B
Brad
Guest
As if birth control and abortion is some kind of blessing and benefit of the wealthy?
Shut it down EVERYWHERE. Start with Planned Parenthood.
- Status
Shut it down EVERYWHERE. Start with Planned Parenthood.
B
Brad
Guest
Sure. Because it basically said you could vote for anyone. But the USCCB is not doctrinal and has no Church authority of themselves. The local Bishop(if in communion with the Holy Father) and the Holy Father are the ones to follow.Of course not - but with logical backing for your position, sometimes you have to sit back and say ‘what I’m being told to do here is wrong’. I’ll go for the document from the USCCB on voting
Why them? Of all the religous in the world, we can always find some that disagree with the Holy Father. Is this the search you are on?
An excellent statement. He said you cannot vote for a pro-choice politician unless you had proportionate reasons (i.e the opposing choice promoted something worse such as abortion and euthanasia).
Unfortunately, Cardinal McCarrick relayed the contents himself rather than allowing the Bishops to read the letter themselves. Several Bishops were none too happy with this censored version. I guess you enjoyed it.
The Catechism says we have a responsibility to properly form our conscience. Have you seen a butchered infant in multiple pieces? Multiple it times thousands per day. This is what John Kerry would fight to defend the right to do - kill innocent babies. But he didn’t want to fight terrorists that are trying to kill us. A man of courage or cowardice?
Make aboriton illegal and now hundreds of thousands of police officers are assisting you in your efforts to stop abortion.
Is it an effective way to save lives if you try to talk people out of killing their child while you vote for someone that funds the advertisers of those that want to kill their child? I think you are running uphill to nowhere.
Yes. Much better to vote for open promoters of baby killing and family wrecking. That way we are being honest with ourselves.
Better to keep everyone ignorant so that baby killing can continue without guilt. Wonderful.
M
miguel
Guest
I’m not condemning anyone. I just don’t believe heaven will be populated by cold-blooded murderers, their cold-blooded abettors in the voting booth, and their unborn victims. If it is, I don’t want to go there. I mean that. If it is, it’s not the place I’m hoping for. God is not the god I believe in. The God I believe in is merciful to those who “Go and sin no more.” And I thank him that he has given you the grace of repentance.
M
MikeWM
Guest
I don’t think you can exactly throw away the opinions of the USCCB quite so trivially - but if you choose to, that is up to you.
Hint : I live in England.
Actually he said exactly what I said he said. If you want to embellish that with ie.s in brackets that is up to you again, but you are embellishing.
I’ve read the actual letter. I’ve no idea what the ‘censored’ version was, so shrugs.
And he is wrong. Very wrong. I wouldn’t be voting for him for that reason. Nevertheless, for example the rate of abortion came down more quickly under Clinton than it has under Bush. So it is a legitimate point of view that voting for a Democrat will result in fewer butchered infants in multiple pieces than voting for a Republican who in my gut feeling will do precious little to stop abortion, independent of whatever he says.
A rather dangerous question, given that Kerry had distinguished service in Vietnam and most of the top Republicans managed to avoid battlefield service through pulling strings.
Hundreds of thousands of policemen to stand by and watch while women take a quick trip to a state where abortion is still legal. Is that going to help a great deal???
You might be right - if there was anyone that wanted to kill children.
Than to vote for a hypocrite who won’t do anything anyway? Yes, if it will reduce the abortion rate quicker and hence save lives.
Like many here you are yet again conflating morality and legality. Adultery is legal, yet is it not normal to feel guilty about it?
Mike
B
Brad
Guest
I never throw it away. The problem is that most of what the USCCB has produced lately is too vague to provide a direction, let alone a destination OR is about something that is not related to faith and morals of the Gospel. If something that is produced is specifice enough and relevant to the Gospel, I then check it against Magisterial teaching. If they are in sync then the document is due solid adherance.
And I live in New York state. If my local Bishop lead me to believe it was ok to vote for a pro-choice politician, I’d find better advice somewhere else. This advice is not in coummion with the Holy Father.
Did you say what he said?
I read it too. I certainly don’t think “proportionate reasons” means “go with your intution and feelings”, do you?
I don’t know where you are getting these statistics. Even if they were true, it would be a miracle considering Clinton funded abortions internationally and Bush cut off such funding.
He also has a distinguished track record of undermining his comrades that were in prison war camps. They call theselves Swiftboat Veterans.
Killing babies would be much less convenient and, as the moral compass of the nation moved more towards life, states would gradually modify their laws to restrict or completely outlaw abortion.
You argument is like saying that putting a red light at an intersection due to many accidents there is silly because a bad driver will just get in an accident at the next intersection. Extend this line of thinking out and we might as well not have any laws or rules.
Planned Parenthood’s cash cow, which then becomes the Democrat’s cash cow. Abortion means cash in their pockets. Blood money is indeed what they are after - whether they have sat down and thought about it - most probably have not - too painful.
Doesn’t seem to be working. If anything, we may have less pregnanicies due to contraception and homosexual lust. But that just means more death through disease.
I didn’t say people don’t or won’t feel guilt. They will(note recurring nightmares, depression, breast cancer increase, infertility increase). I was stating what you seemed to be suggesting - that it was better for someone to be ignorant and commit grave sin than for someone to know it is a sin but do nothing to try to stop someone from sinning. I don’t think this is worth such a comparison. Both are bad news.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Please tell me what a PLINO Republican is.
M
migurl
Guest
Here, I will put it in plain english for you all. If you knowingly voted for a candidate who publically supported actions and policies contrary to the Catholic Faith, you would be held patially accountable for the the lives taken due to his or her election. For example, had JK been elected president and because of him millions of babies were aborted, gay marriage made legal etc, whoever voted for him knowing theses were his plans would be guilty of those sins to a certain degree. It would be the same as if someone asked you whehter or not they should go beat up a kid who laughed at them and you said “Sure ok, you’re a nice kid, go ahead and beat him to a pulp” YOU would be partially responsible for the physical assault on the other person because you knowingly adivsed someone to commit a sin. Is that clear enough for you? Tax cuts, economy stuff and public education are NOT more important than the issues of abortion, euthenasia, and gay-marriage.
Y
yochumjy
Guest
mary bobo:
Pro-Life In Name Only
I “think” it means
Pro-Life In Name Only
T
Thekla
Guest
Quote: Originally Posted by Thekla
The Church says that WE get to weigh the issues…
“No, the Church hasn’t said that when it comes to abortion, the topic of this thread.”
Actually, that’s what we are supposed to do when voting; weigh all the issues, including the topic of this thread
The Church says that WE get to weigh the issues…
“No, the Church hasn’t said that when it comes to abortion, the topic of this thread.”
Actually, that’s what we are supposed to do when voting; weigh all the issues, including the topic of this thread
M
miguel
Guest
M
MikeWM
Guest
Yes, in a nice little quote box. Go back and look.
No, I think it means proportionate reasons.
How about National Right To Life?
nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html
I’m talking about within the United States - but it is an interesting point. If you just focus on the legal aspect rather than the education, this Mexico City policy will just ping-pong as presidents come and go.
I’m not going to rerun some of the things said in the 2004 election, but I will say I found a lot of it distasteful.
Then people will have back-street abortions. The figures from the UK bear this out - there would be a drop, but not half as much as I bet you expect. Simply focusing on the legal aspect is directing energy to the wrong goal. The legal aspect has to be done, but making it the main focus is counter-productive almost.
No, put the red light there, but make sure traffic lights are covered in drivers ed. and it is made very clear why it is there.
I think you need to explain how the money goes around here and also why the same doesn’t apply to all the private medical insurance companies as well.
I agree neither is wonderful, and in the ideal world you wouldn’t have to make that choice. But in the end, you have to pick the least worst candidate, and given this criteria, combined with the other policies of Kerry that I find preferential, means that I would have voted for Kerry. Of course I would rather my candidate was more active in getting rid of abortions, but in the real world you have to judge who is more likely to do the most good.
Mike
A
abcdefg
Guest
Some issues like abortion can’t be weighed with other issues like war. that’s the Church’s teaching.
M
miguel
Guest
4000 aborted babies a day, day after day, in the United States, since Roe v. Wade in 1973…now that’s distasteful.
A
aimee
Guest
Are you campaigning for Sen Kerry? Your reasoning seems a stretch for me…however , Sen Kerry may try and run but definitely won’t be the next nominee…
T
Thekla
Guest
I never mentioned the war so I don’t know why you are bringing it up However, the Church has clearly stated that preemptive war is immoral. And while it would be immoral to vote for a candidate BECAUSE of their position in support of abortion, it is wrong to suggest that the Church holds only one issue as a basis for a vote.
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Tell me what issue is equal to the death of 4,000 children a day?
T
Thekla
Guest
I never said it was a matter of one issue versus another or one immoral act versus another. Catholics should be fully aware of what the Council of Catholic Bishops has to say about voting; about the questions that we are to ask of ourselves and the moral implications of our vote. Only then can we each come to a decision.
M
MikeWM
Guest
miguel said:
I think you mean disgraceful, shameful, and appalling, actually. Use as strong words as you like, they won’t be strong enough.
Nevertheless, the fact that one extremely bad thing is happening doesn’t change the fact that other bad things happen too.
Mike
M
MikeWM
Guest
No, not at all. Frankly I didn’t think he was an especially wonderful candidate - but if I had had a vote, I would have chosen him over Bush, for all the reasons I’ve mentioned in this thread and in previous threads on the same topic.
Mike
M
MikeWM
Guest
Very much so. This document from the England and Wales Bishops makes that clear:
catholicchurch.org.uk/cherishinglife/cl44.htm
212. When faced with a general election, every voter has a responsibility to act for the common good. Whatever may have been the case in the past, representatives to our legislative bodies are now almost always chosen on the basis of a party manifesto, and it is reasonable that people should pay as much attention to the party as to the person. In deciding which party to vote for, the voter needs to consider as wide a spectrum as possible of the policies proposed in the manifesto. Voting in a general election should seldom if ever be based on a single issue, because elections are concerned with a whole range of issues very many of which are concerned with life and with human flourishing. ‘A general election must never be confused with a single-issue referendum.’ (The Common Good, paragraph 65).
(emphasis mine)
Mike
- Status