I
- Status
C
CMatt25
Guest
Keyword “may”.
Clearly the bishops say “It does not offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues or direction on how to vote.” And Ringil apears correct as the bishops warn against reducing “Catholic moral concerns to one or two matters.”
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1103920.htm
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=604259
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Ok, so you weigh all issues.
Abortion. Where does that weigh in, in terms of social security? Medicare? Medicaid? These are all programs that are going to exist regardless of whether or not you vote for Romney or Obama. How does one personally measure the proportional difference between continuing the status quo in taking the life and the status quo in our current social environment? People are not dying in the streets for lack of government provided care in this country, some may slip through the cracks, but no matter how expansive/expensive of a system you implement, there will always be some slipping through the cracks. At what point would you start to give abortion the weight it deserves? It amazes me that you seem to vote for Obama out of sympathy for the poor and elderly who have programs in place to assist them, yet disregard the helpless who have programs in place fund organizations that kill them.
S
seekerz
Guest
A blessed 2012 to you.
I also happen to believe that most politicians are quite happy to continue using abortion as a wedge issue indefinitely, even if they also realize the limitations of the legal approach. For these reasons, I look instead at the factors (moral, social, economic, health-related) which influence women to seek abortions and what, if anything political candidates can do or plan to do about them.
The ‘life is more important than money’ argument may well be true but that hardly makes a difference to babies in the wombs of women who see things differently. I cannot force these women to share my values, but I may be able to contribute to a world in which they don’t see abortion as the better choice.
As for your KKK analogy, I don’t see it as applicable because, while I agree that the Democrat party is mainly pro-choice, abortion is not its raison d’etre. I also see no objective basis for the assertion that Obama is the most pro-abortion president - not if one measures ‘pro-choiceness’ by abortion numbers, which as far as I know have not shifted significantly one way or the next.
Feelings don’t really do the at-risk unborn a whole lot of good so I prefer to focus on what can be done. I happen to believe that outlawing abortion, though a good thing, would be practically impossible to enforce because of medical advances and the overriding attitudes among health professionals. That is my perspective born out of intimate experience with the practice in multiple settings, including places where abortion is illegal.
I also happen to believe that most politicians are quite happy to continue using abortion as a wedge issue indefinitely, even if they also realize the limitations of the legal approach. For these reasons, I look instead at the factors (moral, social, economic, health-related) which influence women to seek abortions and what, if anything political candidates can do or plan to do about them.
The ‘life is more important than money’ argument may well be true but that hardly makes a difference to babies in the wombs of women who see things differently. I cannot force these women to share my values, but I may be able to contribute to a world in which they don’t see abortion as the better choice.
So do look at my actions: as I see it, since direct political action that is capable of ending or substantially decreasing abortion, seems to be nowhere on the horizon, the real choice is to identify the policies which will produce a society where women are less prone to choose abortion.
As for your KKK analogy, I don’t see it as applicable because, while I agree that the Democrat party is mainly pro-choice, abortion is not its raison d’etre. I also see no objective basis for the assertion that Obama is the most pro-abortion president - not if one measures ‘pro-choiceness’ by abortion numbers, which as far as I know have not shifted significantly one way or the next.
If they can’t do anything to outlaw abortion then maybe we should be looking for alternatives. I’d rather vote in people whose policies I feel would contribute to decreased abortion than waste time talking about doing something.
It is either/or: either an approach works or it doesn’t. I’m not inclined to wait another few decades complaining about the reasons the legal approach is not bearing fruit. I’d much rather be doing something concrete.
I appreciate that.
E
estesbob
Guest
I have posted voluminous documention to show Church teaching I doubt it us very useful for Catholics to depend on the personal interpretion of a non-catholic on one line of one document
I
ishii
Guest
And you too!
That may be partly true, but I think there are many committed pro-life politicians out there -Rick Santorum comes to mind, and the late Henry Hyde was legendary, just to name two off the top of my head.
We need to do both - reform our laws and produce the society in which people are less prone to do things like rob banks, rape, murder, and have abortions.
Then we disagree. I think you are underestimating the strength of the abortion lobby and its effect on Democrat candidates. I view the Democrat party - atleast at the national level - as being basically in the pocket of the abortion lobby. While its natural for a party to have its special interests - God knows the GOP has its special interests - havingn the abortion lobby as one of your party’s special interests should make one shudder
I would measure Obama by his efforts to keep abortion legal at every stage, and by his appointments of people like Kathleen Sebelius. What can we judge, but his actions? Kathleen Sebelius said recently at a NARAL luncheon that “we are at war”. Take a wild guess which side she is on in this “war”. Which side are you on, Seekerz?
That is my whole point! It seems to me pretty unfair to continually vote for the Democrats and then complain " those Republicans can’t do anything to outlaw abortion" !! It starts with not voting for pro-abortion politicians. Remember that it is the opposition from pro-abort Democrats that has thwarted the efforts of the GoP to reform our abortion laws during the past three decades.
.
I think if enough catholics who are otherwise liberal in their outlook stopped voting for pro-abortion politicians, we’d have outlawed abortion years ago.
Ishii
S
seekerz
Guest
I’m on the side of life and I measure ‘pro-lifeness’ not by words, or even by votes on toothless bills, but by actions which impact (positively or negatively) the reality of millions of babies not making it to the light of day because of their mothers’ choices.
Realistically speaking, what statistical (or other) basis do you use to support that last statement about Catholic voting choices?
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Democrats gave many pregnant women the choice of abortion.
I
ishii
Guest
And yet you support the party that is in the pocket of the abortion lobby.
The bills are toothless because Roe V Wade prevents them from having any teeth. Your party fights “tooth” and nail to keep Roe V Wade the law of the land!
And your party fights to keep available and legal the choice of a mother to kill her unborn baby.
Obama gave us Sotomayer and Elana Kagan. Take away his catholic votes and he doesn’t win the election. Then, take away the two justices and replace them with even one constructionist justice and you now remove the law that prevents bills from having any “teeth”.
Seekerz, as you can see, your logic is full of holes. I hope you reconsider and give life a chance because as long as so many catholics vote for the abortion party, life doesn’t have much of a chance.
Ishii
I
irishpatrick
Guest
**1. Democrats fought to keep slavery legal.
**1. Democrats never stop fighting to keep abortion legal.
- The new Republicans pushed to ban slavery.**
**1. Democrats never stop fighting to keep abortion legal.
- Republicans never stop fighting to ban legal abortion.**
E
estesbob
Guest
Hopefully we can all agree you wont end abortion by voting for those who have vowed to keep it legal.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
**1. Democrats fought to keep slavery legal.
*
As for womens rights, especially the right to vote, check-out this quote:
So, tell us again, which party has stood for the most vulnerable?
Republicans are not perfect, but their platform routinely places actual people as priorities, year after year, and election after election.
That is really all any Catholic needs to know!
- The new Republicans pushed to ban slavery.**
- Democrats never stop fighting to keep abortion legal.
- Republicans never stop fighting to ban legal abortion.**
- Republicans continue to fight to keep the always held definition of marriage.**
*
The original House version:[13]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[14]
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[13]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[13]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
*Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[14]
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[13]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[13]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
As for womens rights, especially the right to vote, check-out this quote:
In 1872, Susan B. Anthony led a delegation of women to the GOP convention in Philadelphia. At the convention, Anthony lobbied for women’s suffrage. As a result of her efforts, the Republican Party became the first national party to recognize the role of women in its Platform, stating: “The Republican Party is mindful of its obligations to the loyal women of America for their noble devotion to the cause of freedom. Their admission to wider fields of usefulness is viewed with satisfaction, and the honest demands of any class of citizens for additional rights should be treated with respectful consideration.” “I voted for the Republicans. They gave us the vote” - Susan B. Anthony -
So, tell us again, which party has stood for the most vulnerable?
Republicans are not perfect, but their platform routinely places actual people as priorities, year after year, and election after election.
That is really all any Catholic needs to know!
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
WOW!!!
L
lapislazuli
Guest
Since people keep asking this question, I will give my father’s answer, he is a strong Democrat and a lifelong Catholic. (don’t flame me, I am repeating this.) He believes the Republicans want to take the country back to the 1890s and overturn reforms such as child labor laws, minimum wage, social security, medicare/medicaid, etc. By overturn he doesn’t mean “get rid of the waste” he means that he believes the Republicans want to zero out all of these programs as well as the EPA and other regulatory agencies and/or if the Republicans had been in power in the earlier part of the 20th century we would not have social security in the first place.
He does not believe private charity is enough to care for people. He worked his whole adult life so this is not about receiving welfare however as far back as I can remember he has put huge amounts of money into saving for retirement and long-term care b/c he is terrified of growing old and not being taken care of. Being older and without resources is frightening to him.
I think this is an unfair way to characterize all Republicans although I support social programs more than a lot of people on CAF. America is moving to a two-tiered society with income inequality but even the people here who state your fortunes are in your control are not actively wishing bad things on the poor (that I’ve noticed).
E
estesbob
Guest
You can not take valid political differences on the way to adress these problems and raise them to the same level of abortion. NONE of what you mention above effects those denied the right to life. Income eqaulity is irelevant to those slaughterd in the womb.
B
BVM_1221
Guest
Despite mixed signals, and a problematic vote in Iowa, Rick Perry has decided to continue. This could be fun. 
kansascity.com/2012/01/04/3353987/texas-gov-rick-perry-decides-to.html
kansascity.com/2012/01/04/3353987/texas-gov-rick-perry-decides-to.html
L
lapislazuli
Guest
that’s true but I’m describing emotionally motivated thinking. I can’t speak for anyone else voting either democrat or republican (or other) but he makes major decisions based in part on fear and always has.
S
Stjudeprayforus
Guest
Gov. Perry is my first pick.
Not that it matters much, by the time the primary gets to me… it usually over.
Not that it matters much, by the time the primary gets to me… it usually over.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
M
mark_a
Guest
After reading this post several times, I don’t understand which side of the fence you are on or which side of the fence you think I’m on.
- Status