S
SVP
Guest
All three!
- Status
D
dusty_david
Guest
Against the rules. Dead babies = democrats??? As the cops said when I rolled down my car window and clouds of illegal smoke poured out …
YOU’RE BUSTED!
C
CalifCatholic
Guest
If its against the rules to tell the truth, I guess I can live with that. After all: Which political party is for abortion rights and which is against? It ain’t rocket scienceAgainst the rules. Dead babies = democrats??? As the cops said when I rolled down my car window and clouds of illegal smoke poured out …
YOU’RE BUSTED!
U
unafraid
Guest
I am just not sure that clarity can be found anywhere in these unprecedentedly polymorphic socio/political times. Gingrich’s sister is an outspoken anti-Catholic lesbian activist; Cheyney’s daughter is a lesbian parent; and then Laura Bush comes out with a pro-abortion stance. Former Gov. Tom Ridge believes pro-abortion is essential for Republican presidential victory. On the other end, Biden and Pelosi claim to be Catholic, yet promulgate the culture of death, while the Clinton’s methodically do all they can to inject an infectious and cynical global ethos into our culture. And, has anyone asked John Edwards if he is pro-life lately? Oops, I guess he answered that one already, hasn’t he. It is a paradoxical cacophony we live in that is as shrill as it is confusing and frustrating.
Abortion is the uncomfortable sin which has metastasized onto the entire body poilitic like an ugly tumor that somehow seems resistent to any and all remedy. Eventually, it will kill us, but meanwhile our elected officials will allow it to become more deeply embedded while this nation’s soul withers slowly away. It is a living, breathing contemporary tragedy unfolding right in our midst. It is frightening.
Abortion is the uncomfortable sin which has metastasized onto the entire body poilitic like an ugly tumor that somehow seems resistent to any and all remedy. Eventually, it will kill us, but meanwhile our elected officials will allow it to become more deeply embedded while this nation’s soul withers slowly away. It is a living, breathing contemporary tragedy unfolding right in our midst. It is frightening.
I
ishii
Guest
Wow. Very interesting post, and interesting use of metaphor to describe the political situation today as regards sanctity of life issues. I can understand your rather pessimistic views, but still, we need to try to vote for the best candidates who will support the sanctity of life. Think of this: had John McCain won instead of Obama, we would have two new (hopefully anti-Roe v Wade) supreme court justices now, to add to the four we already have. But for the votes of some very confused catholics, abortion could be up to the states at this point, and I’m sure that by now some states would have passed laws outlawing abortion. We have another election in two years, and must not give up hope that justice will prevail.
Ishii
G
gnjsdad
Guest
Hello Ishii,
Ishii:
Ishii:
Ishii:
The only way abortion (and contraception) will be eradicated from the culture is when the culture is purged of the evil influence of abortion and the contraceptive mentality. The only way the culture can be purged of the evil of abortion and contraception is through a strengthening of the influence of the Catholic Church. Our Lord told us, did He not, that we are the salt of the earth?
I agree that the failed Bork nomination was a watershed; a bitter defeat. And I agree that Kennedy & Co acted disgracefully. Perhaps the GOP reaction might have been stronger. Reagan and Bush could have kept sending pro-life nominee after pro-life nominee, all the while daring the Democrats to keep rejecting them. This, along with a determined PR campaign aimed at demonstrating the horrors of abortion might have been enough to get Roe overturned at the most likely time. Then again, such a strategy might not have worked. We’ll never know because the Republicans never tried it. Instead, the lesson learned was to nominate “stealth” candidates who were afraid to tell us how they stood on abortion.
I agree. We’ll never know. I am not as confident as you seem to be that Bush 41 would have gotten another pro life justice appointed.
I believe abortion is now too ingrained in the culture to allow a political solution. Both political parties have come to terms with it, so it’s pointless to keep blaming the Democrats when the Republicans won’t do anything. All the blame game does is allow GOP partisans to claim a moral superiority over Democrat partisans that they don’t have. Since culturally we seem determined to allow the twin evils of abortion and contraception to exist, worrying about whether or not another USCC justice is “pro-life” or not is pointless.
The only way abortion (and contraception) will be eradicated from the culture is when the culture is purged of the evil influence of abortion and the contraceptive mentality. The only way the culture can be purged of the evil of abortion and contraception is through a strengthening of the influence of the Catholic Church. Our Lord told us, did He not, that we are the salt of the earth?
E
estesbob
Guest
Translation:Its OK to vote for pro-abortion canidates,
Fortunately the Church does not agree with this nor do they or those of us commited to the cause believe the political battle is lost. However for those desperate to rationalize supporting the party of death such convoluted thinking is standard.
BTW-if McCain had been elected the United States would not be funding overseas abortions. Or do foreign children not count?
C
CMatt25
Guest
To say Democrats gave up on the religious voter is like saying I gave up ice cream. One must first define ice cream. I may have given up rum raisin ice cream lets say. But there are plenty more flavors I have not. In fact most I have not.
Rum raisin alone does not in any way, shape, or form alone make ice cream.
Now if you define “religious voter” as only conservative Catholics and evangelicals whose ultimately sole issue in the end when voting is a word not found in Scripture, I could perhaps better see where this is going.
But if you include those of faith whose concerns lie with the poor, the homeless, the sick, the hungry, war and peace, all people and things (flavors so to speak) of which Christ did specifically refer to. And of which the religious voter looks at and weighs among all issues (flavors). Then the title of this thread is a misnomer.
Peace
Rum raisin alone does not in any way, shape, or form alone make ice cream.
Now if you define “religious voter” as only conservative Catholics and evangelicals whose ultimately sole issue in the end when voting is a word not found in Scripture, I could perhaps better see where this is going.
But if you include those of faith whose concerns lie with the poor, the homeless, the sick, the hungry, war and peace, all people and things (flavors so to speak) of which Christ did specifically refer to. And of which the religious voter looks at and weighs among all issues (flavors). Then the title of this thread is a misnomer.
Peace
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Let’s see.
The Democrat state, during its status as a one-party state, escalated the Af/Pak War, including drone attacks on uncertain targets.
It increased rendition of terrorist suspects to foreign countries where real torture is commonplace.
It did absolutely nothing for the poor or the homeless, and certainly not for the poorest of the poor; the disabled needy. Didn’t even so much as talk about them. It did, however, pour billions into well-connected Goldman Sachs, AIG and Bank of America.
Obamacare might or might not increase the number of people with health insurance. Nobody know, but it certainly wont be the 30 million touted. The administration promises to reduce Medicare, the only healthcare resource most seniors have, by $500 billion. It did, however, pour money into abortion funding here and abroad.
So, if peace, helping the poor, the homeless, the sick and the helpless, are yardsticks for determining who religious voters are, then obviously you’re not talking about liberals. So, I guess we’re back to the traditionalists, fundamentalists and evangelicals, then, by default.
I
ishii
Guest
You could change the title to: "Democrat catholics have given up on voting to protect the unborn children, in direct opposition to Catholic teaching.
Ishii
C
CMatt25
Guest
You forgot to add not all Democrats voted as a block because of it’s bigger tent and under Senate rules the Republicans were able to just say no until things were watered down to get passage. Otherwise for instance we would have a public option in healthcare and no tax cuts for the wealthy which have proven to be of no avail other than to the wealthy while adding to the deficit. No argument from me on the Wall St and so called too big to fail bank bailouts. Although much of that money has supposedly been paid back. Many of the proposed Medicare cuts were to the private Medicare Advantage programs due to excess payments to them. Most ppl are on traditional Medicare however. Doctors need to suck it up and provide care for Medicare patients. But of course it seems no discussion can be had here without the single issue of abortion being brought up.
As an aside, it’s the Democratic Party. Democrats don’t go around saying Republic Party. And frankly the Democratic Party is center, center left at best. While the Republican Party is far right conservative. The Democratic Party really hasn’t been all that liberal for yrs. That’s part of the problem. We’ve tried conservative. We’ve tried center/center left. Haven’t really tried liberalism and the corporate lobby has a grip on both major parties. Peace.
C
CMatt25
Guest
I vote for “Catholic Democrats Weigh More Issues Than Just One”.
N
NObama2012
Guest
Amen to that!
There is nothing like sucking a baby through a tube and throwing the pieces in a dumpster that can seperate real Catholics from phony, liberal, Pelosi-Biden-Kennedy Catholics
E
estesbob
Guest
But you forget! Three less terrorists have been waterboarded under Obama than were waterboarded under Bush-whats a few million dead chidren in comparison to this massive accomplishment!
G
gnjsdad
Guest
The problem, though, is that abortion is not just another “issue”.
I
ishii
Guest
Thanks for your comments Gnjsdad, and Happy New Year. As for your analysis of the Bork fiasco and what Reagan and Bush should/could have done, I think you forget that the Democrats pretty much owned the press and by extension, much of public opinion. You mus remember that there wasn’t a Fox news, talk radio was yet to become as widespread and influential. ABC, NBC,CBS and CNN could be counted on to echo whatever the Democrat talking points would have been: “back alley abortions” " women’s rights" “keep the govt. out of personal medical decisions” etc. As you know, the Democrats controlled the house and senate, and had for such a long time that they were particularly arrogant and unlikely to back down. If a Bush or Reagan nominated justice blatantly said during the hearings that they would vote to overturn Roe v Wade, then that would automatically count them out. Such was the political reality then and probably now.
I share some of your skepticism of the Republicans and their tendency to get wobbly on the issue of abortion. Their performance has been less than exemplary at times. However, I don’t share you view that the GOP is merely using the abortion issue as a cynical move to get votes from the religious right. Such a view ignores the sincere pro-life congressmen and women in congress.
I think going forward, Catholics interested in following Church teaching on the sanctity of life ought not to support any Democrat whatsoever, until the Democrat party stops doing the bidding of the abortion lobby. They don’t deserve a pass. You’re right, we need to change the culture that does not value the sanctity of life, but we also have to realize that we have a political system and need to work within it to pass laws that reflect right reason or repeal laws that don’t. Now is no time to give up. I still maintain that electing a Republican president gives a good chance of getting a justice that would combine with Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts to finally overturn Roe V Wade and send the abortion issue to the states. Would McCain have given us pro-life justices? We’ll never know, partially thanks to Catholics who are so apathetic and disappointed about politics and the GOP, and much more due to catholics who vote Democrat first and catholic second, if at all.
Ishii
G
gilliam
Guest
President Bush vetoed the 2008 bill with the end-of-life provision in it and it was the Democrat Congress that overrode the veto and forced it into law.
I
ishii
Guest
You might as well vote for “Democrat catholics subjugate the protection of the unborn in favor of useless government programs that make the problems worse.” Democrat catholics who insist on voting for pro-abortion rights politicians are in effect held hostage by their liberal statist ideology which values government programs - whether they work or not - over protection of the unborn. They do this in violation of Catholic teaching. Different ideas on how to deal with poverty, hunger, etc. are fine. The sanctity of unborn life, however, is non-negotiable and isn’t a mere, " single issue" with the same weight as other issues. It is time Catholics understood this and quit trying to rationalize their support for pro-abortion rights politicians. CMatt, you may want to vote for your candidate who is for government funding of homeless shelters, soup kitchens, school lunches for poor kids, gay marriage, and abolition of the cruise missile. The problem is, that politician is also for babies getting their heads crushed by a forceps, or their bodies sucked out of the womb by a vacuum. How can you rationalize voting for a candidate who is for keeping abortion legal?
Ishii
C
CMatt25
Guest
Ishii, we have been over this countless numbers of times. We live in a democracy of plural faith beliefs and views on all sorts of issues. As with many issues, on the single issue you refer to, reasonable and thinking people can and do have differing views when weighing the rights of the unborn with the rights of women. On what occurs at the moment of conception. On ensoulment. And society attempts to come up with some sort of law of the land. Perhaps imperfect and not everyone is always going to be pleased with the results but in this instance Roe is the law of the land. Catholic teaching on every issue can not always be forced upon the people in a democracy. And I just think after going on 40 yrs now, the Church should return to a greater emphasis on many of the issues Christ actually specifically spoke about and not emphasize a single issue to the degree She does and on a word not even found in Scripture.
Maybe you will recall, I once posed a question as to what if Obama, the Democrats, and the Tea Party/GOP maintained their views on all issues as presently held with the one exception that they were polar opposite on the abortion issue than now. In other words if it were the Democrats who held GOP views on abortion and visa versa, who would conservatives vote for? And the clear winner was the Democrats. I had responses such as Democrats no doubt. Democrats of course. The Democrat until we had laws in the land in place to protect the unborn. Presumably to mean laws in place in our democracy to reflect the Catholic faith.
So see even the politically conservative Catholic based on the responses I received would join a liberal such as myself and vote for the candidate who as you describe is for government funding of homeless shelters, soup kitchens, school lunches for poor kids, gay marriage, and abolition of the cruise missile. If only that candidate agreed with them on one single issue, outlawing abortion in all cases including rape and incest from the moment of conception. Thereby showing that indeed despite perhaps protests they are not single issue voters, that abortion in the end is the single issue on which many Catholics appear to vote.
And that’s fine. It’s everyone’s right in America to vote as they see fit. And it’s my right too as a Catholic (I’ll trust I don’t also again at this time have to explain who the Church counts Catholic), but that it’s my right living in this attempt at democracy in a country we call America, to think for myself, inform my conscience, but weigh many issues, as a religious voter to pray over them, often repeatedly pray over them, and then in the privacy of my voting booth vote my conscience. The Church Herself states in the catechism that to not follow our consciences is to condemn ourselves.
Ishii, I understand your view and I truly hope this again helps my friend in understanding another view. Though I of course am under no pretences of us being in agreement on this issue. So in the end we may merely have to agree to disagree. God bless and all the best. And of course peace. :hug1:
D
Della
Guest
Not quite. The Church tells us that we are to form our conscience according to its teachings, and the teaching on abortion is quite clear. If we violate the Church’s teaching it means our conscience has not been properly formed no matter how much we have prayed about it. Deluding ourselves is the easiest thing for us to do since, as fallen creatures we have wounded consciences. If we ignore Church teaching we are setting ourselves above Christ and his Church and that’s not the action of a well-formed conscience but of one formed by the opinions of the world. There are several important issues in any election, but the life issues of abortion and euthanasia trump them all.
- Status