disingenuous in his opposition to abortion. I agree that there is no way to know for certain that even the most avid anti-abortion president would be able to nominate and have confirmed a fit justice to the Supreme Court, but, as you said, the chances of getting one from McCain were vastly greater than getting one from Obama. In a life and death situation there is no justification for choosing the option that will surely be bad over the option that may be beneficial.

Category three is the area where most of the honest struggle occurs. As to whether other issues are as important as abortion, there are a lot of imaginative “what-if’s” being thrown about but I think this is the only serious area in which to contend that there was a moral justification for supporting Obama.

Ender

 

[grampben]

Condemnation of Liberalism by the Church

…but then, many chose to define “liberal” as they wish, don’t they?

:shamrock2:

Well that ‘liberalism’ is enlightenment thought, which the USA was based on. It includes ‘classical liberalism’ which is effectively modern day conservatism.

EDIT: I don’t like how Americans use the term ‘liberal’ as opposite to conservative, as liberalism is a centrist ideology. Social democrats make up what is known as the ‘far left’ on CAF.

 

[tuviskazinai]

Thank you for your response, Ender! I think you make some good points. Thoughts…–>

**It seems that most arguments by pro-life Democrats who voted for Obama - and I think this includes your comments as well - generally fit in one of three buckets.

• McCain is a swine.
• McCain couldn’t do anything about abortion if he wanted to and he doesn’t really want to anyway.
• Other issues are as important as abortion.

I am less than impressed with the first category. Personal characteristics are not inconsequential but an unpleasant person is not necessarily an unfit one and most of the comments are nothing more than simple nastiness. Virtually all of what goes in this bucket is mere slander, nothing more.**

I disagree that this is all mere slander. I’ve referenced a long, detailed, well researched article that raises a number of brutally damaging points against McCain’s character and which reinforces the uneasy feeling I get whenever I listen to him talk. (Although I have to admit, once he lost he accepted his defeat graciously and has since been more mellow, from what I’ve seen…so maybe I spoke too soon.) Still, no one has addressed any of the points in that article and I think one would have to do so in order to anchor one’s personal opinion of the guy in specific facts.

However, that said, I do agree with you that the fact that he is (in my view) an unpleasant person does not in itself justify voting for a pro-choice candidate instead. There have to be other reasons involved.

Category two is a dodge. There is no honest way to view McCain’s past actions and conclude that he is disingenuous in his opposition to abortion. I agree that there is no way to know for certain that even the most avid anti-abortion president would be able to nominate and have confirmed a fit justice to the Supreme Court, but, as you said, the chances of getting one from McCain were vastly greater than getting one from Obama. In a life and death situation there is no justification for choosing the option that will surely be bad over the option that may be beneficial.

I basically agree with you on this one, too. I mean, on the one hand, half of the currently pro-choice justices were appointed by Republican presidents who were far more religious than McCain – some internal polling suggests that only two of the current justices are really ready to overturn Roe vs Wade because even though it was terrible legislation, stare decisis makes it very difficult to overturn any legal precedent whatsoever. But I will admit that this is beginning to sound like “rationalization.” The fact remains that Roe obviously has a better chance of being taken down under a McCain presidency than under an Obama presidency.

My only point, then, would be that you left out a fourth category in your breakdown: in my attempt to be comprehensive I maybe gave the false impression that McCain’s slight unreliability as a pro-lifer is the main reason I can see for not voting for him. In fact, my main reason is not his unreliability but his inefficacy. Even if Roe were overthrown and the abortion question went to the States, the number of abortions may not go down as significantly as if the problem were addressed economically, as it would be under an Obama administration. That, coupled with the fact that Obama’s plans on every other issue (well, except gay marriage) seemed to me to be a million times more responsible than any of McCain’s, could conceivably tip the scale in his favor in my head.

Peace!
+AMDG+

 

[estesbob]

. That, coupled with the fact that Obama’s plans on every other issue (well, except gay marriage) seemed to me to be a million times more responsible than any of McCain’s, could conceivably tip the scale in his favor in my head.

Peace!
+AMDG+

Except the Church categorically rejects that.

I also find it interestng that people say they didnt vote for Mccain because Republicns claim to oppose abortion but havent ended it but vote for Obama based on social issues even though democrats claim to oppose poverty but havent ended it.

 

[tuviskazinai]

Except the Church categorically rejects that.

I also find it interestng that people say they didnt vote for Mccain because Republicns claim to oppose abortion but havent ended it but vote for Obama based on social issues even though democrats claim to oppose poverty but havent ended it.

The Church does not categorically reject that. If there are proportionate reasons then one may vote for the pro-choice candidate. The problem is that no one bothers to look at the sum total of all the reasons one may have for voting Democrat (since no single issue short of an express desire to wage nuclear holocaust will otherwise seem “proportionate”) and see whether that sum total is proportionate to the real effect, not the unrealistic desired effect, that a Republican president would have on abortions nationwide.

But we’ve been over that many times before.

As for your second point, it is interesting. But poverty will always exist, and so will abortion (in some measure). I believe that Democrats’ policies have always favored the poor, the underprivileged, and the economy. I don’t doubt that Republicans’ policies have favored the unborn, but the question in this election was whether they favored the unborn enough to matter.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Ender]

I’ve referenced a long, detailed, well researched article that raises a number of brutally damaging points against McCain’s character …

I’ll take a look at the article but I find this whole area problematic. Given the emphasis you place on a person’s character I have to ask: did you vote for Clinton?

My only point, then, would be that you left out a fourth category in your breakdown: … my main reason is not his unreliability but his inefficacy.

This was actually part of category two (“he couldn’t do anything even if he wanted to”).

Even if Roe were overthrown and the abortion question went to the States, the number of abortions may not go down as significantly as if the problem were addressed economically, as it would be under an Obama administration.

The future cannot be known. You use the “nothing good might happen” side of the coin against McCain and the “something good might happen” side to support Obama. I agree that we should take into account the probability of something happening, but your probabilities hint of rationalization.

The Church opposes the existence of laws permitting abortion and we have a moral obligation to oppose such laws. I doubt that most abortions happen from economic necessity and there is a limit to how much even a perfect economy could reduce abortions. Until about a year and a half ago the economic situation in this country was pretty good yet there were still 1.2 million abortions.

That, coupled with the fact that Obama’s plans on every other issue (well, except gay marriage) seemed to me to be a million times more responsible than any of McCain’s, could conceivably tip the scale in his favor in my head.

This is the significance of the remark by estesbob: if you hold the Republicans responsible for their failure to outlaw abortion why do you not hold Democrats responsible for failing to eliminate all of the social ills they specifically oppose?

We have a moral obligation to oppose abortion. There is no moral component whatever in any of Obama’s social plans (whatever they may be). They may in fact be the best solutions (although I doubt it) but there is no moral fault in disagreeing with them. There is, however, moral fault in failing to oppose abortion and the laws that enable it.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

The Church does not categorically reject that. If there are proportionate reasons then one may vote for the pro-choice candidate. The problem is that no one bothers to look at the sum total of all the reasons one may have for voting Democrat (since no single issue short of an express desire to wage nuclear holocaust will otherwise seem “proportionate”) and see whether that sum total is proportionate to the real effect, not the unrealistic desired effect, that a Republican president would have on abortions nationwide.

Not one single member of the Magestrium said there were proportionate reasons to vote for Obama. An overwhelming number made it clear there was not. What you and others have done is take a footnote out of a statement made by cardinal Ratzingter and one out of context line from faithful citizenship and claimed it allowed one to vote for Obama.

As for your second point, it is interesting. But poverty will always exist, and so will abortion (in some measure). I believe that Democrats’ policies have always favored the poor, the underprivileged, and the economy. I don’t doubt that Republicans’ policies have favored the unborn, but the question in this election was whether they favored the unborn enough to matter.

There is no evdience that the democrat partys policies have done anything for the poor- in fact the ooposite is true. . But then it is obvious you have different standards for democrats& republicans. repubicans must end abortion to be taken seriously-democarts must only act like they want to help the poor and thats good enough for you.

 

[tuviskazinai]

I’ll take a look at the article but I find this whole area problematic. Given the emphasis you place on a person’s character I have to ask: did you vote for Clinton?

Haha…well, I was too young to vote back then, and it’s hard to say in retrospect.

I place an emphasis on a person’s character, but also on his judgment. In this election the two go hand-in-hand: I thought highly of Obama’s character and judgment, and not so highly of McCain’s. What’s more, I think the particular defects of McCain’s character – his arrogance and quick-temperedness – were a true risk to national security. I couldn’t say the same about Clinton’s faults, even if on an objective scale they may have been more despicable than McCain’s.

I should say that I view 2008 to have been an extreme occasion. Normally I would always vote Republican because of the abortion issue – and in fact did so in 2004, because apart from the question of abortion, I thought the pros and cons of Bush and Kerry balanced each other out. (Bush made many terrible mistakes, but Kerry had absolutely no coherent vision for the country, himself.) I just think that McCain would be so disastrous, and Obama so needed, that one could make a plausible argument for both of them.

**
This was actually part of category two (“he couldn’t do anything even if he wanted to”).**

Ah, I see. Still, that’s the best argument I have, and I stand by it, since as far as I can tell you haven’t disagreed with my basic calculus there…?

The future cannot be known. You use the “nothing good might happen” side of the coin against McCain and the “something good might happen” side to support Obama. I agree that we should take into account the probability of something happening, but your probabilities hint of rationalization.

I think you are basically right, but I don’t really like the term “rationalization.” Believe me, I’m as pro-life as you are – I was certainly much heckled and hated in college when I voted for Bush in 2004! I try to stand by my principles and given that I think the abortion question is as important as I do, I really have no need to desperately “rationalize” a Democratic vote.

I just think that the weight I give all of these probabilities is reasonable. I really don’t think much good would come of a McCain presidency, and I really think that Obama’s forward thinking is desperately needed in this historic moment.

The Church opposes the existence of laws permitting abortion and we have a moral obligation to oppose such laws. I doubt that most abortions happen from economic necessity and there is a limit to how much even a perfect economy could reduce abortions. Until about a year and a half ago the economic situation in this country was pretty good yet there were still 1.2 million abortions.
This is the significance of the remark by estesbob: if you hold the Republicans responsible for their failure to outlaw abortion why do you not hold Democrats responsible for failing to eliminate all of the social ills they specifically oppose?

Fair enough. I do, by the way, hold the Democrats responsible for a great deal…I just haven’t had the chance to get into it here. And I think that Obama is much more likely to bring the change that Democrats have been promising for years.

In general I am not sure that a bad economy has to equal abortions, but I am especially worried about the unemployment rate nowadays. When you talk to high school graduates in inner cities who have absolutely no job – can’t even find work at McDonald’s – and even many college graduates can’t find work, that is where the problem is. A lot of people are making big changes to their plans to buy houses, get married, etc. etc. based on the job market, and you can bet that for many people, whether to have an unplanned child will figure into that calculus, too.

Lastly, I mentioned this in one of my posts already, but it’s a point I feel strongly about. I agree with you that we have a moral obligation to oppose abortion laws, and I don’t think that voting Republican is the only way to do that. I do feel that if one votes Democrat one has a moral obligation to step up his or her anti-abortion efforts to compensate for that vote: to lobby, write articles, volunteer at crisis pregnancy centers, etc. This is something most of us do not do enough of, for all of our pontificating about which little box we should circle in one on afternoon in November – Republican and Democratic and independent Catholics alike – myself included.
CONT’D—>