Issues other than abortion

[Tis_Bearself]

You seem to think that if some Catholic is anti-abortion, they are somehow ignoring “poverty, physical abuse, drug and other substance abuse, corruption, and so many other things”.

Where do you get this idea?

In the last couple months, I have seen the Catholic parish near me

• participate in March for Life
• hold prayer vigil against abortion
• make/ collect/ provide food for poor people through several ongoing initiatives including people who prepare and drop off casseroles, people who donate food for holiday meals, support of local food bank/ soup kitchen etc
• pastor preached an entire homily alerting us to substance abuse in the local community (on a day when he said he was doing two funerals for people who died of opioid abuse), educating people on the problem and asking them to pray
• a number of prayer vigils, homily mentions, other discussions about “corruption” (by which I presume you mean clergy sex abuse and cover-up because that’s the main “corruption” going on around here lately) and how Catholics in the pew can deal with it, think about it, take action etc.
• emergency drive for baby formula going on at 2 parishes

There is also a lot of other ongoing stuff such as domestic violence referrals. I posted in another thread how I met a lady at Mass a couple weeks ago who said she was a victim of domestic violence and was trying to get away, and while I don’t know if she was scamming me or not I did talk to her for a while, give her a small amount of money, and pray for her.

I really don’t like your assumption that Catholics do nothing other than protest abortion. It makes me wonder if you actually spend any time around Catholics or parishes to actually see all the things that Catholics do and are concerned about.

Also, what do you yourself do?

 

[pnewton]

I see on kernel of truth in the OP. There is a tendency here for every issue, every discussion, to end up with abortion injected. It would seem from the outside that the reduction of all morality to abortion is done to avoid other moral imperatives. However, I am sure everything else claimed is nothing but straw.

The GOP is counting on voters like you.

And the Democrats are counting on other issues to keep abortion flowing free. If they wanted to draw more votes from people of morals, they could come off this hard abortion line on their party platform, allowing the Democratic party to include freely those who oppose abortion. As much as I point out the Catholics who are single issue voters on abortion, I have to wonder if Democrat are worse, selling their souls, as it were, to keep abortion as their key plank.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There is a tendency here for every issue, every discussion, to end up with abortion injected.

As we have said on here before, MANY times, this forum doesn’t reflect the full picture of Catholicism.

It tends to draw a lot of people who are here primarily to talk about a small handful of issues that they think are important. If you notice, a lot of posters post about the same stuff repeatedly.

We also don’t post here every time we do something against poverty. I don’t rush here to post on the forum each time I donate to charity or give some money to a street person or vote for a candidate who I think will help people get jobs and thus be less poor.

Of course, if this whole thread is just a thinly veiled attack on GOP voters, then it would be nice if it came out and said that’s what it is. I say this as a Democrat. I just don’t like the tone of the thread, sorry.

 

[YourNameHere]

Only if they stand for other moral imperatives like the end of the death penalty, a single payer health care system, more money for social security and Medicare expansion, tax relief for working class and middle class folks, etc.

 

[upant]

like the end of the death penalty,

There were only 8 states that carried out a total of 25 executions in 2018. Texas had 13 of them. This is a limited state issue.

a single payer health care system,

Pelosi is against it, there is not enough money for it no matter what the socialist democrats say.

more money for social security

Tax the rich? Just ask New York how that worked for them…

Medicare expansion

Why ‘Medicare for All’ Would Be Bad News for Everyone

This proposal would take your existing coverage away while outlawing any alternative for you and your family.

www.dailysignal.com

tax relief for working class and middle class folks, etc.

why did the Democrats scrap the super-majority rule on raising taxes?

 

[YourNameHere]

I hate being trolled by GOP plants.

 

[pnewton]

I hate being trolled by GOP plants.

You started this thread on a Catholic website. I do not think you know what the word “troll” means. Yes, it is more conservative (and Republican) than Catholics in general, but discussing the topic you started is not trolling.

 

[Ender]

Only if they stand for other moral imperatives like the end of the death penalty, a single payer health care system, more money for social security and Medicare expansion, tax relief for working class and middle class folks, etc.

The problem with this claim is that none of these issues is a “moral imperative”. They are all prudential issues about which conflicting positions are morally indistinguishable. The church tells us to heal the sick and feed the poor, but she leaves decisions about how best to achieve those goals to the laity. She tells us what our ends should be, but she takes no position on the means.

 

[blackforest]

I think you’re missing his point . . .

I see on kernel of truth in the OP. There is a tendency here for every issue, every discussion, to end up with abortion injected.

I’ve stated this upthread, (it’s a long thread - no worries if you missed it), abortion does deservedly get a unique amount of attention because it’s the one human rights violation generating copious amounts of denial.

We can agree to the atrocity of other human rights abuses, like trafficking children. But when was the last time you heard:

“That’s only a potential child being trafficked.”
“Don’t like child trafficking? Then don’t do it!”
“Stop imposing your morality on child traffickers!”

I’d like to hear more discussions about other human rights issues on CAF. You do if you hit at the right time - usually when the issue is receiving a lot of attention in the media. (Remember all of the threads about ICE separating families?)

But I can understand why, considering the massive amounts of carnage generated under the glib rationale of “choice,” the abortion issue is so often in the limelight.

 

[YourNameHere]

 

[Brendan_64]

I do not like abortion, but that is my opinion and that is my choice.

I don’t like murder, but should that be my opinion and my choice? Should someone else with a different opinion have the right to murder?

Your argument seems to ignore that abortion kills another human being, and a completely innocent and vulnerable one at that. Should people really have the right to kill an innocent human being because they think it is OK?

Your argument seems to ignore the humanity of the unborn child.

 

[YourNameHere]

I am nor ignoring. But I also am not judging. God will punish those who do wrong.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t see what this has to do with the topic. We do not judge the souls of anyone, from mass murders down to petty thieves, yet no one takes this to mean we should have no criminal law, leaving all justice to God.

 

[Brendan_64]

I am nor ignoring. But I also am not judging. God will punish those who do wrong.

That is true, but do we also not have a duty as a society to protect the innocent through our laws? Or is it OK say that the killing of innocent people should be legal and left to individuals to make that call? Should the law not protect the innocent from being killed?

 

[YourNameHere]

The Killing of most all people is against the law. It is called manslaughter.

 

[Brendan_64]

The Killing of most all people is against the law. It is called manslaughter.

Apart from children in their mothers’ wombs. Why should these most innocent and vulnerable of people not have their lives protected by the law?

 

[thistle]

The Killing of most all people is against the law. It is called manslaughter.

Most who are killed are those human lives aborted, and those far exceed all other deaths.

 

[pnewton]

The Killing of most all people is against the law. It is called manslaughter.

Sometimes, it is negligent homicide, and thus the problem with abortion. Negligent homicide is when action is taken, not to kill a person, but which may kill a person. If I shoot at a movement in the woods thinking it may be a person, but I think it is a deer, and kill someone, it is the same rationale of aborting that which may be a person, but I do not think it is.

In other words, legally, the burden of proof of non-personhood, must be on the hunter taking the shot, or the person wanting legal abortion. In absence of such evidence, the shot cannot be taken, or the baby aborted.

 

[Vonsalza]

Respectfully, you’re asking them to prove a negative, which is typically impossible especially dealing with abstract concepts like personhood.

The burden of proof lies with the affirmative claimant. If you think something is a person, it is on you to explain why.

 

[Brendan_64]

The concept of ‘personhood’ seems to have been created in order to be able to define as a ‘non-person’ those whom they want to be able to kill. The purpose of the concept of ‘personhood’ would seem to be to create humans who are ‘non-persons’ Surely the onus is on the advocates of this concept to define the parameters and basis of this concept?

The dictionary definition of a person is, “a human being regarded as an individual”. As all human beings have an individual identity coded in their DNA, therefore the logical conclusion is that a human being is a person from conception.

Is the argument that certain humans are not individuals and therefore not persons? This position would seem to disregard established scientific fact.

To create a concept of ‘personhood’ where we have human individuals divided into undefined categories of ‘person’ and ‘non-person’, then surely the onus is on the advocates of this concept to define its parameters and basis?