Paul leads GOP NH field 2016, Hillary leads Dems

[SaintAugustine]

There other issues to consider than just abortion. I don’t remember reading anywhere that one issue reigns over all the others.

The economy, welfare, immigration, education, healthcare, etc. These things are important too. And believe it or not, policies in these areas also greatly influence people’s wellbeing and their decision whether or not to have an abortion. Being “pro-life” should not end after the fetus is born.

Those things are all very important, LiberalPrincess. I agree with you. And, of course, being pro-life shouldn’t end after the child is born.

But, that said, some evils are much, much worse. Abortion, genocide, slavery are all show stoppers for me.

When it comes to those other issues (economy, welfare, immigration, education, healthcare, etc), I’ve read and continue to study the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. It spells out the role of the State, the dangers of the Welfare State, the important considerations of solidarity and subsidiarity. Good Catholics can differ on the applications of these teachings. Personally, I find that the Republican Party is closer, when it comes to the role of the State. I’m sure you disagree. We can’t however, disagree on abortion, genocide and slavery.

 

[SaintAugustine]

A future Saint agrees with you!

I love Mother Teresa. She lived the Gospel and had no problem in stating things clearly when it came to abortion.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Well-played, Jeanne.

But you know what the kicker is? We trade with China and we borrow from them. In fact, we fear that they will sell out and spin our economy into a turmoil.

Meanwhile, what do we do with Mideast countries, like Iran, who have strict anti-abortion laws? Why we place trade restrictions or sanctions on them.

Who is to blame for this inconsistency?

I agree.I have become pretty diligent about checking labels,do not buy if from China .No mean feat,for sure! We the consumers’ can voice our concerns with our pocketbook.Problem is we have become such a throwaway society,gotten used to inexpensive goods.
One way to turn things around here in the US would be to purchase as many goods as possible,be willing to pay more.

 

[Jeanne_S]

A future Saint agrees with you!

Hard to argue with Blessed Thersea

 

[ProVobis]

I agree.I have become pretty diligent about checking labels,do not buy if from China .No mean feat,for sure!

No mean feat, for sure. How often do we even salute a flag which was probably made in China? We must be crazy as a nation.

 

[gracepoole]

I think we can discuss the issues and candidates now - given what we know about them its strange to think that there are too many unknowns to judge anything now. For example: its a given that the Democrat nominee will be a pro-abortion rights liberal. Also a given that the GOP nominee will be pro-life and conservative. What we can’t predict is what foreign policy events will occur - but we can’t predict that on election day either - and we still make our choice. So again, I think its a stretch to say you’re withholding judgement because you’re not sure what the grave issues are. They will likely be the same grave issues that we faced in 2012.

First, I attempted to offer an example earlier: who before the war in Iraq could have foreseen that it would come to pass? And yet it did – with exceptional speed. You’re correct in noting that we can’t predict what is on the horizon regarding foreign policy – and given what we’ve been mired in regarding foreign policy in the last decade, the possibilities are many. Second, you can certainly claim that “it’s a stretch to say * withholding judgement because * not sure what the grave issues are.” Though it seems odd that you’d be in a position to assess such a thing about my judgement.

Lastly, did you read my comment about the moral imperative to not cooperate with evil, but also effectively oppose it? In 2012, which grave issue that Romney was supposedly violating caused you to not oppose Obama effectively?

Ishii

Yes, I read your comment – and I responded by saying that instead of supporting a candidate who is favorable toward intrinsic evil, “Supporting a candidate that I might disagree with regarding non-morally grave issues isn’t problematic as I understand it.” But of course, there is more to being pro-life than being anti-abortion. And it’s at this juncture that prudential judgement becomes necessary.

When have I ever claimed it isn’t?

I had asked, “But why is it problematic to evaluate candidates according to the full spectrum of intrinsic evils in each new election cycle?” You seem insistent on reaffirming any potential Republican presidential candidate and have identified yourself as a Republican Catholic. This does not seem to agree with the approach noted in my question.

I answered your post quoting JPII and agreed with you…I even broke down the intrinsic evils that I think are most existent in American politics. I’m starting to think you never read it based on your responses and your lack of response to that particular post. I was hoping to have a conversation.

I did read it. But as my only reason for including JPII’s quote was to note that abortion is not an issue that trumps all other intrinsic evils, I’m not sure why my response to your comments is of value. It’s as though folks are essentially claiming, “Hey, look, the claim that abortion trumps all else may have been off base – but who cares because Obama still fails to address other intrinsic evils satisfactorily.” Which is fine – but it’s a conversation folks are having with themselves, since it’s not the point I was attempting to make.

That’s an odd question. What makes it illegitimate? I’m a Catholic. I’m also a registered Republican. That makes me a Republican (adjective) Catholic (noun). It is a legitimate description, and I don’t see a reason to be ashamed of it.

I’m just curious: is anything I’ve said in this conversation not “odd” to you? Catholics are Catholics. “Republican” (adjective) modifies “Catholic” (noun). If you’re comfortable modifying Catholic…with no disrespect intended, I got nothin’.*

 

[Jeanne_S]

Gracepoole,Your comment here contradicts your prior response to me re Obama and his supporting of most of the non negotiables.So,I am asking you,would you support a candidate like Obama,who openly supports many intrinsic evils,in favor of say,some like Romney?

 

[SaintAugustine]

I had asked, “But why is it problematic to evaluate candidates according to the full spectrum of intrinsic evils in each new election cycle?” You seem insistent on reaffirming any potential Republican presidential candidate and have identified yourself as a Republican Catholic. This does not seem to agree with the approach noted in my question.

Sure it does. Why can’t a Republican Catholic evaluate candidates according to the full spectrum of intrinsic evils in each new election cycle?

I did read it. But as my only reason for including JPII’s quote was to note that abortion is not an issue that trumps all other intrinsic evils, I’m not sure why my response to your comments is of value. It’s as though folks are essentially claiming, “Hey, look, the claim that abortion trumps all else may have been off base – but who cares because Obama still fails to address other intrinsic evils satisfactorily.” Which is fine – but it’s a conversation folks are having with themselves, since it’s not the point I was attempting to make.

Okay. I’m sorry that was your only reason though. I think it is worthwhile to discuss intrinsic evils in our society and recognize that some are indeed worse than others.

I’m just curious: is anything I’ve said in this conversation not “odd” to you? Catholics are Catholics. “Republican” (adjective) modifies “Catholic” (noun). If you’re comfortable modifying Catholic…with no disrespect intended, I got nothin’.

Okay. I won’t answer your first question, because it is just continuous baiting on your part. I am not interested in a fight.

On your other question though, Republican Catholics are Catholics, Independent Catholics are Catholics, Democrat Catholics are Catholics, Libertarian Catholics are Catholics, and Politically Unaffiliated Catholics are Catholics. I really don’t get your point. I don’t lose by Catholicity by being a Republican Catholic. It doesn’t place my Catholicity in a secondary position. Rather, as I tried to point out by showing the parts of speech, Catholic is who I am…Republican is an adjective. I’m also an American Catholic…and a married Catholic…etc. If someone walks up to me and says, what religion are you? I say, “I’m Catholic.” When talking politics, though, there is nothing wrong with describing myself as a Republican Catholic. And, in this thread, we’ve been talking politics.

I have no problem with you choosing not to use an adjective, that is your choice. We have a rich language though, and I doubt that you are an Apolitical Catholic.

 

[gracepoole]

Gracepoole,Your comment here contradicts your prior response to me re Obama and his supporting of most of the non negotiables.

To what prior response are you referring?

So,I am asking you,would you support a candidate like Obama,who openly supports many intrinsic evils,in favor of say,some like Romney?

Um… Earlier you wrote, “The debate isn’t about whether you,personally voted for Obama.” Which is it?

 

[ishii]

First, I attempted to offer an example earlier: who before the war in Iraq could have foreseen that it would come to pass?  And yet it did -- with exceptional speed.  You're correct in noting that we can't predict what is on the horizon regarding foreign policy -- and given what we've been mired in regarding foreign policy in the last decade, the possibilities are many.  Second, you can certainly claim that "it's a stretch to say * withholding judgement because * not sure what the grave issues are."  Though it seems odd that you'd be in a position to assess such a thing about my judgement..**

No one could have predicted 9/11. But Iraq had been simmering for years. Clinton even seemed like he might take some action in the late 90’s. Remember that they kept violating the “no-fly” zone, and everyone then was convinced Iraq had WMD’s - so it wasn’t a stretch to think that a war might break out in the future. But it seems to me odd (there’s that word we all keep using) to think that we have to withhold judgement on the things we do know, because we can’t know everything else which might end up being a grave issue.
gracepoole;11364353:

Yes, I read your comment – and I responded by saying that instead of supporting a candidate who is favorable toward intrinsic evil, “Supporting a candidate that I might disagree with regarding non-morally grave issues isn’t problematic as I understand it.” But of course, there is more to being pro-life than being anti-abortion. And it’s at this juncture that prudential judgement becomes necessary…

Of course there is more to being pro-life than just being pro-abortion. But abortion is the paramount issue today - it tends to eclipse the other issues because its so prevalent, and because its also such a partisan issue. What issue do you think is more grave and urgent today than abortion?
.
Ishii

 

[Jeanne_S]

To what prior response are you referring?

Um… Earlier you wrote, “The debate isn’t about whether you,personally voted for Obama.” Which is it?

I didn’t ask you iIF voted for Obama.I asked you,based on his support of many intrinsic evils in addition to abortion(which got this whole debate started in the first place) would you have voted for him over Romney?Theoretical question.

 

[gracepoole]

On your other question though, Republican Catholics are Catholics, Independent Catholics are Catholics, Democrat Catholics are Catholics, Libertarian Catholics are Catholics, and Politically Unaffiliated Catholics are Catholics. I really don’t get your point. I don’t lose by Catholicity by being a Republican Catholic. It doesn’t place my Catholicity in a secondary position. Rather, as I tried to point out by showing the parts of speech, Catholic is who I am…Republican is an adjective. I’m also an American Catholic…and a married Catholic…etc. If someone walks up to me and says, what religion are you? I say, “I’m Catholic.” When talking politics, though, there is nothing wrong with describing myself as a Republican Catholic. And, in this thread, we’ve been talking politics.

I have no problem with you choosing not to use an adjective, that is your choice. We have a rich language though, and I doubt that you are an Apolitical Catholic.

You’re an American Catholic by virtue of your geographical location, and the Church recognizes marriage as a sacrament so there’s no issue with identifying as a married Catholic. But I don’t equate all adjectives (which do, by definition, modify nouns). You’d likely claim that those who describe themselves as “pro-choice Catholics” have indeed “lost their Catholicity” and have “placed their Catholicity in a secondary position,” would you not? It is possible that voting for a Republican presidential ticket will place Catholicism second, as well.

 

[ishii]

 It is possible that voting for a Republican presidential ticket will place Catholicism second, as well.

Can you name a ticket in recent history where this would be the case? For everyone you can name, I will name you two Democrat tickets where voting for them place Catholicism second. Or last.

Ishii

 

[gracepoole]

No one could have predicted 9/11. But Iraq had been simmering for years. Clinton even seemed like he might take some action in the late 90’s. Remember that they kept violating the “no-fly” zone, and everyone then was convinced Iraq had WMD’s - so it wasn’t a stretch to think that a war might break out in the future. But it seems to me odd (there’s that word we all keep using) to think that we have to withhold judgement on the things we do know, because we can’t know everything else which might end up being a grave issue.

Apparently, I just like being odd, Ishii. I’m going to leave it at that lest this devolve into an argument about Iraq and the supposed presence of WMD’s.

Of course there is more to being pro-life than just being pro-abortion. But abortion is the paramount issue today - it tends to eclipse the other issues because its so prevalent, and because its also such a partisan issue. What issue do you think is more grave and urgent today than abortion?
.
Ishii

Poverty.

 

[ishii]

Apparently, I just like being odd, Ishii. I’m going to leave it at that lest this devolve into an argument about Iraq and the supposed presence of WMD’s.

Good idea.

Poverty.

I was wondering when you’d bring poverty up. How does the poverty issue rise to the same level or higher than abortion? Are you aware that good Catholics can disagree on how to best help the poor and still be good catholics? This is not true for abortion - it is intrinsically evil. What is intrinsically evil about a policy that deals with the poor?

Recall that Mother Teresa said: It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.’

Ishii

 

[gracepoole]

I didn’t ask you iIF voted for Obama.I asked you,based on his support of many intrinsic evils in addition to abortion(which got this whole debate started in the first place) would you have voted for him over Romney?Theoretical question.

I think I answered this question earlier: neither.

Can you name a ticket in recent history where this would be the case? For everyone you can name, I will name you two Democrat tickets where voting for them place Catholicism second. Or last.

Ishii

“…whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator.”

I can certainly entertain arguments that Republican tickets in recent years failed with respect to the sections in bold here.

 

[SaintAugustine]

You’re an American Catholic by virtue of your geographical location, and the Church recognizes marriage as a sacrament so there’s no issue with identifying as a married Catholic. But I don’t equate all adjectives (which do, by definition, modify nouns). You’d likely claim that those who describe themselves as “pro-choice Catholics” have indeed “lost their Catholicity” and have “placed their Catholicity in a secondary position,” would you not? It is possible that voting for a Republican presidential ticket will place Catholicism second, as well.

Okay. Of course Republican modifies Catholic. It describes my political affiliation. I don’t see how my political affiliation effects my Catholicity.

 

[gracepoole]

I was wondering when you’d bring poverty up. How does the poverty issue rise to the same level or higher than abortion? Are you aware that good Catholics can disagree on how to best help the poor and still be good catholics? This is not true for abortion - it is intrinsically evil. What is intrinsically evil about a policy that deals with the poor?

Recall that Mother Teresa said: It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.’

Ishii

I am aware of what intrinsic means in relation to evil. But as I just pointed out in my last post, “degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit,” for example, are also intrinsically evil. And such conditions are directly connected with poverty.

But I’m happy to satisfy your curiosity about when I’d bring up poverty.

 

[bellasbane]

I was wondering when you’d bring poverty up. How does the poverty issue rise to the same level or higher than abortion? Are you aware that good Catholics can disagree on how to best help the poor and still be good catholics? This is not true for abortion - it is intrinsically evil. What is intrinsically evil about a policy that deals with the poor?

Recall that Mother Teresa said: It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.’

Ishii

Telling a “white lie” is intrinsically evil. You have to add the word “grave” as in “Abortion is a grave evil” - otherwise your argument makes no sense.

Many of the factors that lead to poverty are also grave evils.

 

[gracepoole]

Okay. Of course Republican modifies Catholic. It describes my political affiliation. I don’t see how my political affiliation effects my Catholicity.

Perhaps yours doesn’t. But consider those five non-negotiables. They position five intrinsic evils as more significant than others – and why? Were I cynical, I might offer that these specific five issues are aligned with the Republican party and were chosen for this reason. Political affiliation certainly can affect one’s Catholicity.