Nancy Pelosi: "Thank God" Senate Bill Funds Abortions

[CPA2]

My Dad is still taken with Obama, unfortunetly my family has a bad habbit of being polarized. My Dad used to be a super Republican, he voted for GW Bush the first time around. He didn’t believe me about GW’s short comings (I predicted very early on the Iraq war) until GW had the gull to attack Iraq.

Based upon this, my Dad ended up ultimatly giving up completely on the Republicans and turned to the Democrats. Last election cycle, i’m sad to say I my self was lulled into beleiving Obama’s bill of goods regarding being a “true moderate” etc, so ultimatly did my dad despite wanting Hillary at first (ugh).

Thank God, I’ve seen the light regarding Obama. I’ll be working double hard pointing out his inconsitancies next time, as I was last time evangalizing a candidate I thought would be reasnoble enough to understand the American people don’t want abortion advanced, and more over would end highly polarized politics, as well as executive abuses started by GW (and now carried forward in spades by Obama).

My Dad still doesn’t, in fact he refused to believe the Senate bill contains abortion funding (he is staunchly pro-life like me), because he doesn’t want to be burned again. I hope this will help him to see, as a Catholic of good contience… It pays to not marry your self to any political party. They both have glaring defincenties.

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.

Additionally, it is a sin for a Catholic to knowingly vote for a candidate who supports abortion. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for anyone in the Democrat Party because, as I understand it, the Democrat Party supports abortion. A Christian conscience does not permit me to vote for a candidate or political program that contradicts the fundamental content of faith and morals. I take my Christian conscience to the polls when I vote!

 

[crazzeto]

Additionally, it is a sin for a Catholic to knowingly vote for a candidate who supports abortion. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for anyone in the Democrat Party because, as I understand it, the Democrat Party supports abortion. A Christian conscience does not permit me to vote for a candidate or political program that contradicts the fundamental content of faith and morals. I take my Christian conscience to the polls when I vote!

Perhaps in general yes, this is not universally true. Rep Stupak in Michigan is both Democrat & Pro-life, there are enough others in the House to hold up Pelosi it looks like, and my senator in NC (Kay Hegan) at least voted for the Nelson amendment which had the potential to seal the pro-life deal.

I’m now of the opinion that George Washington was correct, political parties are and will be the undoing of this nation. They should all universally be disbanded. It would make politics a whole lot more honest.

 

[Newbie2]

Additionally, it is a sin for a Catholic to knowingly vote for a candidate who supports abortion.

If that were the only thing that the candidate could vote on, yes it would be. But it’s more complicated than that. While you may use that one criterion on which to vote, and I applaude you for it, if one’s properly formed conscience tells one to vote for a “non-pro-life” candidate in the Democratic party, it is not a sin. One must weigh all the variables; see below about Rep. Stupak.

Perhaps in general yes, this is not universally true. Rep Stupak in Michigan is both Democrat & Pro-life, there are enough others in the House to hold up Pelosi it looks like, and my senator in NC (Kay Hegan) at least voted for the Nelson amendment which had the potential to seal the pro-life deal.

Exactly.

We are not bound by the Church to be one-issue voters. Now if a candidate were to say, “The only reason I’m running is to see that abortions are safe, cheap, legally available and paid by the US Government”, then they make themself a one-issue candidate and I’d agree in such a case that it would be a sin to vote for them. But I have yet to see such a candidate.

 

[CPA2]

If that were the only thing that the candidate could vote on, yes it would be. But it’s more complicated than that. While you may use that one criterion on which to vote, and I applaude you for it, if one’s properly formed conscience tells one to vote for a “non-pro-life” candidate in the Democratic party, it is not a sin. One must weigh all the variables; see below about Rep. Stupak.

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. If a politician, like Nancy Peloski, does not get that basic truth right, then I do not trust her to get anything else right. Abortion is my litmus test. 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.

Poverty and abortion are not separate issues! I do not think that we should start with feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless. Let’s start with opposition to abortion and those secularists, such as Nancy Pelosi, who vote for abortion.

 

[crazzeto]

I’m agreed with CPA2, my point wasn’t that we shouldn’t weight abortion as the church suggests, my point was you can’t blind your self over political allegances. Some democrats are in fact, staunchly pro-life, and frankly I’m 1000% for supporting these democrats, doing so helps nudge the party back in line with the natural law.

As far as voting for pro-aborts (read Obama, Pelosi, Kennedy types), I’m 1,000,000% done with that.

 

[chriso]

If that were the only thing that the candidate could vote on, yes it would be. But it’s more complicated than that. No its not

We are not bound by the Church to be one-issue voters.

Call it what you will, one-issue, or complicated or whatever, we are bound by the Church to use our vote as good stewerds ("talent’?) to protect the lives of the unborn against this travesty flaunting our disregard for Gods will. None of these other “complicated” issues will ever be satisfactorily solved whilst ignoring this sin in our midst. It is a sin to vote for a person who clearly will support the continuance and expansion of this horrid practice, even if you happen to think there are other “complicated” issues out there.

 

[Rascalking]

Call it what you will, one-issue, or complicated or whatever, we are bound by the Church to use our vote as good stewerds ("talent’?) to protect the lives of the unborn against this travesty flaunting our disregard for Gods will. None of these other “complicated” issues will ever be satisfactorily solved whilst ignoring this sin in our midst. It is a sin to vote for a person who clearly will support the continuance and expansion of this horrid practice, even if you happen to think there are other “complicated” issues out there.

I’m sorry. You lost me on this.

So basically, in between two pro-choicers, stay home or vote for a third party?

Um…no. Vote for the person who you disagree with less, and then pray they wake up on abortion. A _____ will certianly not change on abortion, while the other might!

Third party/nonvoters are among the funniest people I know. They pat themself on the back and feel noble, without realizing that their vote is down only for their own pleasure.

Luckily, it’s a free country, so people can do whatever they want.

Nancy Pelosi needs help.

 

[CPA2]

I’m sorry. You lost me on this.

So basically, in between two pro-choicers, stay home or vote for a third party?

Um…no. Vote for the person who you disagree with less, and then pray they wake up on abortion. A _____ will certianly not change on abortion, while the other might!

Third party/nonvoters are among the funniest people I know. They pat themself on the back and feel noble, without realizing that their vote is down only for their own pleasure.

Luckily, it’s a free country, so people can do whatever they want.

Nancy Pelosi needs help.

Hugh? You lost me. What is your point?

 

[Rascalking]

Hugh? You lost me. What is your point?

Oh, I’m sorry. Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought the person I was quoting was saying something “noble” about third parties. I was stating my points that third parties are, for the most part, worthless.

Sorry if I was rambiling or off topic.

 

[CPA2]

Oh, I’m sorry. Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought the person I was quoting was saying something “noble” about third parties. I was stating my points that third parties are, for the most part, worthless.

Sorry if I was rambiling or off topic.

I belong to the Constitution Party. The United States needs a third party very badly! However, I will vote for another party (Republician) if it means keeping out someone who favors abortion.

 

[Newbie2]

Call it what you will, one-issue, or complicated or whatever, we are bound by the Church to use our vote as good stewerds ("talent’?) to protect the lives of the unborn against this travesty flaunting our disregard for Gods will. None of these other “complicated” issues will ever be satisfactorily solved whilst ignoring this sin in our midst. It is a sin to vote for a person who clearly will support the continuance and expansion of this horrid practice, even if you happen to think there are other “complicated” issues out there.

If a person with a properly formed conscience votes for someone who supports abortion because they want to vote against the other candidate who supports a war (getting us in or continuing along with one that’s “in progress”), it is not a sin. Like I said, sometimes it’s more complicated than simply not voting for a pro-aboritionist.

I’m sorry. You lost me on this.

So basically, in between two pro-choicers, stay home or vote for a third party?

Um…no. Vote for the person who you disagree with less, and then pray they wake up on abortion. A _____ will certianly not change on abortion, while the other might!

Third party/nonvoters are among the funniest people I know. They pat themself on the back and feel noble, without realizing that their vote is down only for their own pleasure.

Luckily, it’s a free country, so people can do whatever they want.

Nancy Pelosi needs help.

dittos

 

[chriso]

If a person with a properly formed conscience votes for someone who supports abortion because they want to vote against the other candidate who supports a war (getting us in or continuing along with one that’s “in progress”), it is not a sin. Like I said, sometimes it’s more complicated than simply not voting for a pro-aborition

I submit that a person who votes for a candidate who clearly not only supports abortion, but is intent upon furthering its spread and enscouncing it in such a way as to ensue it never gets scaled back or even “God willing” dissappears… all because one “thinks” the other candidate supports a war, or the continuance of one… possibly under conditions in parallel with the “just war” concept… then it is a sin.

A "promise’ to keep killing our innocent and defenceless children balanced by a “possibility” one may do something different with regards to a war that Obama himself voted to initiate… is hardly balanced at all… its still a sin to pretend we’ve accomplished any “greater good” in this case.

Furthermore, claiming that McCain would have prosecuted the war in any other way than with “just war” principles has not been proven either. For all you know, he’d have been even more effective at bringing the conflict to completion. But what we all DO know, is he’d have NOT been prosecuting this domestic (and international) war on our defenceless innocents.

You really want to have some sayso and some impact on future decisions about war and such in the world? Try using your prescious vote in a God fearing, faithful fashion to end the atrocity of abortion, then see how faithful God will be in guiding your and my efforts to infulence the rest of these policies and approaches to world problems. We cannot ignore and cover up the sinfulllness of continually avoiding our opportunity to vote down all who would continue this war on our innocents… or it will never come to an end.

 

[chriso]

I’m sorry. You lost me on this.

So basically, in between two pro-choicers, stay home or vote for a third party?

Um…no. Vote for the person who you disagree with less, and then pray they wake up on abortion. A _____ will certianly not change on abortion, while the other might!

Third party/nonvoters are among the funniest people I know. They pat themself on the back and feel noble, without realizing that their vote is down only for their own pleasure.

Sorry for the confusion… I was trying to be polite yet still say its not really that complicated, you either care about ending abortions and vote thusly with all your power (which means not wasting a vote on a non-viable candidate, thus allowing a worse evil to take the seat) or you dont care and are willing to vote for the party and candidates willing to continue letting our own people (in fact, even forcing our own people) to murder innocent and defenceless children by the millions…

We’ve seen how effective the Pro Life Demorcrats were in gettng abortion funding removed from the recent health car bill didnt we? Right up to the point where Ben Nelsen said he didnt really need that kept in the thing so long as his beloved Nebraskans got enough cash right?

 

[Rascalking]

Sorry for the confusion… I was trying to be polite yet still say its not really that complicated, you either care about ending abortions and vote thusly with all your power (which means not wasting a vote on a non-viable candidate, thus allowing a worse evil to take the seat) or you dont care and are willing to vote for the party and candidates willing to continue letting our own people (in fact, even forcing our own people) to murder innocent and defenceless children by the millions…

We’ve seen how effective the Pro Life Demorcrats were in gettng abortion funding removed from the recent health car bill didnt we? Right up to the point where Ben Nelsen said he didnt really need that kept in the thing so long as his beloved Nebraskans got enough cash right?

I don’t think we disagree.

 

[crazzeto]

I belong to the Constitution Party. The United States needs a third party very badly! However, I will vote for another party (Republician) if it means keeping out someone who favors abortion.

There’s where i disagree with you, the USA needs all political parties abolished badly. Not more of them.

 

[CPA2]

“Catholic” politicians, who dissent in a public forum from the Catholic Church’s teaching on the right to life of all unborn children, freely do so. These politicians choose to separate themselves from the Church’s teachings. They also separate themselves from the Catholic community. They have abandoned the full Catholic faith. It is DISHONEST for such a person to express “communion” with Christ and His Church through the sacrament of the Eucharist. These politicians may not claim to be Christians, and yet disbelieve what the Church teaches. There is a split between what they profess to believe and their daily lives.

It does not take a bishop to excommunicate these politicians. These “Catholic” politicians have distanced themselves from Jesus Christ and His Church. They have excommunicated themselves. These politicians may not receive Holy Communion in any Catholic Church in the world! To do so would be a lie. It would be a scandal.

The Catholic Church cannot force politicians to change their positions on abortion. However, the Church does ask these politicians to HONESTLY admit in public that they are not in “full union” with the Church.

 

[chriso]

“Catholic” politicians, who dissent in a public forum from the Catholic Church’s teaching on the right to life of all unborn children, freely do so. These politicians choose to separate themselves from the Church’s teachings. They also separate themselves from the Catholic community. They have abandoned the full Catholic faith. It is DISHONEST for such a person to express “communion” with Christ and His Church through the sacrament of the Eucharist. These politicians may not claim to be Christians, and yet disbelieve what the Church teaches. There is a split between what they profess to believe and their daily lives.

It does not take a bishop to excommunicate these politicians. These “Catholic” politicians have distanced themselves from Jesus Christ and His Church. They have excommunicated themselves. These politicians may not receive Holy Communion in any Catholic Church in the world! To do so would be a lie. It would be a scandal.

The Catholic Church cannot force politicians to change their positions on abortion. However, the Church does ask these politicians to HONESTLY admit in public that they are not in “full union” with the Church.

Of course, we’ve been steadily beign educated that expecting HONESTY out of our politicians is unrealistic over the course of the last few decades at least…

 

[CPA2]

**“No other issue, not all other issues taken together, can constitute a proportionate reason for voting for candidates that intend to preserve and defend this holocaust of innocent human life that is abortion **(Father John Corapi).”

 

[mary_bobo]

“Catholic” politicians, who dissent in a public forum from the Catholic Church’s teaching on the right to life of all unborn children, freely do so. These politicians choose to separate themselves from the Church’s teachings. They also separate themselves from the Catholic community. They have abandoned the full Catholic faith. It is DISHONEST for such a person to express “communion” with Christ and His Church through the sacrament of the Eucharist. These politicians may not claim to be Christians, and yet disbelieve what the Church teaches. There is a split between what they profess to believe and their daily lives.

It does not take a bishop to excommunicate these politicians. These “Catholic” politicians have distanced themselves from Jesus Christ and His Church. They have excommunicated themselves. These politicians may not receive Holy Communion in any Catholic Church in the world! To do so would be a lie. It would be a scandal.

The Catholic Church cannot force politicians to change their positions on abortion. However, the Church does ask these politicians to HONESTLY admit in public that they are not in “full union” with the Church.

All of what you say is true, however think of the impression that is left to those who are not Catholics when nothing is said from the Church hierarchy and these politicians are not denied the Eucharist. My DH, who is not a Catholic, in fact, he is agnostic, said to me the other day that the church must not be serious about what it believes if they continue to stay silent when Pilosi, etal express their anti-life views and then loudly proclaim that they are Catholics.