Question on Abortion and voting

[elts1956]

Exactly. It is no different than saying one thing while doing another, voting pro-abortion while telling yourself that is not what you are doing. Nothing less than self deception.

Absolutely. You can say the same thing in fewer words than I can. How do you do that.

 

[Ender]

WHERE the idea that one could vote for a pro abortion candidate if one was not voting for him/her for that reason, as opposed to voting for a more pro life candidate came from I don’t know. From the miasma of misinformation I suppose.

Actually, the confusion on this point was created by the USCCB in their* Faithful Citizenship* document. This is the relevant section:

A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

The entire document was presented in such a way as to allow the reader to find support for pretty much any political position. That is, it did not provide direction on how one should vote, rather it provided moral cover for voting for ones political choice regardless of who that was or what positions he supported.

Ender

 

[elts1956]

Actually, the confusion on this point was created by the USCCB in their* Faithful Citizenship* document. This is the relevant section:

A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

The darlin Bishops need to get off the broad spectrum of their Social Justice platform and start teaching Catholic Moral theology. They have been in the wrong business for too long.

The entire document was presented in such a way as to allow the reader to find support for pretty much any political position. That is, it did not provide direction on how one should vote, rather it provided moral cover for voting for ones political choice regardless of who that was or what positions he supported.

Ender

You are absolutely right about this. Such obfuscation laid the groundwork for mass confusion among catholics who did not understand the horrendous, non-negotiable issue of abortion.

It is true the USCCB document 2008 didn’t say anything to “contradict” Church teaching. But reading it, one should see that bo of the silver tongue could have written it.

I wonder who oversaw the writing of that document? I had “heard” that at least two Bishops refused to sign it. I don’t know which ones and there could have been more who were not listened to.

 

[Ender]

You are absolutely right about this. Such obfuscation laid the groundwork for mass confusion among catholics who did not understand the horrendous, non-negotiable issue of abortion.

Given that nearly 100 bishops issued statements of their own trying to clarify this document it is undeniable that confusion was rampant.

It is true the USCCB document 2008 didn’t say anything to “contradict” Church teaching. But reading it, one should see that bo of the silver tongue could have written it.

It was a gift which was no doubt thoroughly appreciated as it was surely thoroughly exploited.

I wonder who oversaw the writing of that document?

According to the person who presented the document at our church and worked for the USCCB, the document was drawn up by a committee composed of representatives of seven major committees within the USCCB. It was reviewed and voted on by the bishops but they were not major contributors to its creation.

Ender

 

[mapleoak]

You are absolutely right about this. Such obfuscation laid the groundwork for mass confusion among catholics who did not understand the horrendous, non-negotiable issue of abortion.

**It is true the USCCB document 2008 didn’t say anything to “contradict” Church teaching. But reading it, one should see that bo of the silver tongue could have written it. **

I wonder who oversaw the writing of that document? I had “heard” that at least two Bishops refused to sign it. I don’t know which ones and there could have been more who were not listened to.

I can’t seem to remember the name of it, but their is a very good novel about illustrating how people can be misled while telling them nothing but the truth, but in such an ambiguous way (could even say the truth was presented in a deceptive way), that they are basically left to deriving their own conclusions to their own demise without any real guidance.

 

[elts1956]

Given that nearly 100 bishops issued statements of their own trying to clarify this document it is undeniable that confusion was rampant.

It was a gift which was no doubt thoroughly appreciated as it was surely thoroughly exploited.

According to the person who presented the document at our church and worked for the USCCB, the document was drawn up by a committee composed of representatives of seven major committees within the USCCB. It was reviewed and voted on by the bishops but they were not major contributors to its creation.

Ender

Good Grief. :frighten:And those Bishops who didn’t clarify what they were trying to say read every word of it?? Ya think?

 

[elts1956]

Given that nearly 100 bishops issued statements of their own trying to clarify this document it is undeniable that confusion was rampant.

It was a gift which was no doubt thoroughly appreciated as it was surely thoroughly exploited.

According to the person who presented the document at our church and worked for the USCCB, the document was drawn up by a committee composed of representatives of seven major committees within the USCCB. It was reviewed and voted on by the bishops but they were not major contributors to its creation.

Ender

I can’t seem to remember the name of it, but their is a very good novel about illustrating how people can be misled while telling them nothing but the truth, but in such an ambiguous way (could even say the truth was presented in a deceptive way), that they are basically left to deriving their own conclusions to their own demise without any real guidance.

Yep! Proof of the pudding, the USCCB document on voting…:doh2:

 

[peacefulwarrior]

tch, i sometimes wonder what people are thinking. Do you really believe that people only care about abortion. The are those who are worried about the people who are starving when others have so much food, there are parents, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters who are terrified that their loved one might die in war. There are others that are shaken that they can loose their jobs, and others crying over the table because they have lost their jobs. What about those who, help the sick people across the world, but still see so many die from things we have already cured. Those who are crying over their sick loved ones, but can’t afford the treatment because it cost so much in the richest country in the world. People have many other reasons to vote, besides abortion. Abortion might be a Grave issue, but is it more important than all the other combined? I’ll leave the answer to you…

 

[Ender]

People have many other reasons to vote, besides abortion. Abortion might be a Grave issue, but is it more important than all the other combined? I’ll leave the answer to you…

It is probably the greatest failure of the bishops document that it does not at least clarify this point. There are a handful of issues for which there is only one justifiable position. Most of the other issues are political, meaning that valid arguments can be made for supporting any of various proposals for addressing them. The Church has an inflexible position on the former and no position at all on the latter. The moral choice is not between those who are right on the life issues but wrong on the social ones (war, jobs, health care, immigration) and those who are wrong on the life issues but right on the social ones. Supporting one set of social solutions over another is a prudential choice, not a moral distinction. The only moral question is whether one is on the right or wrong side of the moral issues (abortion, euthanasia …)

There is no validity at all in implying that only one side wants to solve the social problems. Both sides want to mitigate them, the argument is over how best to proceed. There is no justification for the claim you make above.

tch, i sometimes wonder what people are thinking.

Don’t we all.

Ender

 

[peacefulwarrior]

Yet people choose the side to is important to them. It is human nature to care about ones loved ones, more than others. People might, and will choose what is most important to them. You call those political but to people who are suffering in those situations they are moral. To a mother who is praying that her son doesn’t die, it is a moral issue. For a wife who cries over her husbands sickness knowing what is going to happen in the end, because they can’t afford a cure, it turns into a moral issue.

It’s a fact the sacrificing one’s self for others is a easy decision to make, compared to sacrificing someone you love for someone else’s sake.

 

[Ender]

You call those political but to people who are suffering in those situations they are moral. To a mother who is praying that her son doesn’t die, it is a moral issue. For a wife who cries over her husbands sickness knowing what is going to happen in the end, because they can’t afford a cure, it turns into a moral issue.

Life and death situations don’t raise moral questions simply because their nature is grave. There is no moral dilemma facing the mother praying for her son unless she is trying to decide whether or not to euthanize him. Morality comes into play only when we have to decide between right and wrong, not between correct and mistaken and the consequences, however tragic, do not change that.

Ender

 

[peacefulwarrior]

Is it moral for society to let the son die, is it moral to let the husband die. When they have all the reasources to not let them die. If they don’t, i’ll society immoral. Life and death, can come in many ways, if it can be avoided and isn’t avoided. It’s not right to let someone die when you can do something to let them survive. If you don’t think thats wrong, then well thats your opinion.

 

[Ender]

Is it moral for society to let the son die, is it moral to let the husband die. When they have all the reasources to not let them die. If they don’t, i’ll society immoral. Life and death, can come in many ways, if it can be avoided and isn’t avoided. It’s not right to let someone die when you can do something to let them survive. If you don’t think thats wrong, then well thats your opinion.

You start with the assumption that one side cares whether the son dies and the other side doesn’t. That assumption is invalid. The debate is not *whether *to help but *how *to help. The argument is over what actions will work. It is no different than coming to a fork in the road and arguing about which way takes you to your destination; just because you both want to go to the same place doesn’t mean you will agree on how to get there.

Your assumption only makes sense if you believe the contest is between good people and bad people, between those who want to help others and those who only want to help themselves. That is not merely uncharitable it is quite simply wrong.

Ender

 

[peacefulwarrior]

There will always be the ever nasty grey area. But, the choice is to let someone die, in order for someone else to live. It’s a nasty issue for everyone that looks on the outside, but it is a lot easier for someone on the insde. I bet, the person who is watching their love one die, is going to choose the one who they believe will give their love one the greatest chance to live. Choosing on how to get there is what it’s all about. And they will get their the way they want to.

 

[Garland]

This has probably been talked about before on this forum, Cannot find it in search but hopefully (again), I am in the right place.

What if: Presidential Candidates in both parties are pro choice? Seems like a real quandary to me, but I absolutely WILL NOT vote for someone pro choice. Nor does our faith allow us to. So I guess we have a choice (a) not to vote at all, or (b) possibly vote for an independent if in fact the independent is pro life or (c) vote for the candidate that is best suited according to our political beliefs (other than pro choice) and most importantly meets other criteria of which our faith dictates.

Who knows the odds of this happening but it is a real possibility really in any election.

I will not vote for any pro choice candidate and firmly beleive that any Catholic that does has the blood of the innocent little ones on his hands and should not recieve the MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE ALTER until he goes to confession and is truly repentant. In my opinion the party of death and its present leader are no different than Hitler and the nazi party. We are appalled at what Hitler did to eleven million Jews, Christians, and others, and act like its just business as usual when the present leaders of our nation declare war on the unborn. How long before it becomes death to the invalids, the old, and anyone else they deem not worthy of life. When the personal hero of the present sec. of state is a woman named Margaret Sanger, this says volumes more than I could say. I am ashamed that 52% of catholics voted for this abbomination in our nation and I think the Bishops should be ashamed of this fact. Some body dropped the ball and we should scream BLOODY MURDER until the Church, indeed the whole world hears us. Catholicism is not a religion. IT IS A WAY OF LIFE> Garland

 

[ProlifeMD]

It is an error not to vote at all because we cannot agree with the candidates. WRITE IN. In a recent local election two of three commissioners were elected by write in.

Write ins dilute the vote for the main candidates. They change the number needed for majority and cause run offs. Even in presidential elections where we stronly disagree with both candidates on serious moral issues. Write ins make a statement that will be heard by the polititions louder than protests.

Remember, the write in needs to be a qualified candidate. Mother Theresa will not do.

 

[JimG]

There will always be the ever nasty grey area. But, the choice is to let someone die, in order for someone else to live. It’s a nasty issue for everyone that looks on the outside, but it is a lot easier for someone on the insde. I bet, the person who is watching their love one die, is going to choose the one who they believe will give their love one the greatest chance to live. Choosing on how to get there is what it’s all about. And they will get their the way they want to.

I can’t think of any individual cases wherein the life or death of a loved one will be immediately affected by the outcome of an election.

Even on such things as the Iraq war, for example, Obama has pretty much continued the policies of Bush.

The only area in which morality dictates a clear choice is in the area of abortion, in which Obama continues to support legal abortion throughout nine months of pregnancy.

As to such areas of prudential judgement as health care, there is a great deal that can be argued. Nationalized health care will lead to rationing, which will cause some to die when the need not have.

 

[ProlifeMD]

We already have rationed health care. It is rationed by insurance plans, abilty to pay, state, availability of facilities near enough to use, etc.

Mexico has better accessability to health care than we do and they have had it for more than 20 years because they looked at their fragmented system and decided to really fix it.

Having potentially the greatest healthcare in the world is no good without access. Access means affordability amoung other things.