Sanders Thread

[Crossbones]

Ugh. I keep getting notifications of new posts in this thread and I keep checking in, hoping to find something new. But with few exceptions, each “new” post isn’t new at all – it’s **literally **the same thing (same point, same language) posted over and over. Please make it stop.

Well, it’s not like Bernie has any chance of winning, so we might as well talk about something. Besides, it’s important that any newcomers and lurkers understand that there are a lot of different views on aspects of Catholic teaching and they need to do their own research instead of depending on someone’s personal interpretation on the internet.

 

[estesbob]

Well, it’s not like Bernie has any chance of winning, so we might as well talk about something. Besides, it’s important that any newcomers and lurkers understand that there are a lot of different views on aspects of Catholic teaching and they need to do their own research instead of depending on someone’s personal interpretation on the internet.

Still waiting for that Quote…

 

[Crossbones]

Still waiting for that Quote…

I would suggest that you read the article at priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/kicanas-synod.htm and read what Bishop Kicanas says:

“Then, preachers can help people to understand the complexity of the moral issues that face our culture and our society. The idea, obviously, is not to support any particular candidate, but helping people to see that the church teaches the dignity of human life from conception to natural death, which involves a vast array of issues important in the community in which we live. It’s important to be able to speak knowledgably about those issues, and then to try to weigh the character of the person who is running for office – looking at the issues they propose, as well as their ability to put those issues into action, into legislation that will make a difference. It’s one thing to hold positions, it’s another thing to be able to get results. I think sometimes that’s discouraging, because people may propose positions that are along the lines of what we hold as a church, in terms of the dignity of human life, but they’re totally ineffective in being able to accomplish anything.”

I’m sure you can understand this without my help.

 

[gracepoole]

Well, it’s not like Bernie has any chance of winning, so we might as well talk about something. Besides, it’s important that any newcomers and lurkers understand that there are a lot of different views on aspects of Catholic teaching and they need to do their own research instead of depending on someone’s personal interpretation on the internet.

Oh, I wasn’t criticizing you, Crossbones. And in general, I agree with your point here.

 

[Little_Sheep]

I would suggest that you read the article at priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/kicanas-synod.htm and read what Bishop Kicanas says:

“Then, preachers can help people to understand the complexity of the moral issues that face our culture and our society. The idea, obviously, is not to support any particular candidate, but helping people to see that the church teaches the dignity of human life from conception to natural death, which involves a vast array of issues important in the community in which we live. It’s important to be able to speak knowledgably about those issues, and then to try to weigh the character of the person who is running for office – looking at the issues they propose, as well as their ability to put those issues into action, into legislation that will make a difference. It’s one thing to hold positions, it’s another thing to be able to get results. I think sometimes that’s discouraging, because people may propose positions that are along the lines of what we hold as a church, in terms of the dignity of human life, but they’re totally ineffective in being able to accomplish anything.”

I’m sure you can understand this without my help.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Ugh. I keep getting notifications of new posts in this thread and I keep checking in, hoping to find something new. But with few exceptions, each “new” post isn’t new at all – it’s **literally **the same thing (same point, same language) posted over and over. Please make it stop.

It’s always about abortion and the perceived evils of the Democratic Party and how we can only vote for a pro-life candidate even if that candidate would destroy every living person in the US.

I don’t get email alerts any longer. I couldn’t stand to see them in my Inbox any more.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

You’re overstating what the SCOTUS did in in PP v. Casey.

That decision wasn’t a complete carte blanche upholding of Roe.

Roe v. Wade was partially overruled by PP. v. Casey.

PP. v. Casey upheld the “essential holding” of Roe, but the SCOTUS decision greatly lowered the legal scrutiny standard applied to laws regulating abortion from a Strict Scrutiny Legal Standard (i.e., a government law must be necessary to achieve a compelling government interest), the most stringent standard of judicial review in Constitutional Law applied to laws affecting Constitutional Fundamental Rights to a greatly lower form of Constitutional protection called an “undue burden” standard (i.e., if a government law places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus).

Thus, PP. v. Casey held that abortion is no longer a Constitutional fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution and partially overruled Roe.

See, News Media blasts its propaganda nonstop 24/7 + 365 that the Republican U.S. Supreme Court Justices completely upheld Roe in PP v. Casey but the Truth is different from the fictional world the handful of Talking Heads and couple of thousand news writers depict.

I know. That’s why I pointed out to Sophie on the previous page that states do legislate against abortion, and some of those laws do stick.

 

[stinkcat_14]

It’s always about abortion and the perceived evils of the Democratic Party and how we can only vote for a pro-life candidate even if that candidate would destroy every living person in the US.

I don’t get email alerts any longer. I couldn’t stand to see them in my Inbox any more.

Which candidate would destroy every living person in the US?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Which candidate would destroy every living person in the US?

“If” is conditional.

 

[mary_bobo]

Which is the greater good: Working to stop the murder of 1 million children per year that’s going on right now, or shutting down coal companies because of the possibility that there might be some impact to the climate in the future? Passing legislation to limit the funds going to the single largest provider of abortions, or raising taxes to pay for Flooty McHooperson’s degree in Ancient Indonesian LGBT Literature? Securing our borders and shoring up our economy, or continuing to allow unfettered border crossings so that we’ll always have a cheap underclass to exploit for their labor?

The platform of the Democratic Party supports definite evils and damaging practices that are happening now. The Republican Party platform supports practices that might be questionable, but also explicitly supports stopping those evils that are currently happening.

136 US children have died from abortion since my last post.

But it won’t make any difference to those who have convinced themselves that Republicans are going to do all those dastardly things the ultra liberals says they will do. I maintain that those of us who happen to be conservative care as much about people after they are born than the Dems do. We also care about the environment (though we are not fanatics) and all the other things the libs have conjured up in their minds to preach to those who are gullible enough to believe them. We just happen to think that there are better ways to accomplish them. What we are doing now, on all fronts, is not working.

 

[zz912]

But who will do the most good for the American people?

And do you really think someone like Ted Cruz can stop abortion on demand? It’s going to be states’ rights issue, not one settled by the Supreme Court. They have already spoken regarding the Constitution.

A Christian cannot commit evil (supporting pro-abortion politicians) in the hopes that good will come of it.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

A Christian cannot commit evil (supporting pro-abortion politicians) in the hopes that good will come of it.

That applies to more than abortion.

 

[zz912]

Well, it’s not like Bernie has any chance of winning, so we might as well talk about something. Besides, it’s important that any newcomers and lurkers understand that there are a lot of different views on aspects of Catholic teaching and they need to do their own research instead of depending on someone’s personal interpretation on the internet.

There aren’t different views on Catholic teaching. There is Catholic teaching, and there are those who want to ignore it and look for justifications and excuses for ignoring it.

It’s always about abortion and the perceived evils of the Democratic Party and how we can only vote for a pro-life candidate even if that candidate would destroy every living person in the US.

I don’t get email alerts any longer. I couldn’t stand to see them in my Inbox any more.

The evils of the Democratic party are not “perceived”. They are real, they are intrinsic, they are grotesque, and they can’t be supported by Christians.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

The evils of the Democratic party are not “perceived”. They are real, they are intrinsic, they are grotesque, and they can’t be supported by Christians.

I understand because I see Repubs. the same way.

 

[estesbob]

That applies to more than abortion.

And what evils are supported by any of the Candidates are proportionate enough to allow a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion oo demand?

What we generally see is an attempt to conflate valid political differences on how to help the poor and needy into to claims that Republicans are going to end all life on the planet if we dont elect pro-abortion canddiates

 

[Lily_Bernans]

And what evils are supported by any of the Candidates are proportionate enough to allow a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion oo demand?

What we generally see is an attempt to conflate valid political differences on how to help the poor and needy into to claims that Republicans are going to end all life on the planet if we dont elect pro-abortion canddiates

Asked and answered, Multiple times. By multiple people.

 

[estesbob]

I understand because I see Repubs. the same way.

Can you find anything in the Republican party Platform akin to this:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.
Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012

Pres. Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve & Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses-from Alzheimer’s to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson’s. We will pursue this research under the strictest ethical guidelines, but we will not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human suffering.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.29 , Jul 10, 2004

 

[zz912]

I understand because I see Repubs. the same way.

Then your perception is flawed. There is nothing in the GOP platform that is an intrinsic evil, unlike the DNC platform, which contains several.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Can you find anything in the Republican party Platform akin to this:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.
Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012

Pres. Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve & Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses-from Alzheimer’s to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson’s. We will pursue this research under the strictest ethical guidelines, but we will not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human suffering.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.29 , Jul 10, 2004

I try to keep away from lies.

 

[Sophie_Lawrence]

You’re overstating what the SCOTUS did in in PP v. Casey.

That decision wasn’t a complete carte blanche upholding of Roe.

Roe v. Wade was partially overruled by PP. v. Casey.

PP. v. Casey upheld the “essential holding” of Roe, but the SCOTUS decision greatly lowered the legal scrutiny standard applied to laws regulating abortion from a Strict Scrutiny Legal Standard (i.e., a government law must be necessary to achieve a compelling government interest), the most stringent standard of judicial review in Constitutional Law applied to laws affecting Constitutional Fundamental Rights to a greatly lower form of Constitutional protection called an “undue burden” standard (i.e., if a government law places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus).

Thus, PP. v. Casey held that abortion is no longer a Constitutional fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution and partially overruled Roe.

See, News Media blasts its propaganda nonstop 24/7 + 365 that the Republican U.S. Supreme Court Justices completely upheld Roe in PP v. Casey but the Truth is different from the fictional world the handful of Talking Heads and couple of thousand news writers depict.

I don’t think that PP vs Casey partially overturned Roe at all.

While Roe v Wade broke pregnancy down into trimesters, PP vs Casey used viable and non viable. States are not permitted to legislate against abortion before viability. After viability, the states may enact limits, but life and health of the mother are to be kept as guidelines. Doe v Bolton still stands. Psychological health is considered part of maternal health.

To claim that there are abortion bans in Ohio, Indiana and Nebraska is not at all true. There are restrictions that are permitted under Roe and Casey.:

The “restrictions” include things like a 24 hour waiting period, and no state funding to pay for them.

The “procedure” is still legal.