It is a Sin to Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates

  • Thread starter Thread starter CPA2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doc_Keele said:
If you don’t care for quality of life, you don’t really care for life. If QoL is always trumped by what you deem “life” issues, then that is a really incoherent way of promoting life. Keep people alive at all costs, but never mind their QoL?:confused:
Click to expand...
All rights flow from the right to life.
 
Doc_Keele said:
If you don’t care for quality of life, you don’t really care for life. If QoL is always trumped by what you deem “life” issues, then that is a really incoherent way of promoting life. Keep people alive at all costs, but never mind their QoL?:confused:
Click to expand...
If an individual does not have the right to life then the quality of life issues are secondary. This is an issue of power and authority. Pro-death laws deny the the American right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A Catholic must vote for the rights of the unborn first. The quality of lifers have manifested their view in many ways. Some examples: carbon credits, population control, competition for resources. pollution, destruction of the planet. This is a bandaid approach to the problem.

Kill more so we can live better - is that your position?
 
estesbob said:
All rights flow from the right to life.
Click to expand...
Obviously not if “life issues” (a misnomer I believe, they should be called “sanctity of life issues”) trump QoL issues every time. That would imply there is no connection, no “boot strap”.
 
buffalo said:
If an individual does not have the right to life then the quality of life issues are secondary. This is an issue of power and authority. Pro-death laws deny the the American right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A Catholic must vote for the rights of the unborn first. The quality of lifers have manifested their view in many ways. Some examples: carbon credits, population control, competition for resources. pollution, destruction of the planet. This is a bandaid approach to the problem.

Kill more so we can live better - is that your position?
Click to expand...
What a wonderful straw man argument - “Kill more so we can live better”! Why on earth did this pop into your head?:confused:

If you can find anywhere on this forum I’ve posted anything remotely resembling this I’ll buy you a Cadillac:thumbsup:
 
Doc_Keele said:
Obviously not if “life issues” (a misnomer I believe, they should be called “sanctity of life issues”) trump QoL issues every time. That would imply there is no connection, no “boot strap”.
Click to expand...
What quality of life can one who was denied life have?
 
Doc_Keele said:
Obviously not if “life issues” (a misnomer I believe, they should be called “sanctity of life issues”) trump QoL issues every time. That would imply there is no connection, no “boot strap”.
Click to expand...
One cannot have any quality of life if they are not alive in the first place!
 
Doc_Keele said:
“loophole”?
it’s a very sensible point - would you like to respond to it?
Click to expand...
Your moral obligation is to oppose abortion. Unless you have an auditor type (rules oriented) personality, you can find a way to oppose political candidates who support abortion.
 
CPA2 said:
Your moral obligation is to oppose abortion. Unless you have an auditor type (rules oriented) personality, you can find a way to oppose political candidates who support abortion.
Click to expand...
No, my moral obligation is far wide than opposing abortion. I certainly don’t let YOU set my moral agenda.
 
Doc_Keele said:
No, my moral obligation is far wide than opposing abortion. I certainly don’t let YOU set my moral agenda.
Click to expand...
From a moral perspective not all issues are qualitatively equal. Some values carry more weight than others. Some values are more fundamental than others. There is justification for placing more emphasis on some issues than other issues, and there is justification for placing more emphasis on some issues at certain times.

Abortion is the preeminent threat to human life. Abortion attacks life itself. The most fundamental moral good is life itself. Life is the condition necessary for all the good works that we may do. ** Ignoring the problem of abortion is to misunderstand the nature of the threat of abortion.**
 
Doc_Keele said:
Very easily countered by asking what’s the point in being alive if you have no quality of life.
Click to expand...
Let me ask, then – are you in favor of euthanasia for the mentally or physically disabled? For the euthanasia of the elderly suffering from Alzheimers? For the euthanasia of someone with cancer? Of AIDS? Of Cerebral Palsy? Of severe depression? Of those who are permanently paralyzed? For starving the homless so they die and get off the welfare rolls? They certainly have no “quality of life”, and so what’s the point of their being alive?

Sorry for the reductio ad absurdam there, but that argument, that quality of life supercedes life itself, can be and has been spun wildly out of control by sometimes well-meaning, but other times malicious, people over the centuries. In the last century, George Bernard Shaw, the playwright, posited with a straight face government boards whose function was to measure a man’s worth to society, with dire consequences:

George Bernard Shaw said:
“You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?

“If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”
Click to expand...

Certainly a fetus is of very little use to society in the mother’s womb, and so in Shaw’s estimation would be of very little account to those boards, even if the child were another potential Mozart, or Renoir, or Bradbury or Saint Bede the Venerable.

If we don’t value one life, how can we value another? Whom do we not see as just a commodity, an obstacle to a “golden age” for the worthy to live?
 
Doc_Keele said:
Very easily countered by asking what’s the point in being alive if you have no quality of life.
Click to expand...
The ability to improve your quality of life. the ability to help others improve their quality of life.
 
CPA2 said:
(Information based on “Priests For Life”)
If you believe in “abortion rights,” and knowingly and willfully vote for a candidate who promises to protect those “rights,” you have committed a sin. This is especially true for Catholics who have 2,000 years of Church teaching and tradition to back them up (Church’s teaching in the 2nd century). A voter who votes for a candidate who supports abortion has intentionally and deliberately helped someone who promotes a violent and destructive activity. That vote is similar in seriousness to participating in a pro-abortion rally, or writing an editorial that supports abortion.

These are the moral implications of voting. I once belonged to the Democrat Party, then I joined the Republican Party, and I now belong to the Constitution Party. However, my moral obligation is to keep out candidates who support abortion, usually Democrats; therefore, I often vote for Republicans who oppose abortion.

We can commit sin in the voting booth. Everything that we say or do either affirms or denies moral law. We are either getting closer to God, or farther away from Him. Everything that we say or do either strengthens us in virtue or enslaves us in vice. You cannot sing God’s praises in the choir and then say that you believe in abortion.
Click to expand...
I specifically asked my family priest about voting. He said, as you stated above, that if you vote for a candidate who is pro-choice because he is pro-choice, that is a sin. However, if you, looking at the whole picture, vote for a candidate because you believe this candidate is the best candidate to vote for, and he happens to be pro-choice, that is NOT a sin.

I have a responsibility to vote for the candidate who I best believe will serve my country well, not just Catholics, and that’s how I vote. My priest says there’s nothing sinful about that.
 
Rence said:
I specifically asked my family priest about voting. He said, as you stated above, that if you vote for a candidate who is pro-choice because he is pro-choice, that is a sin. However, if you, looking at the whole picture, vote for a candidate because you believe this candidate is the best candidate to vote for, and he happens to be pro-choice, that is NOT a sin.

I have a responsibility to vote for the candidate who I best believe will serve my country well, not just Catholics, and that’s how I vote. My priest says there’s nothing sinful about that.
Click to expand...
Nope - happens to be pro-choice? - your pastor did not go far enough. It is a sin to knowingly vote a pro-choice candidate in if there is a pro-life candidate running. You must have proportionate reasons to vote for him, that is the other candidate must be worse when it comes to protecting the sanctity of human life. (the lesser of two evils, if you will)

Are you an American Catholic or a Catholic American?
 
Rence said:
I specifically asked my family priest about voting. He said, as you stated above, that if you vote for a candidate who is pro-choice because he is pro-choice, that is a sin. However, if you, looking at the whole picture, vote for a candidate because you believe this candidate is the best candidate to vote for, and he happens to be pro-choice, that is NOT a sin.

I have a responsibility to vote for the candidate who I best believe will serve my country well, not just Catholics, and that’s how I vote. My priest says there’s nothing sinful about that.
Click to expand...
What your Priest told you is contray to what the Pope says and what Church teaches. Not one single member of the Magestrium, for instance, stated there were proportionate reasons that would allow a Catholic to vote for Obama. Since you obviously have an internet conection I suggest you research what the Church actually teaches and not depend on your Priest’s obviously flawed understading of Church teaching.

What has always puzzled me is why anyone would even need a priest or the Church to tell them that we shouldnt vote for people who support killing our children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top