Non-Negotiable Issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter midnightstar17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gogogirl,

While you are right that to be consistently pro-life means to respect all life, and that the Church does oppose the death penalty (even if it does permit it under certain circumstances), the Church has also singled out abortion as being worse than the death penalty. Abortion is a sort of “trump card” that overrides all other issues. One qualitative difference between abortion and the death penalty is that the victims of abortion are innocent and blameless while the victims of the death penalty have (theoretically) earned their penalty.
  • Liberian
 
40.png
LeahInancsi:
An Examination of Conscience on Catholic.org has “voting for a candidate who supports abortion” is a mortal sin. I tend to think that is a bit scrupulous.
Click to expand...
Serious question, would you think that if I voted for a candidate that was pro-murder? Pro-rape? Pro-child pornography?

All of which themselves, are mortal sins. Being an accesory to murder is a mortal sin, is it not?
 
I never started the thread to incite a political debate. I only wanted a question answered. So was it a mortal sin for my parents to vote for Kerry?

Jenny
 
40.png
Liberian:
Gogogirl,

While you are right that to be consistently pro-life means to respect all life, and that the Church does oppose the death penalty (even if it does permit it under certain circumstances), the Church has also singled out abortion as being worse than the death penalty. Abortion is a sort of “trump card” that overrides all other issues. One qualitative difference between abortion and the death penalty is that the victims of abortion are innocent and blameless while the victims of the death penalty have (theoretically) earned their penalty.
  • Liberian
Click to expand...
I do not disagree. I do believe that abortion is a trump card that overrides all other issues but in the grand scheme of things I have found very few candidates that have met the requirements for all non-negotiables. I was never trying to equate abortion with the death penalty. I was simply stating that the Catholic Church has spoken against it. I am truly prolife and I just wanted to point out that in order to be truly prolife you must be against the taking of another human life in all instances. Also, the OP was concerned about having to vote for Bush because Kerry openly supported abortion. My conscience dictates that I could not vote for either candidate because neither one is truly prolife.
 
40.png
midnightstar17:
I never started the thread to incite a political debate. I only wanted a question answered. So was it a mortal sin for my parents to vote for Kerry?

Jenny
Click to expand...
Simply put. Yes
 
40.png
gogogirl:
I do not disagree. I do believe that abortion is a trump card that overrides all other issues but in the grand scheme of things I have found very few candidates that have met the requirements for all non-negotiables. I was never trying to equate abortion with the death penalty. I was simply stating that the Catholic Church has spoken against it. I am truly prolife and I just wanted to point out that in order to be truly prolife you must be against the taking of another human life in all instances. Also, the OP was concerned about having to vote for Bush because Kerry openly supported abortion. My conscience dictates that I could not vote for either candidate because neither one is truly prolife.
Click to expand...
truely prolife means against abortion, euthenasia, eugenics fetal tissue research. no roganization including the Catholic church considers capital punishment a life issue. the catechism does allow for the death penalty for truely capital type crimes, while not endorsing. So as Catholics we are allowed to take either stand on the death penalty. while with aborrtion the church is against it and there are no alowable circumstances for it, and as Catholic we are very much required to be against it our selves. It is mortal sin to support it directly or indirectly. voting for someone who is proabortion when you have the choice of someone who is antiabortion is indirectly supporting abortion and is without exeption a mortal sin.
 
I’m not of this mindset, but I do know that some good hearted ignorant people genuinely believe that the social justice package of the Democratic party will reduce abortions. They even believe that restrictions on abortions don’t actually reduce the number of abortions, just force dangerous back alley abortions.

In this case, voting for a prochoice Democratic candidate would not be a mortal sin.

It is not a sin to be illogical or ignorant.

That is why we have to better inform Catholics about legitimate and effective ways to end abortion.
 
40.png
aspawloski4th:
Simply put. Yes
Click to expand...
I can’t agree that it was necessarily a mortal sin for your parents to vote for Kerry.
A mortal sin demands 3 things: grave matter,
full knowledge of the fact that it’s sin,
full consent.

If either of those things is missing, it’s not be a mortal sin. There are a lot of well meaning people who thought that, for example, the war in Iraq is more damaging to people than abortion. I don’t agree, but they were following their consciences.
 
40.png
gogogirl:
According to church teachings, you couldn’t have really voted for Bush either because he supports the death penalty. .
Click to expand...
It looks like Catholics are stymied:
  1. It is a mortal sin to vote for Bush.
  2. It is a mortal sin to vote for Kerry.
  3. It is a mortal sin to reject good citizenship and not vote.
 
40.png
HappyCatholic01:
Serious question, would you think that if I voted for a candidate that was pro-murder? Pro-rape? Pro-child pornography?

All of which themselves, are mortal sins. Being an accesory to murder is a mortal sin, is it not?
Click to expand...
I’m a staunch Republican. I’ve always voted Repbulican (pro-life) with the exception of Bill Clinton in 1996. Since then, I’ve become much more politically involved. Abortion would be a deal breaker.

Please, no comments to this response to HappyCatholic01, but continue with the OP’s question.
 
40.png
aspawloski4th:
But Bush does support the Human life amendment which would totally outlaw abortion.
Click to expand...
Oh right, because women that have been raped obviously have no right to an abortion, and its obviously up to a man to tell them this
 
40.png
St.Sharky:
Oh right, because women that have been raped obviously have no right to an abortion, and its obviously up to a man to tell them this
Click to expand...
If an abortion takes place because of a rape, then it punishes two people: the offender (no problem with that person being punished) and the child that’s conceived. Why should an unborn child be punished for the actions of his or her “father?”
 
40.png
LRThunder:
If an abortion takes place because of a rape, then it punishes two people: the offender (no problem with that person being punished) and the child that’s conceived. Why should an unborn child be punished for the actions of his or her “father?”
Click to expand...
However, why should the mother have to donate the rest of her life to raising an unwanted child who will never have a father, all because some scum raped her?

Because if you really believe what you say then you are just lowering women down to the level of baby machines, and I would like to believe that we got past that stage many centuries ago.

On a side note how does it punish the offender? Or did they choose to go and rape someone because they wanted a baby?
 
A woman does not have to spend the rest of her life raising a child - she can have the child adopted instead.

It is not us who are lowering women to the level of baby machines - it is the rapist who is doing that by forcing pregnancy on her.

Anyway it is a lot better for a woman’s dignity, not to mention her sanity, to be a ‘baby machine’ (ie give birth to a child she did not want to concieve) rather than to abort her child.
 
40.png
St.Sharky:
However, why should the mother have to donate the rest of her life to raising an unwanted child who will never have a father, all because some scum raped her?
Click to expand...
Why does being the victim of rape suddenly confer upon the mother the right to kill her innocent child?
40.png
St.Sharky:
Because if you really believe what you say then you are just lowering women down to the level of baby machines,
Click to expand...
You mean as opposed to lowering babies to the level of troublesome burdens?
 
40.png
ChrisR246:
Why does being the victim of rape suddenly confer upon the mother the right to kill her innocent child?
Click to expand...
Why does being the victim of a rape mean that the woman has to spend at the very least the next 9 months of her life nurturing something inside of her that she doesnt want?

I feel it must be said that taking emergency contraception to stop some cells implanting in the uterus can not be said to be the same as someone clubbing a newborn over the back of the head
40.png
ChrisR246:
an as opposed to lowering babies to the level of troublesome burdens?
Click to expand...
If a woman is raped, then she shouldnt have to have the child of the rapist under ANY cirumstances, unless the woman wishes to. Thats it, the woman is where the buck stops. Unfortunately some cells that may or may not grow into life dont get any representation here seeing as they are only alive on a molecular level.
40.png
Flopfoot:
It is not us who are lowering women to the level of baby machines - it is the rapist who is doing that by forcing pregnancy on her.
Click to expand...
[sacrasm]Of course, because the reason rapists exist is because they want child, not because they are depraved lunatics.[/sarcasm]

By not giving that woman choice, and by forcing her to have that child you are lowering her to a sub human level, while she is probably feeling used and subhuman anyway after being raped.
 
Why does being the victim of a rape mean that the woman has to spend at the very least the next 9 months of her life nurturing something inside of her that she doesnt want?
Click to expand...
Because the alternative is killing an innocent person.

If I am piloting a plane over the Pacific Ocean and it comes to my attention that someone has been bound and gagged and hidden on the plane, would you claim I have the right to throw them out over the ocean?
feel it must be said that taking emergency contraception to stop some cells implanting in the uterus can not be said to be the same as someone clubbing a newborn over the back of the head
Click to expand...
Why? What is the difference between the newborn and the embryo, that you allow one to continue to live and not the other?
Unfortunately some cells that may or may not grow into life dont get any representation here seeing as they are only alive on a molecular level.
Click to expand...
If they are “alive” at any level, then they, by definition, must be human life.
 
“McLellan responded saying, “the President has made very clear that he is pro-life with three exceptions.” While McLellan did not state those exceptions they are widely **assumed ** to be rape, incest and the life of the mother.”

This is from the lifesite.net quote.

My husband always says “When we assume we end up making an a** of ourselves and others.”

I will want to do more research on this assumption before stating that Mr Bush does support abortion to save the mother’s life **AND ** for rape and incest as well.

It is the first time I had heard this. If it is true, then Mr Bush is sadly mistaken.
 
40.png
aspawloski4th:
I never started the thread to incite a political debate. I only wanted a question answered. So was it a mortal sin for my parents to vote for Kerry?
Click to expand...
Simply put. Yes
Click to expand...
But only if they already knew it was a grave matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top