Is It a Grave Sin to Vote Democrat?

[vern_humphrey]

“Common sense based on what women say who have had abortions.”

Where can I find a study that supports this conclusion?

“No, that was my proposal from the very beginning. All expenses.”

Including living expenses? All pregnant women should be 100% supported by the government?

“It just makes sense based what women say who have had abortions.”

Once again, where is the study that supports this conclusion?

 

[vern_humphrey]

"This is the definition I was thinking of, specifcally that, “I think Benedict would say that voting for a pro-death candidate when there is a pro-life choice IS a moral imperative.”

Are you saying I pretended that was YOUR argument, so I could demolish it?

“There was one more post that has been deleted that also said this, so I do not think it qualifies as a straw man.”

How do any of these posts purport to be YOUR argument, concocted by your opponent?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

“Common sense based on what women say who have had abortions.”

Where can I find a study that supports this conclusion?

“It just makes sense based what women say who have had abortions.”

Once again, where is the study that supports this conclusion?

Where is the study that supports the conclusion that repealing Roe v Wade will reduce abortions?

 

[upant]

policies that gratuitously and actively harms the poor

what policies are these?

Voting for a person like Donald Trump would be a much bigger sin.

so you are okay with a godless society

However, is it not Church teaching that one may justifiably vote for a candidate who is pro-choice rather than pro-life if one is voting for that candidate on the basis of other, for example, social justice issues despite their pro-choice stand, rather than voting for them because of their being pro-choice? Would not this be considered a kind of remote cooperation rather than proximate cooperation?

no

St. Pope John Paul II is clear on it

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

meltzerboy2:

However, is it not Church teaching that one may justifiably vote for a candidate who is pro-choice rather than pro-life if one is voting for that candidate on the basis of other, for example, social justice issues despite their pro-choice stand, rather than voting for them because of their being pro-choice? Would not this be considered a kind of remote cooperation rather than proximate cooperation?

no

St. Pope John Paul II is clear on it

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

You may think John Paul II is clearly contradicting meltzerboy2, but he is not. You are reading into his words what you want them to say.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

We cannot due evil in order that something good comes from it.

But this goes both ways making any dicision morally questionable.

 

[pnewton]

I can’t follow you. You said I was giving a strawman. I was showing how this was a real argument, not a strawman.

 

[englands123]

There are two clear instructions in the bible regarding Poltics.

1 : Even though evil men abuse their political power, meaning it for evil, God means it for good,

Daniel 4:17

17 The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the holy ones, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men.’

2 : Salvation comes through God not Politics.

Romans 13:1.2

13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed,

 

[vern_humphrey]

When you attribute an argument to me, or I to you, that is a strawman.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Where is the study that supports the conclusion that repealing Roe v Wade will reduce abortions?

Where did I say that repealing Roe V Wade will reduce abortions?

 

[upant]

You may think John Paul II is clearly contradicting meltzerboy2, but he is not. You are reading into his words what you want them to say.

and you are reading it to justify voting for someone who supports abortion.

it is clear that both popes are/were anti-abortion and the proportionate reasons would have to be that both candidates are pro-abortion and you had to choose one.

I will repeat it. it is plain and simple (bold mine)

the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

there is nothing to read into this

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Where is the study that supports the conclusion that repealing Roe v Wade will reduce abortions?

Where did I say that repealing Roe V Wade will reduce abortions?

Are you are you not in favor of repealing Roe v Wade? If you are in favor of it, why would you be in favor of it if you did not think it would reduce abortions?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You may think John Paul II is clearly contradicting meltzerboy2, but he is not. You are reading into his words what you want them to say.

and you are reading it to justify voting for someone who supports abortion.

No, I don’t need anyone to justify voting for someone who supports abortion. The absence of a prohibition against doing so is all that I need.

it is clear that both popes are/were anti-abortion

And so am I!

and the proportionate reasons would have to be that both candidates are pro-abortion and you had to choose one.

No, that was given as an example of when one could vote for such a person. No one ever stated it as the only possible reason.

 

[upant]

No, that was given as an example of when one could vote for such a person. No one ever stated it as the only possible reason.

give an example of when a person could vote for a senate or president candidate that supported abortion when their opponent did not

 

[vern_humphrey]

Please don’t tell me what I have to think. Don’t put words in my mouth.

Repealing Roe V Wade will probably not materially reduce abortions – but it would be a moral statement, like repealing the Nuremberg Laws.

 

[upant]

interesting, the dems aren’t shy about where they are headed. wake up folk

DNC: Nonreligious Voters Are the Party's 'Largest Religious Group'

The Democratic National Committee on Saturday passed a resolution claiming nonreligious people are "the largest religious group" within the party, and noting that these people "overwhelmingly share the Democratic Party's values."

freebeacon.com

some are fighting back and he is right.

Michael Wear, the former faith outreach director for President Barack Obama, wrote on Twitter that the DNC’s resolution overlooks the fact that Protestants are most likely the largest group within the Democratic Party, and only appear to be diminished in numbers because of their different denominations.

“I just want to be clear,” [he wrote.]“This is both politically stupid, but also, just stupid on a fundamental level that transcends electoral politics.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

No, that was given as an example of when one could vote for such a person. No one ever stated it as the only possible reason.

give an example of when a person could vote for a senate or president candidate that supported abortion when their opponent did not

When, in the voter’s opinion, more good can come or more evil can be avoided by voting for such a person. The criterion is based on expected outcome, not an the mere announcement of a policy. For example, if the voter believes it is not in the candidate’s power to reduce abortions, or in the other candidate’s power to increase them. But some other issue, like serious corruption, may lead the voter to believe that significant evil is in the candidate’s power to produce, and thus that issue can provide a proportionately greater reason to consider that issue, in light of the assumption mentioned above.

 

[JimG]

The abortion issue is more than Roe v Wade. Presidents and congressional reps can’t do anything about Roe, but they can affect abortion in other ways. Traditionally, Democrats have consistently voted agains any and all restrictions on abortion at both the state and federal levels; they have voted for taxpayer funding of abortion and support of Planned Parenthood, as well as for judges known to favor abortion rights. They have voted against such things as parental notification requirements, always seeking to make abortion easier to obtain and at later and later stages of pregnancy.

 

[upant]

When, in the voter’s opinion, more good can come or more evil can be avoided by voting for such a person. The criterion is based on expected outcome, not an the mere announcement of a policy. For example, if the voter believes it is not in the candidate’s power to reduce abortions, or in the other candidate’s power to increase them. But some other issue, like serious corruption, may lead the voter to believe that significant evil is in the candidate’s power to produce, and thus that issue can provide a proportionately greater reason to consider that issue, in light of the assumption mentioned abov

the DNC has made it their goal to make it legal for abortion up until birth and just after in some cases. any vote for a democrat will further this goal.

how can you say it is not in any dems power?

if they are a dem and they help the dems obtain the majority and the presidency they are the power behind more abortions.

this is a two-party system, an individual is just a cog in the party.

this is an excuse to vote for the pro-abort party. the dem still supports abortion no matter how he/she campaigns. the writing is on the wall by virtue of being dem

 

[Maximus_Power]

When, in the voter’s opinion, more good can come or more evil can be avoided by voting for such a person.

Is this hypothetical voter ignorant of politics?
Because in such case his sin would be lessoned to a venial.

This sounds similar to the supremacy of conscience heresey.