I'm very liberal, considering Catholicism.

[tuviskazinai]

A great many people have argued against the contention that Obama’s policies would significantly reduce abortion rates. Fair enough. I for one certainly agree that nothing would reduce abortion rates more than the abolition of Roe vs Wade.

But if we’re going to ask pragmatically whether Obama’s approaches could be expected to have their desired effect, I think it’s only fair to ask pragmatically whether McCain’s approach could be expected to have its desired effect. I posted this question earlier and not a single person addressed it. Could McCain actually abolish Roe vs Wade? I just don’t think it would ever happen. Even if it did, the issue would go to the States, and that changes our argument: we can no longer compare “Obama’s approach” with “1.2 million saved lives,” as though it’s as simple as that and anything Obama could muster would be paltry in comparison; we would have to compare “Obama’s approach” with the “turn the issue to the States” approach, and that CERTAINLY would not save 1.2 million lives.

Again, even if turning it to the States would be better than nothing (and I believe it would be), avoiding a 9% unemployment rate would also be better than nothing, and perhaps more effective in combating abortion. Yet I don’t think we’ve had any debate on any of these forums that hasn’t pretended a victory for McCain would have been like a magic spell for ending abortion once and for all. (And I acknowledge that an Obama victory isn’t a magic spell for avoiding a 9% unemployment rate! I’m not arguing for Obama over McCain, I’m just arguing that a moral case can be made for both candidates.)

I brought up a lot of other points on Dec 21 if anyone wants to understand my whole perspective on the issue. And again, I’m not saying I voted for Obama; on a more liberal forum I would be writing screeds in favor of McCain. I am just trying to be objective here. So could someone enlighten me on this? I throw it out there even though it’s not in keeping with the original post, because, well, we’ve already basically digressed from that.

Thank you! Peace, and happy New Year.
+AMDG+

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Question: Is it true that a person would be excommunicated for having an abortion but not excommunicated for killing their already born child (or anyone: neighbor, girlfriend, etc.)? Does murder in general call for excommunication or is it just abortion that does that? I read that somewhere and was curious…

 

[josephdavid]

Question: Is it true that a person would be excommunicated for having an abortion but not excommunicated for killing their already born child (or anyone: neighbor, girlfriend, etc.)? Does murder in general call for excommunication or is it just abortion that does that? I read that somewhere and was curious…

I guess based on all these posts here the answer is no.

Gee I was told I was going to hell by some parishoners and posters on this site that I am in grave sin because I did not support McCain or the war in Iraq.

 

[Ender]

We seriously have the highest infant mortality rate among industrialized countries. There’s just no excuse for that.

This is actually a half-truth. The true part is that we report higher numbers of infant deaths than most other first world countries; the other half of the truth that is omitted however is that we report infant mortality very differently than other countries. Our death rates are higher not because our treatments are lacking but because our reporting is more inclusive. The difference is statistical, not medical.

The republican candidate wanted to tax employers’ contributions to insurance premiums over $5000. Right now, there is no cap on that. That’s a raise in taxes for employers which would have cause them to drop health care benefits or severely reduce them, maybe put a cap on how many children we can have and still be covered! That’s like the most un-Catholic stuff I can think of.

This is probably as good an example of confusing practical with moral as one could find. The question of whether employee health benefits should be taxed has no moral component to it whatever; it might be a bad idea but it is not a sin to be wrong. There are arguments on both sides of the issue and no one knows for sure what the overall effect of such a tax would be … but it is not a moral question. If I believe that such a tax would be a good idea I certainly commit no sin in supporting it. It would be a sin only if I believed it would be harmful but voted for it anyway - just as it would be sinful if I voted against it while believing it would be beneficial.

Ender

 

[josephdavid]

I regret that the past 8 years the Catholic Church in American has increasingly been polticized. Where if you voted for anyone in McCain you are not in line with the Catholic Church. Even Bishops were saying this.

I did not know Jesus Christ was a politician.

And those who did not vote for either major candidates but perhaps a third party then they were deemed unfit Catholics and chastised by their own fellow parishoners.

 

[josephdavid]

This is actually a half-truth. The true part is that we report higher numbers of infant deaths than most other first world countries; the other half of the truth that is omitted however is that we report infant mortality very differently than other countries. Our death rates are higher not because our treatments are lacking but because our reporting is more inclusive. The difference is statistical, not medical.
This is probably as good an example of confusing practical with moral as one could find. The question of whether employee health benefits should be taxed has no moral component to it whatever; it might be a bad idea but it is not a sin to be wrong. There are arguments on both sides of the issue and no one knows for sure what the overall effect of such a tax would be … but it is not a moral question. If I believe that such a tax would be a good idea I certainly commit no sin in supporting it. It would be a sin only if I believed it would be harmful but voted for it anyway - just as it would be sinful if I voted against it while believing it would be beneficial.

Ender

And we are the only major industrialized nation with out guaranteeing affordable and equal healthcare.

Tell that to the mother at Mychelle Williams who’s daughter died because the hospital she was brought to would not treat her because she did not have health insurance coverage at that hospital and then was forcecd to transfer to another hospital and the 11 year old girl died.

youtube.com/watch?v=9XaMMdkkcL4

Are you perfectly fine with this?

nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/07uninsured.html?_r=2&em=&pagewanted=all

parents.berkeley.edu/recommend/insurance/trouble.html#sickle

 

[kage_ar]

Question: Is it true that a person would be excommunicated for having an abortion but not excommunicated for killing their already born child (or anyone: neighbor, girlfriend, etc.)? Does murder in general call for excommunication or is it just abortion that does that? I read that somewhere and was curious…

By committing any moral sin, one separates oneself from the Sacraments - they cannot receive communion, they are in the strictest sense of the word, excommunicated.

The question is who may lift the excommunication. For centuries, the heinous act of abortion was so rare that priests were not trained to deal with it, they would not know how to counsel someone in confession to help them overcome the destruction this sin had waged. For that reason, the person who committed this sin would need to be absolved by the Bishop. Sadly for society, abortion is now a common occurance, Priests are trained on this and most if not all Bishops have given Priests the power to absolve abortion.

You can understand more about excommunication by reading here:

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Excommunication

 

[Ender]

Could McCain actually abolish Roe vs Wade?

Of course not. Roe can only be overturned by Constitutional amendment or reversed by the Supreme Court. A president’s influence is indirect: he nominates the justices to the court and they determine whether Roe should stand or fall. As a practical matter a Constitutional amendment is impossible; one would never get out of Congress, let alone garner three-fourths of the states. Reversing Roe via the court, however, is quite possible given that there are four justices who appear hostile to it. Nothing is certain but there would have been a reasonable chance of reversing Roe if McCain had won; there is virtually no chance of that happening with Obama selecting the justices.

we would have to compare “Obama’s approach” with the “turn the issue to the States” approach, and that CERTAINLY would not save 1.2 million lives.

Fair enough as far as it goes but it’s a little like dismissing the need for the Normandy invasion by pointing out that it won’t win the war. You cannot take the second step until you have taken the first one and as far as abortion goes, the first step is the reversal of Roe. Until that happens there is no possibility of any material change in our abortion laws.

And I acknowledge that an Obama victory isn’t a magic spell for avoiding a 9% unemployment rate! I’m not arguing for Obama over McCain, I’m just arguing that a moral case can be made for both candidates.

Not with this argument you can’t - the best approach to avoiding high unemployment is not a moral question. This is where the argument for the moral high ground typically flounders: these are prudential issues, not moral ones. You may well be right (although I doubt it) that under McCain unemployment would be higher than under Obama but that is simply irrelevant to the fact that bad policies are not immoral acts.

Ender

 

[Ender]

And we are the only major industrialized nation with out guaranteeing affordable and equal healthcare.

At least try to focus on one point at a time. My comments addressed the charge that our high infant mortality rates revealed the inadequacies of our health care system when in fact our rates are high simply because our reporting system counts things differently. We include under infant deaths cases that other countries list under stillborn. Your response was impassioned but irrelevant to the topic.

Ender

 

[seekdatruth]

This is actually a half-truth. The true part is that we report higher numbers of infant deaths than most other first world countries; the other half of the truth that is omitted however is that we report infant mortality very differently than other countries. Our death rates are higher not because our treatments are lacking but because our reporting is more inclusive. The difference is statistical, not medical.

How do you know that? I’d be interested to see where that information came from.

This is probably as good an example of confusing practical with moral as one could find. The question of whether employee health benefits should be taxed has no moral component to it whatever; it might be a bad idea but it is not a sin to be wrong. There are arguments on both sides of the issue and no one knows for sure what the overall effect of such a tax would be … but it is not a moral question. If I believe that such a tax would be a good idea I certainly commit no sin in supporting it. It would be a sin only if I believed it would be harmful but voted for it anyway - just as it would be sinful if I voted against it while believing it would be beneficial.

Ender

THe point is that there is currently no tax on employer or employee contributions to medical care. Adding a tax will force employers to drop coverage or reduce it. I looked into regular HC insurance for our family and it came to way more than $5000 a year. This “tax credit” that was promised is a guise for adding taxes and making it harder for working people to afford insurance. Also, I’m sure once the insurance companies got news of the $5000 credit, they’d be sure to raise up the rates, since we could all afford it in theory.

My point is like some other posters: People shouldn’t go around telling others they are immoral or excommunicated based solely on their secular voting choice. Just because someone didn’t vote for a certain party does not mean they did not base their judgment on morals. Your perspective is different, but we both made decisions based on moral standards and objections. Therefore neither of us should be condemned for our voting choices. I did what I thought was right. Only time will tell if I was mislead or not. I pray that the cause against abortion prevails, no matter what party is in office.
God bless!

 

[seekdatruth]

At least try to focus on one point at a time. My comments addressed the charge that our high infant mortality rates revealed the inadequacies of our health care system when in fact our rates are high simply because our reporting system counts things differently. We include under infant deaths cases that other countries list under stillborn. Your response was impassioned but irrelevant to the topic.

Ender

Still would like to know where this comes from.

 

[josephdavid]

At least try to focus on one point at a time. My comments addressed the charge that our high infant mortality rates revealed the inadequacies of our health care system when in fact our rates are high simply because our reporting system counts things differently. We include under infant deaths cases that other countries list under stillborn. Your response was impassioned but irrelevant to the topic.

Ender

cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

 

[seekdatruth]

“the best approach to avoiding high unemployment is not a moral question. This is where the argument for the moral high ground typically flounders: these are prudential issues, not moral ones. You may well be right (although I doubt it) that under McCain unemployment would be higher than under Obama but that is simply irrelevant to the fact that bad policies are not immoral acts.”

A necessary evil? So like if Hitler said he was against abortion, we would have voted for him?

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

By committing any moral sin, one separates oneself from the Sacraments - they cannot receive communion, they are in the strictest sense of the word, excommunicated.

The question is who may lift the excommunication. For centuries, the heinous act of abortion was so rare that priests were not trained to deal with it, they would not know how to counsel someone in confession to help them overcome the destruction this sin had waged. For that reason, the person who committed this sin would need to be absolved by the Bishop. Sadly for society, abortion is now a common occurance, Priests are trained on this and most if not all Bishops have given Priests the power to absolve abortion.

You can understand more about excommunication by reading here:

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Excommunication

WOW…so according to the information on that link, one can be excommunicated for having an abortion…and one can be excommunicated for killing a clergy member…but there is no excommunication penalty for simply killing any human being? In other words, one would be excommunicated for killing the baby that is inside the womb, but once the baby is outside the womb, one would NOT be excommunicated if one killed it??? Heh…that’s very interesting.

 

[seekdatruth]

What I want to know is where Ender gets the information that the statistics are off because of under/incorrect reporting.

 

[seekdatruth]

WOW…so according to the information on that link, one can be excommunicated for having an abortion…and one can be excommunicated for killing a clergy member…but there is no excommunication penalty for simply killing any human being? In other words, one would be excommunicated for killing the baby that is inside the womb, but once the baby is outside the womb, one would NOT be excommunicated if one killed it??? Heh…that’s very interesting.

Scary.

 

[josephdavid]

WOW…so according to the information on that link, one can be excommunicated for having an abortion…and one can be excommunicated for killing a clergy member…but there is no excommunication penalty for simply killing any human being? In other words, one would be excommunicated for killing the baby that is inside the womb, but once the baby is outside the womb, one would NOT be excommunicated if one killed it??? Heh…that’s very interesting.

 

[seekdatruth]

Guess there’s only one thing to do:
Act on what you now to be morally right in the face of no laws to guide you.

 

[tuviskazinai]

WOW…so according to the information on that link, one can be excommunicated for having an abortion…and one can be excommunicated for killing a clergy member…but there is no excommunication penalty for simply killing any human being? In other words, one would be excommunicated for killing the baby that is inside the womb, but once the baby is outside the womb, one would NOT be excommunicated if one killed it??? Heh…that’s very interesting.

Sorry, it’s a pretty long article under that link…haha…can you quote the part or parts that give you that impression?

I thought kage_ar’s explanation was good…all mortal sins entail an excommunication latae sententiae, including murder. Perhaps the confusion stems from the papal bull Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi mentioned in that article? The Cath Encyclopedia says this about that bull:

“For clearness it is well to observe that a censure may be so attached to the violation of a law that the law-breaker incurs the censure in the very act of breaking the law, and a censure, as decreed binds at once the conscience of the law-breaker without the process of a trial, or the formality of a judicial sentence. In other words, the law has already pronounced sentence the moment the person who breaks the law has completed the facto of consciously breaking it; for which reason, censures thus decreed are said to be decreed per modum latae sententiae ipsoque facto incurrendae, i.e. censures of sentence pronounced and incurred by the act of breaking the law. But, on the other hand, a censure may be so attached to the breaking of a law that the law-breaker does not incur the censure until, after a legal process, it is formally imposed by a judicial sentence, for which reason censures thus decreed are called ferendae sententiae, i.e. censures of sentence to be pronounced. Censures of this latter kind were left out by this Bull, and remain just as they were before, together with those penalties above referred to, the direct purpose of which is punishment.”

Am I to understand, then, that “ordinary” murder is obviously a sin and so falls under the latae sententiae category; whereas because people might think abortion was permissible (it’s maybe less obviously a sin), the Church at some point in history made a formal proclamation that it was a mortal sin and hence excommunicable (thereby putting it under the ferendae sententiae category)? And that the bull in question, which deals only with the clarification of certain ferendae sententiae cases, reaffirmed the sinfulness of the two instances you mention, Doubtfire (sins against the unborn and against clergy), without seeing the need to clarify that murder is a mortal sin?

I am just speculating here…does anyone else know better or read this differently…?

+AMDG+

 

[Ender]

This was such a tough election for me; Obama was perfect (in my view) except for the most important thing, and McCain was completely wrong for the job except for in the most important respect.

This is a good definition of the dilemma faced by pro-life Democrats.

But McCain, let’s not forget, wanted as his Vice President either Lieberman or Graham-- both of whom are adamant pro-choicers.
Your wheels are coming off already; his actual choice was Palin, who made a difference in the debate simply by being who she was: unapologetically pro-life.

McCain doesn’t have a religious bone in his body and he clearly doesn’t give a hoot about the unborn (with all due respect) – his pro-life votes are for political convenience.
This is not just uncharitable and judgmental it is irrelevant. What matters most is who the candidate would nominate to SCOTUS and there is no rational argument that an Obama nominee would be preferable to the pro-life cause than a McCain nominee.

I mean, his personal character is bankrupt.
Don’t confuse insult with argument.

And finally, he appointed the most unqualified person in history to be his running mate. I mean, with all of the issues facing the world at this crucial point, he appoints her?
It is reasonable to question her qualifications but irrational to cite her lack of experience while ignoring Obama’s. She at least had been a state governor for two years; he has quite literally had zero experience in any executive capacity whatever. Her qualifications, however inadequate you may see them, still exceed his.

The truth is, he’s bitter that he’s not the young, popular (read: adulterous, womanizing) cadet he used to be as a young man, and that the guy on the other ticket is cooler and handsomer than he is – and so he’d do anything at this point for attention.
It must be wonderful to have the ability to see into other men’s souls and to be freed from the prohibition not to judge others.

I think we can pray for Obama and Biden and actually have some hope that even if they don’t strike down Roe v. Wade, they’ll be moved to take proactive steps to address the abortion rate through other measures.
We can be pretty sure those steps will include support for FOCA and the elimination of the Mexico City accords and the Hyde Amendment.

There are all the other classic arguments too, of course:
I consider all of your arguments so far to be classics.

But even if a pro-lifer got elected, the Court would have to wait (how long? who knows) for the right case to come up which would turn the issue to the States.
Are you familiar with the term “rationalization?”

Clearly liberal “social justice” issues intersect with conservative “social justice” issues, here.
Do not conflate prudential issues with moral ones. Positions on most political issues have no moral aspect; the choices are seldom between actual good or evil but simply between what one perceives to be beneficial or harmful.

Of course, all of this would be better than nothing – I’m not arguing that Roe shouldn’t be overturned!
Hoping that Roe will be overturned does not compensate for acting is such a way as to eliminate the possibility.

… if dramatic action isn’t taken to combat global warming …{the sky will fall}
I believe that AGW is complete nonsense but this is actually a serious argument and much better than the slanderous soothsaying you resorted to above, but this post is already too long for me to get into this one. Let me know if you care to pursue it.

Ender