Non-Negotiables Problem

[portarica]

Bitter, like quinine.

But if you have malaria or want to take the edge off G&T , the quinine is quite useful.

Sort of like a wakeup call to those that think the saccharin sweetness that the Reid and Duke and Rove and their ilk have been feeding to the fundamentalist evangelical masses for a couple of decades has really accomplished something for all those that supported their “ideals” and “real patriotism” and Joe the plumber.

Peace

 

[gnjsdad]

What we need is a Catholic party. Then watch them tilt at windmills!

Before that, a stronger Catholic culture is needed. Culture trumps politics. A corrupt culture produces corrupt politics. A Catholic party operating in this current culture would not be effective.

 

[portarica]

It’s amazing the world hasn’t imploded with all the damage that EEEEEEvil Bush did, huh? You’d think Halliburton made condoms or something.

Actually the world did sort of implode economically from the damage Bush did.
Halliburton didn’t make condoms they just helped supply them to the troops in Iraq.

Peace

 

[kozlosap]

But if you have malaria or want to take the edge off G&T , the quinine is quite useful.

Sort of like a wakeup call to those that think the saccharin sweetness that the Reid and Duke and Rove and their ilk have been feeding to the fundamentalist evangelical masses for a couple of decades has really accomplished something for all those that supported their “ideals” and “real patriotism” and Joe the plumber.

Peace

I don’t need someone else to tell me what the five “non-negotionables” are when it comes to voting.

 

[TMC]

Agreed. However, this sort of goes against a strict “non-nsgotiable” POV, no?

Yes, which might be one of the reasons the Church has never adopted the “non-negotiables” position. The US bishops’ teaching on voting and related issues can be found here: Faithful Citizenship

 

[po18guy]

But if you have malaria or want to take the edge off G&T , the quinine is quite useful.

Sort of like a wakeup call to those that think the saccharin sweetness that the Reid and Duke and Rove and their ilk have been feeding to the fundamentalist evangelical masses for a couple of decades has really accomplished something for all those that supported their “ideals” and “real patriotism” and Joe the plumber.

Peace

 

[po18guy]

What we are seeing here, ladies and gentle men, is an amazing display of the cognitive gymnastics that are required for one to rationalize voting for the same pro-death politicians, “justified” by harboring an irrational anger toward their opponents. I could be wrong, though.

 

[portarica]

What we are seeing here, ladies and gentle men, is an amazing display of the cognitive gymnastics that are required for one to rationalize voting for the same pro-death politicians, “justified” by harboring an irrational anger toward their opponents. I could be wrong, though.

I agree totally, almost all politicians , if judged by the results of their actions and omissions of actions are pro-death. There are few if any politicians that have shown the will to desert the comfy confines of their political handlers and party hacks to actually make a ongoing real difference in the number of abortions .

None the less their supporters continue to vote for them .

Peace

 

[St_Francis]

I agree totally, almost all politicians , if judged by the results of their actions and omissions of actions are pro-death. There are few if any politicians that have shown the will to desert the comfy confines of their political handlers and party hacks to actually make a ongoing real difference in the number of abortions .

None the less their supporters continue to vote for them .

Peace

This is simply not true. To take an example, McCain, who was vilified for not being pro-life “enough,” voted pro-life on every bill that came before him except one about embryonic stem cell research, and said he had changed his mind about that. Many pro-life candidates struggled to pass bills only to see them overturned in the courts. It is not the supporters of abortion who have passed the abortion restrictions we now have, such as parental permission or notification, informed consent, etc., as well as getting Supreme Court justices who do not think that abortion will die down once we have few enough of those people we want fewer of (Ruth Bader-Ginsberg).

A lot of people believe what you wrote, not knowing better, but it is really just propaganda put out by opponents of those people.

 

[Sheeniac]

I live in IL and tend to vote straight R. Mark Kirk threw me for a loop. If you distill that dreadfully written USCCB guide to voting, you get the basic position that you can vote for someone who is not 100% pro-life if there are reasons that ‘overwhelm’ the potential pro-choice vote. I paraphrase very roughly, but…

Anyway, Kirk had me changing my mind every 30 minutes re: voting for him. Early voting started Tuesday, and I had planned to vote that day. Monday evening came around, and I flipped on to the EWTN’s Mass during the homily. The priest was talking about voting and abortion.

He called to mind the tens of millions of babies killed from abortion, and how the slaughter continues every day. He said that given this, there was NO mitigating reason that would allow someone to vote for someone pro-choice. He it several times in a very confident voice. During my drive to the polling place on Tuesday, I replayed his words in my head.

Late Monday night, I reviewed a RTL voting guide for my state. Mark Kirk and Alexi G had the same grade. The Libertarian in the running had the highest grade (I think the Independent Party and the Green Party also had candidates)!!

I voted for the Libertarian. He won’t win, but I was able to vote my conscience. (FWIW, Kirk’s sickened me overall…) Knowing IL, Alexi G will win anyway, so my vote probably doesn’t count anyway.

 

[portarica]

This is simply not true. To take an example, McCain, who was vilified for not being pro-life “enough,” voted pro-life on every bill that came before him except one about embryonic stem cell research, and said he had changed his mind about that. Many pro-life candidates struggled to pass bills only to see them overturned in the courts. It is not the supporters of abortion who have passed the abortion restrictions we now have, such as parental permission or notification, informed consent, etc., as well as getting Supreme Court justices who do not think that abortion will die down once we have few enough of those people we want fewer of (Ruth Bader-Ginsberg).

A lot of people believe what you wrote, not knowing better, but it is really just propaganda put out by opponents of those people.

I said they do not do everything to prevent abortion. Where is the comprehensive sex education bills that also teach abstinence? They have the most success at preventing abortion.

Where are the bills to give pre- natal and infant care care in the areas that need it? In an ironic twist the areas that usually are seen as pro abortion are also the ones that provide the most care to the unborn and infants. Why is that?

Where were the bills when the Republicans controlled the house , senate and presidency?
How did the Bush administration and the Republicans make for a better overall environment in the US so abortions wouldn’t be needed?

It is very easy to give lip service when you know you fall back on the position that the courts won’t allow the ultimate goal of outlawing abortion to happen. However, that is not an excuse for not pursuing every other measure to make it so that abortion is not seen as a reasonable answer to tough questions.

Peace

 

[Corki]

For instance, it’s not as though we will be voting on the issue of abortion rights at a State level, nor can a governor personally requisition funds for abortion clinics, except in concert with the rest of the legislature.

That’s not really accurate for a number of reasons. First of all, if Roe is ever overturned, the issue goes right back to the states. So, it is very important that we have strong pro-life indivdiduals in place at the state level.

The second issue is that abortion is already a state issue on a number of fronts. State legislators, for example determine what, if any, state funds are used for abortion; what abortion “benefits” are included in health care plans for state workers; what rights pro-life advocates/protestors retain; what can be taught in schools about abortion; what access Planned Parenthood has to the schools; etc., etc., etc.

A third issue, which many states are working on already, is the 10th Ammendment challenges to federal legislation. If, heaven forbid, something like FOCA ever comes to a federal vote, it will be the pro-life state legislatures that will be able to keep those provisions from being forced on the states.

As for govenors, in most states laws are enacted only after signed by the govenor. Unless a state has a clearly veto-proof assembly, the govenor’s pro-life role is key.