S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Please cite Church teaching that allows us to vote for pro-abortion politicians because we don’t like the other party.
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
Not everything. There are topics the Republicans take issue with that the Democrats do not. Ironic this is coming up in an article where it is a Republican candidate that is criticizing the pope.
P
pnewton
Guest
I kind of agree with this. I consider the party, just not as a major factor. For example, it would never be enough of a factor for me to vote for a pro-abortion Democrat over a anti-abortion Republican. It is a minor factor for me, though a little more relevant in reference to national office. But then, I am also a third party type of voter.
E
estesbob
Guest
What you say is a narrow view is actually the teaching of the church. For instance Pope Benedict himself specifically said that support of war was not on the same level as support of abortion . In fact he said Catholic a good conscience could support the war. Abortion is not the only issue that matters . We Most certainly are not required to vote for a candidate just because he opposes abortion . But we can never vote for candidate or supports unrestricted abortion on demand unless his opponent share similar views .
I don’t know of any candidate who was opposed to providing basic needs for the poor and needy or has been in favor of torture or unjust wars . What those trying to justify supporting the evil of abortion are doing is trying to conflate political differences on how to address these problems as being the same or worse than supporting the slaughter 1.2 million children a year . None of the issues you mentioned are important to those were been denied life . It is sad but abortion will remain legal in this country until Catholic Democrats come to love the unborn more than they hate the Republican Party
E
estesbob
Guest
Guess it’s time to post “the list” again
EXCUSES FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS
- National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
- Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
- My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
- Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
- Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
- Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
- I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
- I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- We can’t do anything about abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- We can’t end abortion until we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
- The Pro-Life movement is in the tank for the Republican party (even though all pro-life legislation has had the overwhelming support of Republicans and overwhelming opposition from Democrats), so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party
- All people sin, so we’re all really “Cafeteria Catholics”, so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
- Dominionists attend GOP rallies so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician
Z
zz912
Guest
Some Republicans have condemned waterboarding and the Iraq War, but you seem unaware of them. I would suggest considering other sources of info so you can find out about them. In fact I’d posit that most in the GOP party were tired of the Iraq War and are happy it has ended, but upset about how it was ended with Obama, which led to the chaos we see today.
As to your assertion about Catholic Republicans and their views on waterboarding or the Iraq War, you should listen to some of those one here. Several are openly critical of both.
Here’s the thing on that, there is no politician pushing for waterboarding now. And none (or very few) are calling for another war in Iraq (although Obama is going to get us into another one if he isn’t careful, his incompetence in this matter is staggering). So even if you hold that those views are wrong, they were actions from a decade ago, that are no longer continuing. So your objection is moot.
Your other points (food, shelter, health care, education and meaningful work, racism, unjust discrimination, unjust wars, war crimes), there are no GOP candidates who are in opposition to these things. So your argument again, is pointless. Even the last item, immigration, there are no people in the GOP who oppose immigration. They oppose massive, uncontrolled immigration with no assimilation involved. You seem to have created a caricature of the GOP that doesn’t actually exist. It appears that you’ve done this to excuse voting for virulently pro-abortion politicians. (This is just my take on how you’re expressing your views).
I did like your line about my “narrow” interpretation of the guide. It states clearly that abortion MUST be opposed. You think I’m “interpreting” this. What “interpretation” would you give this passage? That you can vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician when there’s an alternate candidate who isn’t? How exactly does that reconcile with “always must be opposed”?
Z
zz912
Guest
Strawman argument. That’s not what I was saying.
I was saying a candidate who claims to be pro-life, but supports the pro-abortion leadership of his party is not truly pro-life.
If there is a pro-abortion GOP candidate against a “pro-life” DNC candidate, then it would probably be correct to vote for the DNC candidate. (I say “probably” only because if there is the situation where the GOP candidate would set up a GOP majority and then pro-life leadership would be in the majority, then that could be acceptable to consider. Or if the reverse were true, and the DNC candidate would cause a DNC majority who would install pro-abortion leadership, that must be factored in.)
It’s not about “liking” the other party for me personally. I don’t like the GOP personally. Right now they are most aligned with the Catholic faith, especially at the state and local level. I wish the DNC would stop being so virulently anti-Christian so there would be two actual viable parties to decide between.
And to head off your next argument at the pass, since we’ve been down this road with you before stinkcat, there is a difference in how pro-abortion some candidates are. You’ve tried in the past to claim that a GOP candidate who was in favor of allowing abortion for rape, incest & life of the mother is the same as being virulently pro-abortion, as most of the DNC is. That’s simply untrue. There’s a vast difference between someone who is okay with or would allow 1-2% of all abortions, and someone who actively promotes 100% of all abortions and wishes to increase them. While we wish they would correct their views and become truly 100% pro-life, we can’t pretend that 2% and 100% are the same thing.
Z
zz912
Guest
Those are excuses #5 and 6 on the list of excuses for voting for virulently pro-abortion politicians. See Bob’s post above.
And to address your assertion that it is only a slogan. Let’s even assume it is true. Well, isn’t that a LOT better than someone who ACTIVELY promotes and pushes for killing babies?!?!?! Someone who at least doesn’t PROMOTE abortion is better than someone who does. You get that, right?
R
ringil
Guest
Maybe you should try a different tactic as this list hasn’t shown much success in ensuring GOP candidates get elected.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I’ll agree on one thing. A Catholic candidate should not be criticizing the Pope, even though he perceives that it might be a popular position to take. Santorum should concentrate on what cost him the nomination last time, especially after holding a modest lead in the primaries. It seemed to have been something he said when in Puerto Rico, which wasn’t taken too kindly down there.
E
estesbob
Guest
#6
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Ok, let’s see the proof. You made a claim, you have the moral obligation to back it up. I never said they were exactly the same. I said, that Romney was pro-abortion. Which he is. Its the difference between someone who is for adultery all the time and someone who is mostly against it, except for once in a while.
P
pnewton
Guest
My issue with such lists is that it is bumper sticker logic. By this I mean it uses short truisms written with slant and spin, devoid of context. The is why the USCCB did not use such a list in their guide, which remains the standard for Catholics today.
While item #6 makes total sense (at least to me) it is not what ringil said. No, past performance on one candidate is not justification for voting for a virulent pro-abortion candidate. (I do not address this as parties because the Catholic Church does not address this issue as a party issue. In American, we vote by candidate, not party. I believe some places do vote by party.)
Z
zz912
Guest
Are you seriously going to argue you that you have NOT said in the past that both Romney and Obama were pro-abortion, and so there was no pro-life candidate to vote for?
You threw out this canard to try to obfuscate the clear cut issue (which is par for the course with you it seems). Even taking your claim that Romney was pro-abortion, he only believed it was acceptable in very few instances (less than 2% of all abortions) and opposed 98+% of abortions. This is SIGNIFICANTLY different than Obama, who not only supports 100% of abortions, but actively encourages them, wants to fund them, and even has supported infanticide.
That is what you said and what you were attempting to do in prior discussions on this. Own up to what you have said in the past.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
I have said that they are both pro-abortion, that is 100% true. I never said they were equally pro-abortion. Romney was in no way pro-life. He was less pro-abortion than Obama, but pro-abortion nonetheless.
Where have I said they were exactly the same? What I said was that Romney was not pro-life. That is not something that anyone can dispute. I
I have been 100% accurate in what I said. I did not vote for Romney because he was not pro-life. I did not vote for Obama because he was not pro-life either. Clearly, Romney supports less murder than Obama does. But they are both accomplices to murder and we should not be voting for murderers if we can avoid it.
T
tomarin
Guest
Methinks you’re making the perfect the enemy of the good here.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
You are free to have that opinion, and I certainly understand that some people voted for Romney despite the fact that he is not pro-life, but don’t misrepresent what I said (I am not saying you did, but other posters have though).
I
ishii
Guest
Romney was for overturning Roe V Wade, for the Hyde amendment, against funding for PP, HHS mandate, etc. Romney was the only real choice for pro-life voters. Obama was clearly so pro-abortion that it boggles my mind that people would not see that and vote for the only real alternative which was Romney.
Truly, abortion will remain legal as long as Catholics hate Republicans more than they hate abortion.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
I
ishii
Guest
Its not the fault of the list, its the fault of obstinate Catholic voters who seem to hate Republicans more than they hate abortion.
Ishii
- Status