Three Positive Signs for Obama's Re-Election Chances

[seekerz]

We can’t disagree on abortion…according to the Church. I don’t find that fact hard to grasp, do you?

We are not disagreeing on abortion, we are disagreeing on selecting a candidate to vote for and what the role of abortion is. Your arguments effectively render abortion the only issue to be considered, as though existing in a vacuum - a view opposed by the Church.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

That, dear friend, is not your call to make. You have no authority to supersede the Church in this regard. The Church admonishes us to not neglect our duty to vote. If you have some updated information, feel free to share it.

Got ya

So if Hitler was running against Stalin, we would be required by the Church to vote for one of them?

 

[seekerz]

He does not have to “be” the Church to (correctly, I might add) state the Church’s position.

Correctly, is the operative word in your post.

Regardless, friends, I bid you adieu (for real this time).

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

And the Pope most certainly has spoken on this

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2617573/posts

Pope Benedict told the Brazilian bishops that while direct involvement in politics is the responsibility of the laity, “when the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls requires it, pastors have a serious duty to make moral judgments even in political matters.”

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

As you are an expert on the official position of the Church on abortion when voting…

Abortion is an** irrelevant** issue when voting for President. The President of the United States does not have the Constitutional authority to do anything about it.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

If you have some cites from the Church or members of the Magestruim to back up your assertions please do so . I have

You haven’t backed up your position. You’ve presented opinions espoused by some members of the clergy and, as I pointed out, Catholics are not obligated to adhere to opinions. The Magisterium has never stated that Catholics cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate.

 

[JimG]

Abortion is an** irrelevant** issue when voting for President. The President of the United States does not have the Constitutional authority to do anything about it.

But he certainly managed to keep the Stupak Amendment prohibting federal funding of abortion out of the health care law. He managed to reverse a long standing policy of not funding abortion internationally on his first day in office. And yes, he has the power to appoint pro-abortion supreme court justices. And he will. And when he does, he will have his Catholic constituency to thank for putting him in position to maximize abortion.

 

[estesbob]

You haven’t backed up your position. You’ve presented opinions espoused by some members of the clergy and, as I pointed out, Catholics are not obligated to adhere to opinions. The Magisterium has never stated that Catholics cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate.

I have posted numerous cites to the contrary. If you have some cites to back up your assertions please do so.

 

[stevegravy]

75,000 pages of regulations yet it was/is still legally permissible for banks and investment firms to lie about the quality of mortage-backed securities and for firms such as Goldman Sachs to deliberately sabotage their clients’ portfolios for profit; a practice which led directly to the collapse of Bear Sterns.

Yea, and guess who contributes big time to the parties and has had a revolving door at the treasury

 

[_Abyssinia]

Has the Pope said not to vote for Obama or any pro-choice candidate or did he ask us to prioritize abortion when making a choice?

In Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis Pope Bendicts lists the non negotiables to be of central concern to Christians in politics, “respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms.”

Pope John Paul II states in Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life):

*Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection…In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it. *

Why would it be any more licit to vote for a candidate who is in favor of abortion?

Bishops must guide their faithful to use their vote to oppose efforts to legalize abortion and euthanasia, Pope Benedict XVI told bishops from Brazil;

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004432.htm

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. – (CDF DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, 4)

“Catechism of the Catholic Church”, "2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "

If you vote for a candidate that supports unrestricted abortion over a pro life candidate you may be able to be excommunicated. Abortion is an intrinsic evil, your voting for a candidate who is extreme in his support for abortion, that may be regarded as material cooperation.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I have posted numerous cites to the contrary.

You’ve posted opinions not doctrine approved by the Magisterium.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The wording in the Democrat platform seems to show they have become more supportive of abortion:

2000:

• The Democratic Party stands behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of ability to pay. We believe it is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual Americans – not government – can best take responsibility for making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions regarding reproduction. This year’s Supreme Court rulings show to us all that eliminating a woman’s right to choose is only one justice away. That’s why the stakes in this election are as high as ever.

Our goal is to make abortion less necessary and more rare, not more difficult and more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing. The abortion rate is dropping. Now we must continue to support efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, and we call on all Americans to take personal responsibility to meet this important goal.

The Democratic Party is a party of inclusion. We respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party.*

2004:

• Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.*

2008:

• The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.*

**Position on Roe vs Wade **

2000: “stands behind” the right of women to choose abortion, “consistent with Roe“

2004: “we stand proudly behind” the right of women to choose abortion, “consistent with Roe“

2008: *“strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a women’s right to choose”
*
In 2004, the Democratic Party felt the need to declare that it not only stands behind Roe, as it did in 2000, but that it does so “proudly.” Like it did in 2000, the Democratic Party did not identify its position on abortion with Roe, but merely stated that its position is “consistent with Roe.” However, in the 2008 draft, the Democratic Party virtually identifies its position with Roe. But that’s not all. Instead of just “standing proudly behind” Roe (2004), it now “strongly and unequivocally supports” Roe itself. This shift in language from “standing behind” to “standing proudly behind” to “strongly and unequivocally supporting” indicates that a pro-choice position is being dyed into the very fabric of the party.

Responsibility for Making Choice for Abortion

The 2000 platform indicated that the Democratic Party’s pro-choice position is attached to its belief that private individuals ought to make the choice to have an abortion without any interference from the government. The language suggested that privacy and right were the driving forces. The 2004 platform, in contrast, makes no reference to the responsibility of a private individual, but only vaguely mentions the right to choose. The 2008 platform aligns itself with the 2004 platform in this respect. The two blur the distinction between personal, private choice and government involvement.

vox-nova.com/2008/08/22/2008-democratic-platform-a-step-back-on-abortion/

 

[_Abyssinia]

Part two:

Reduction of the Number of Abortions

2000: *“less necessary and more rare”
*
2004: *“safe, legal, and rare”
*
2008: “safe and legal”

In 2000 and 2004, the Democratic Party’s platform acknowledged a desire to make abortions “rare.” However, in 2008, the draft gives no explicit mention of this desire. Also, note that the 2004 platform connects the reduction of abortions to the legality of abortion where the 2000 platform allowed its desire to reduce the number of abortions to stand apart from the question of legality.

Inclusion of Diverse Opinions on Abortion within the Party

In 2000, the Democratic Party made careful note of its willingness to allow members who differ with the platform to work at every level within the party. The platform says it “respects” and “welcomes” those who differ on the issue of abortion. The 2004 platform, anemic and attenuated in general, omits any such reference to respecting or welcoming within the Democrat fold those who oppose the platform position on abortion. The 2008 platform follows that of 2004, making no reference to the inclusivity of the Democratic Party with respect to abortion.

Partisanship on the Issue of Abortion

In 2004, the platform clause on abortion states explicit that the Democratic Party assumes the duty of resisting Republican efforts to “undermine” the legality of abortion. Accordingly, legalized abortion became not only a matter of individual liberty, but also a matter of entrenched partisanship (I blogged about this previously). In 2008, the explicit reference to the Republican Party was removed, but the resistance to any effort to “weaken” or “undermine” the so-called “right” to abortion remained. The Democratic Party, since 2004, is comfortable turning abortion from merely an issue of rights into a blustering partisan clarion that orients and motivates the party.

**Dropping abortion rate **

In 2000, the Democratic Party took note of the dropping abortion rate in the U.S. and seemingly approved of the trend as a positive outcome: “The abortion rate is dropping. Now we must continue to support efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, and we call on all Americans to take personal responsibility to meet this important goal.” In 2004, no mention whatsoever of decreasing the number of abortions was made. In 2008, any reference to a dropping abortion rate is noticeably absent (in 2000, the credit presumably could go to President Clinton whereas in the 2008 the credit might be given to President Bush), though a reinsertion of the desire to decrease the number of abortions is reinserted.

vox-nova.com/2008/08/22/2008-democratic-platform-a-step-back-on-abortion/

 

[stevegravy]

You’ve posted opinions not doctrine approved by the Magisterium.

Oh, lets start with Exodus, Thou shall not murder. Then feel free to go from there.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Oh, lets start with Exodus, Thou shall not murder. Then feel free to go from there.

You’re not committing murder by voting for a pro-choice politician who has no authority to either end or expand the right to an abortion. Abortion remains legal regardless of the stance of the President. Its ridiculous that people focus so narrowly on a single issue that the President can’t even address.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

You’re not committing murder by voting for a pro-choice politician who has no authority to either end or expand the right to an abortion.

President Obama has already appointed 2 pro-abortion SC Justices. Let’s make sure he doesn 't get the chance to appoint any more.

 

[_Abyssinia]

You’ve posted opinions not doctrine approved by the Magisterium.

How are the comments made by the infallible Pope Benedict just ‘opinions?’

One of the non negotiables is protection for life from conception to its natural end. This should be of a central concern to all Christian in politics says Pope Benedict.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060330_eu-parliamentarians_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html

How did this square with voting for a pro abortion candidate?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

How are the comments made by the infallible Pope Benedict just ‘opinions?’

The Pope is not infallible and neither are his comments unless certain conditions are met and the Magisterium specifically says otherwise. This hasn’t happened since 1950.

 

[_Abyssinia]

You’re not committing murder by voting for a pro-choice politician who has no authority to either end or expand the right to an abortion. Abortion remains legal regardless of the stance of the President.

No, even if the Republican and Democrats both keep abortion legal, proportionate reasoning the Bishops have said is to vote for the lesser of two evils, so that some lives can be saved. You have no idea that abortion as it stands today will be the same if a new president is elected, if roe vs wade is overturned which it likely will, it will go back to the states and lives will undoubtedly be saved.

And not only then issue of abortion, the Democrat platform for support for embryonic stem cell research is also against Catholic teaching and so is refusal to defend marriage between a man and a woman.

 

[Publisher]

How are the comments made by the infallible Pope Benedict just ‘opinions?’

One of the non negotiables is protection for life from conception to its natural end. This should be of a central concern to all Christian in politics says Pope Benedict.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060330_eu-parliamentarians_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html

How did this square with voting for a pro abortion candidate?

I thought Benedict was only “infallible” when he spoke “ex cathedra”…his opinions are just that…opinioons…according to what’s been said on this web board…“infallibility” has only been exercised twice…so how can his opinions be…‘infallible’? Even Paul offered his opinons…“not of the Lord”…but Paul’s opinions.

Is teaching that everything the Pope opines on is “infallible”…the real teaching of the Catholic church? Or is that a heretical teaching? You made an interesting comment that has been denied over and over on this board…except when one needs to “drive home” a point it seems.