S
SoCalRC
Guest
If you don’t mind my asking, what do you find radical or startling about his positions?
- Status
N
Newzie52
Guest
Amnesty for illegal immigrants, restitution to Native Americans, North American Union (NAU), Department of Peace, just to name a few bold proposals…
Mind you, I think he’s wonderful and refreshing - his views are bold and courageous. He is the personification of someone supporting the “seamless garment” pro-life point of view and charity in action. He’s not your typical pol by a long shot. This is Catholic social teaching to the max, though I suspect that plenty of more conservative Catholics would find his views radical and startling, as I mentioned…not at all what they are used to, though I think Jesus would be all for them.
B
Bennie_P
Guest
That “seamless garment” pro-life point of view may be seamless but is has a very nasty bloody stain upon it.
I know of a theologian that promotes the “seamless garment” pro-life view, his idea on how to get rid of abortion is to ordain women into the priesthood.
Right
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
You know of a theologian that thinks that. Not everyone who agrees with the “seamless garment” pro-life POV believes such nonsense.That “seamless garment” pro-life point of view may be seamless but is has a very nasty bloody stain upon it.
E
Ender
Guest
These topics represent all that is wrong with the “seamless garment”: it has become a vehicle to which can be attached any topic whatsoever. The seamless garment argument is a device to transfer the moral imperative to oppose abortion to other issues that have no moral imperative whatsoever. Since those who oppose abortion also tend to oppose the myriad solutions being tacked on to the “seamless garment”, this argument actually turns the moral necessity of opposing abortion on its head as those who support “bold proposals” such as those listed above also tend to support abortion.
A claim that such proposals represent Catholic social teaching shows a misunderstanding of what Catholic social teaching is really about. CST is not about specifying the means to be used but only about the ends we should strive to achieve. There is nothing in those teachings that implies that one mechanism is morally preferable to another; that decision is left to the individual to decide. So long as both sides attempt to achieve a just solution, neither side can claim its solution is more moral.
Ender
R
rlg94086
Guest
I’m guessing there are different POVs from people who call themselves “seamless garment” pro-lifers. I’m not that familiar with the details of the “seamless garment” argument, but I do note that the people I have heard mention it are often the people justifying their vote for a pro-choice politician. Ostensibly, this is because they take all pro-life viewpoints (capital punishment, social justice, etc.) and say they weighed them all and therefore vote Democrat.
Personally, I think it’s ironic. Of course, the “vote for Joe” folks don’t fall in this category, but I do wish they would make a more practical choice. Joe doesn’t have a chance, so their votes are just pulling support from the major candidate who would match their views more closely. I can’t support that…unless their major candidate is a Democrat. In that case, vote for Joe.
I
Island_Oak
Guest
I’m sorry but this is so utterly ridiculous I can hardly stand listening to political presentations on Cathoilic radio or forums anymore.
It is critical for all of us to utilize, not abdicate using our brains in this process. There is not one single “life” related issue, but many on which these candidates will be making decisions throughout their tenure or on which we need to hold them accountable.
If forced to choose between two self-described pro-choice candidates, one of whom will win and govern in our currently predominant two-party system, it is incumbant upon you to responsibly and thoroughly examine the context of the election as well as the candidates’ history and priorities on all life-related issues.
Context of the election leads one to evaluate the potential persuasive sway the candidate may or may not enjoy over the legislative (i.e. law-making) branch–locally or nationally. Look at the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches–sometimes an even split or balance means a decreased likelihood of success in pressing a stated campaign agenda or change in existing policy.
As far as life issues–what are the candidates views on children, education, health insurance/care, nutrition, living wage, non-married partner benefits, senior health care, rights of the disabled and minorities, funding for the war effort, homeland defense, foreign policy, balanced foreign trade policy, etc. All these impact families and the ability to promote pro-life policies.
Don’t be tempted to stick your head in the sand. Simply plugging your nose and “throwing your vote away” is the height of irresponsibility in our democratic society.
M
melensdad
Guest
I totally agree with the first part of what you wrote and believe we need to vote for someone within our 2 party system as it exists in the REAL WORLD. While on a local or state level there are some examples of viable 3rd parties, we can vote for one of the VIABLE candidates, but to vote for someone who has no chance of winning is simply casting your vote against the person who best represents our values.
I also highlighted some of your “life” issues in various colors to bring attention to the honest disagreement that some folks have with some of those issues.
Things like a “living wage” are things that can force companies to move their production to foreign lands, or just out of an area. Here in the Chicago area some chain stores refused to open stores in areas where a “living wage” law existed because the stores would have to raise prices. So things like “living wage” laws can be a source of social justice, or a source of forced injustice.
In a world economy we have to be careful sometimes what we demand because our constant demand for lower prices has forced many plant closings in developed nations leading to a lower standard of living as factory workers lose their jobs.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I agree with you Island Oak regarding not wasting your vote. However, I would add that you also need to be practical on the abortion issue. Even if both major candidates are pro-choice, I would consider how they might effect the abortion issue. For presidential candidates, you need to consider what sort of justices they believe in. Would they support an overturn of Roe v. Wade (some pro-choice politicians think Roe v Wade is bad law from a state’s rights standpoint)? Would they veto (or did they support) controls on abortion, such as a partial birth abortion ban?
Just because a candidate doesn’t rate 100% on the pro-life-o-meter, doesn’t mean they won’t have a more positive effect on the cause. I don’t look for a candidate that completely matches my beliefs (they are very few). Rather, I look for the candidate that is going to advance my view. Then, I urge, rally and cajole them to advance my views…even if they don’t agree with all of them.
Regarding the other issues, I believe they are secondary though very important. The list you gave could be supported from a conservative or liberal standpoint, so as melensdad mentions, the solutions/viewpoints aren’t as black-and-white as abortion, euthenasia and stem cell research.
Just because a candidate doesn’t rate 100% on the pro-life-o-meter, doesn’t mean they won’t have a more positive effect on the cause. I don’t look for a candidate that completely matches my beliefs (they are very few). Rather, I look for the candidate that is going to advance my view. Then, I urge, rally and cajole them to advance my views…even if they don’t agree with all of them.
Regarding the other issues, I believe they are secondary though very important. The list you gave could be supported from a conservative or liberal standpoint, so as melensdad mentions, the solutions/viewpoints aren’t as black-and-white as abortion, euthenasia and stem cell research.
M
melensdad
Guest
Written in response to Island Oak
But there are issues that are black/white and pretty simple.
I’d also like to mention that the Church opposes EMBRYONIC stem cell research but **supports ADULT stem cell research. ** I’ve found there is a lot of confusion over stem cell research and people need to understand that embryonic stem cell research requires the death of an infant in the womb. Adult stem cell research is legitimate and ethical and is the only form of stem cell research that actually has produced cures/treatments used by medical science today!
Thank you for the clarity here. That is what I was attempting to illustrate in my post with the one example I provided. The reality is these secondary issues really require some deep thought and may even be situational or location issues but not necessarily issues that can be applied the same everywhere, every time.
But there are issues that are black/white and pretty simple.
I’d also like to mention that the Church opposes EMBRYONIC stem cell research but **supports ADULT stem cell research. ** I’ve found there is a lot of confusion over stem cell research and people need to understand that embryonic stem cell research requires the death of an infant in the womb. Adult stem cell research is legitimate and ethical and is the only form of stem cell research that actually has produced cures/treatments used by medical science today!
N
Newzie52
Guest
That seems like a total non-sequitur to me. Ordaining women to the priesthood would lead to fewer abortions? Loony. As is rejecting the “seamless garment” approach because of one nutsy theologian.That “seamless garment” pro-life point of view may be seamless but is has a very nasty bloody stain upon it.
This is off the subject, anyway.
N
Newzie52
Guest
I think this current lineup of “major candidates” is really bottom of the barrel. I am having a hard time finding any of them with whom I am comfortable; Ron Paul is, however, a staunch pro-lifer and plain-spoken, which I admire (he and Joe Schriner would have real issues with each other over other things, though!) As my policy is not to vote for a pro-choice candidate even for dog-catcher, it will likely be one of those two.I’m guessing there are different POVs from people who call themselves “seamless garment” pro-lifers. I’m not that familiar with the details of the “seamless garment” argument, but I do note that the people I have heard mention it are often the people justifying their vote for a pro-choice politician. Ostensibly, this is because they take all pro-life viewpoints (capital punishment, social justice, etc.) and say they weighed them all and therefore vote Democrat.
Personally, I think it’s ironic. Of course, the “vote for Joe” folks don’t fall in this category, but I do wish they would make a more practical choice. Joe doesn’t have a chance, so their votes are just pulling support from the major candidate who would match their views more closely. I can’t support that…unless their major candidate is a Democrat. In that case, vote for Joe.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Thanks. That was sloppy on my part. I am usually good about including “embryonic” in my verbage. In fact, it is one of the things that drives me nuts in the media. They try to pass off embryonic stem cell bans as “banning stem cell research.” No one is against adult stem cell research. However, all of the focus on embryonic stem cell research has diverted funds from adult stem cell research.
N
Newzie52
Guest
I’m glad you underscored this confusion. Sad to say, we rarely hear anything about the advances in adult stem cell research; it’s as if those who are so gung-ho for embryonic stem cell research are reluctant to admit that there is a better way. Their “pro-choice” mentality trumps all.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I think you should rethink your policy; although, I do support your decision to support Paul in the primaries.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2793500&postcount=13
Let me be clear though, I am giving my opinion - not “telling you how to vote.” We all have to pray about it and make the best decision.
I
Island_Oak
Guest
Thank you for adding this important clarification that I omitted from my comments. I was not attempting to specify particular conclusions but simply highlight these issues as ones which do impact pro-life voters and which deserve attention and an informed vote. Someone else rightly pointed out that even among pro-life voters there can be disagreement on the impact of things like mandating living-wage, support of the war, universal health care/insurance, etc.
M
mikerod
Guest
What is wrong with you people? You vote Republican no matter what their position is don’t you? Be honest. Bush is the worst president this country has ever had to suffer through and I bet most of you voted for him - - twice. The Republican Party uses and abuses the religious right’s positions only as a ploy to get votes, they could care less about the poor and middle class. If they have a choice to vote on something benefiting big business and the rich or the poor and middle class, they will choose the former every time. It’s time for you to grow up and stop blindly following these corrupt people.
Don’t believe the lie that only the Republicans are pro-life. They don’t decide that - it is the Supreme Court that does, and at the moment they are very conservative and will eventually rid us of Rove v Wade.
I thought this was supposed to be a religious site but it seems that it is only a front. Don’t let this site be “FOX Catholic Answers”.
Don’t believe the lie that only the Republicans are pro-life. They don’t decide that - it is the Supreme Court that does, and at the moment they are very conservative and will eventually rid us of Rove v Wade.
I thought this was supposed to be a religious site but it seems that it is only a front. Don’t let this site be “FOX Catholic Answers”.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Thanks for the clarification. I get banged over the head by some Catholic Democrats who tell me that Republicans are not in line with Catholic teaching on these issues. I respect their approach, but I disagree that they have the only “valid” Catholic approach.
M
melensdad
Guest
One thing that I will say about Dr Ron Paul is that he is a State Representative who stands up and says what he believes and his voting record is the only one that matches what he says! Everyone must admit that he has integrity where the other politicians, especially the front running candidates, have voting records that contradict what they claim to stand for.
I believe we are called to first support life, in all the various forms that the Church espouses. Secondly we need to look at issues from a long term perspective. Will raising minimum wage actually help someone long term or will it act as a temporary band-aid that covers the problem today, but hurts worse when the job is lost due to overseas job loss? Do we vote for someone who pushes Ethanol Fuel as an alternate fuel only to find out later it is not as good as something else, or do we vote for someone who will give tax credits to allow the market to explore all alternate sources and let the market provide the best overall choice? Do we support the candidate that “protects” our environment but then forces factory jobs to move to a nation that has no environmental controls because he overburdens our nation?
There are way too many easy fixes in our world. We need to look out for our children/grandchildren and we need to vote that way. If a politician wants to give me a new program, then I think it is fair to automatically suspect his motives and wonder if it is Christian to accept something from him when I can go out and get my own job.
R
rlg94086
Guest
mikerod,What is wrong with you people? You vote Republican no matter what their position is don’t you? Be honest. Bush is the worst president this country has ever had to suffer through and I bet most of you voted for him - - twice. The Republican Party uses and abuses the religious right’s positions only as a ploy to get votes, they could care less about the poor and middle class. If they have a choice to vote on something benefiting big business and the rich or the poor and middle class, they will choose the former every time. It’s time for you to grow up and stop blindly following these corrupt people.
Don’t believe the lie that only the Republicans are pro-life. They don’t decide that - it is the Supreme Court that does, and at the moment they are very conservative and will eventually rid us of Rove v Wade.
I bet most of you listen to far right neo-con commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Rielly. You probably watch way too much FOX news. They are the media
I thought this was supposed to be a religious site but it seems that it is only a front. Don’t let this site be “FOX Catholic Answers”.
Your post is very uncharitable. Catholic Republicans are just as thoughtful as Catholic Democrats and Catholic “Independents” (not to be confused with the Independent Party).
I know the latest Democrat talking point is that the Republican Party uses the religous right, but I don’t think that is accurate.
Also, the Supreme Court does not decide everything on pro-life issues. If an amendment is passed to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has to rule accordingly. They don’t have the power to overturn an amendment. [Edit add] Also, you need to understand that the end of Roe v Wade won’t be the end of abortion. It will just allow states to decide for themselves (i.e. it will take it out of the hands of the Feds, unless an Amendment is passed).
- Status