Unofficial Election Thread

[signit]

The fact you think democrats have the country’s best interest at heart is what’s truly sad. Why should Republicans work with the same rotten people who undermined President Trump and conspired to remove him via hoax scandals, a meritless impeachment, supporting violent protests to cause mayhem, etc? These are not people we should be supporting. These are people we should be removing from office by any means necessary, including force.

I believe in “working together” for the common good regardless of whether someone is of my party or voted for the candidate I did.

But, what I can see happening is this.

Biden will win (unless Trump somehow flips AZ and wins NC-GA-PA or the results are overturned) and we’ll be told how we should put this behind us and work together for the common good.

But, the Democrats weren’t exactly nice to Trump over the past four years.

 

[MikeInVA]

We should strive for it.

I agree 100%. I think that restricting all but some abortions would set stage for discussion to eliminate all abortion. The first step is to get people to understand that the child in the womb is a person, then extend that logic to cover all reasons for abortion.

 

[Victoria33]

We should strive for it. Absolutely. It sounds harsh and cruel, but we need to put in supports so those women can do so.
Our job as Catholics is swimming against the tide, swimming upstream, where our beliefs are not those of secular world, one becoming increasingly hostile to us.

However, if, for a period of time, Catholic politicians and voters are unable to enact a law prohibiting all abortion, then Catholic politicians and voters may in good conscience vote for whichever law offers the greatest restrictions and limits on abortion. Subsequently, Catholic politicians and voters are required by the moral law to continue to enact further restrictions and limits on abortion, to the greatest extent possible, and, at every possible opportunity, to vote for laws which completely outlaw abortion.

Abortion and Excommunication - Catholic Ethics.

In the meantime, laws in this land allow it up to birth, if there can not be a perfect ban, vote for more restritions as said.

In every case, a Catholic should vote in such a way as to obtain as many restrictions on abortion as possible, and so as to obtain the end to legalized abortion as soon as possible.

Abortion and Excommunication - Catholic Ethics.

 

[umamibella]

The first step is to get people to understand that the child in the womb is a person,

That is the only way to go with non religious people who we cannot argue that God created this child at conception, this is a child, not an it or clump of cells. IMHO

 

[OraLabora]

I completely agree. I would love to see communities set up where single mothers and their children can be housed and fed while they try and get their feet under them. I think any man who makes a child and refuses to support the mother should be put to work on a labor farm to generate revenue to support the mother and child. I’m all for expanding social programs to stop abortion.

Whatever happened to adoption? I was adopted on 1958.

Actually I do know what happened: the unsealing of adoption records. Medical data should be available. But in the name of “rights”, anyone in most places can search out their original birth registration that identifies the mother (the father is rarely registered in these cases).

I can understand a young woman who had a youthful indiscretion who later built herself a new life and raised a family not wanting her past coming back to haunt her and destabilizing her family.

This is just one of the many small details that facilitate abortion, that anti-abortion laws won’t fix. I find the debate around abortion often too simplistic. The idea should be to eliminate it. Legislation alone will never fix that when one can travel to another country. We have to consider all the little ways in which women feel the have no viable alternative.

Meanwhile, in my province, there’s a 10 year wait to adopt a child. Just about the only source is children pulled from unfit environments (or abroad), and not everyone is equipped to handle the behavioural problems they usually come with.

 

[umamibella]

I wont respond to, or read posts where text is typed with the bold lock on. It is considered poor etiquette and shouting just as much as typing with the caps lock on.

Have a blessed day.

 

[RhodesianSon]

Whatever happened to adoption? I was adopted

As you said, hurdles have been put up. I fostered a few kids over the years. But adoption never happened.

 

[signit]

I want it to be over. But I want it to be done WELL, with excellence and integrity.

[edit]

IF everything is NOT on the up and up…different story.

Exactly what I was just thinking.

I’m fine with Biden winning fair and square. I’ll accept that and move on.

I’m not fine with the election not being fair and square, and I’m hearing plenty of stories indicating that it might not have been.

 

[Xystus]

Actually I do know what happened: the unsealing of adoption records

I’m not convinced this actually matters any more with today’s DNA matching tech. My father-in-law was adopted. he took one of those DNA tests to see where his biological ancestors were from and ended up getting linked to a couple sisters. he now knows who his biological family members are.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I will listen to the Vatican. Their guidance is to vote for the one that is least anti-life or most pro-life. That is what the Vatican says. Period.

This is a misrepresentation of Church reaching. Please quote your official Vatican sources.

 

[OneSheep]

That is the only way to go with non religious people who we cannot argue that God created this child at conception, this is a child, not an it or clump of cells. IMHO

Well, if one defines “human individual” from a scientific perspective, the tiniest human is still a human.

I woke up this morning wondering something. Wouldn’t it be awesome if a person in the position of Kamala Harris would come to see the light and not necessarily address Roe v. Wade at all, but simply encourage women who have an “unwanted” pregnancy to consider keeping the child? To use her position as a public figure to open people’s minds to the humanity of the unborn?

Hey, it’s worth some prayer, right? It would be a step in the right direction, no doubt.

 

[umamibella]

Hey, it’s worth some prayer, right? It would be a step in the right direction, no doubt.

Great reason to pray

 

[Victoria33]

This is a misrepresentation of Church reaching. Please quote your official Vatican sources.

No, please refute what I posted.

I also believe as stated, even if one has proportional reasons to vote for a pro-abortion candidate or other reasons as some state, that does not mean one is relieved from the part about enabling abortion. Do we agree with that? One is admitting to enabling abortion.

Now you want quotes??

1. The Duty of Exercising the Electoral Franchise.—(a) There is a grave duty of using the privilege granted to citizens of voting in public elections, and especially primaries; for the welfare of the community and the moral, intellectual and physical good of individuals depend on the kind of men who are nominated or chosen to rule, and on the ticket platforms voted for. Hence, those who neglect to vote coöperate negatively with a serious harm (viz., evil in power), or at least with public unconcern about public matters—for example, those who neglect through laziness or indifference to condemn by their vote. A grave inconvenience (e.g., sickness, ostracism, exile, persecution), but not a slight inconvenience (such as loss of time, trouble, ridicule), excuses from the duty; for an affirmative law has exceptions. Neither is there an obligation to vote when an election is a mere formality, as when there is but one candidate or party.

Continued at:

The Morality of Voting: Is it Permissible to Vote for the Lesser of two Evils? – Novus Ordo Watch

So, anyway, even with the usual arguments proposed to excuse voting for pro-abortionists, I believe inherent in such statements is an admission of enabling abortion, a sort of participation.

 

[Victoria33]

Further Reading, from the Magisterium by the way, these documents are very long and they don’t all fit here:

Vatican​

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...s/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding
The Participation of Catholics in Political Life

…As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, «an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality».[20]

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. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

There’s the Magisterium quote you ask for and it is the total document,

 

[PaulinVA]

Further Reading, from the Magisterium by the way, these documents are very long and they don’t all fit here:

Victoria, this quote could be equally read as one shouldn’t vote for Trump just because of abortion to the detriment to the whole of Catholic doctrine.

 

[Victoria33]

Victoria, this quote could be equally read as one shouldn’t vote for Trump just because of abortion to the detriment to the whole of Catholic doctrine.

Or it could be read as if pigs had wings, they could fly. I don’t see where one comes up with this convoluted logic.

If one doesn’t agree, fine. I think inherent in all of this is that those who support pro-abortion candidates are facilitating the act as well and I think this should be said as well when one always runs into basically whimsical arguments on Catholic teaching.

So, these arguments have been in this forum for years. This is just sounding like explaining it away with just tossing anything out. I’m not going to go to a PP clinic wanting to talk to the workers, in the same way, those who facilitate abortion per Catholic teaching are likewise, an aid in their enabling.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Actually there is an outreach program similar to what you mention.I read an article a few years back about a woman who finds housing and all essential needs for pregnant women.Even to the extent that they receive career counseling and getting them situated in life skills to be independent.

 

[RhodesianSon]

That’s wonderful. But I’m referring to something set up and funded by state or federal governments. If abortion is to be banned there needs to be an alternative presented in addition to adoption.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

This is a misrepresentation of Church reaching. Please quote your official Vatican sources.

No, please refute what I posted.

That’s not how it works. When someone makes a claim that something is Church teaching and that claim is challenged (as I have done) it falls to the claimant to back up their claim, not to the challenger to prove the claim wrong.

I also believe as stated, even if one has proportional reasons to vote for a pro-abortion candidate or other reasons as some state, that does not mean one is relieved from the part about enabling abortion.

1. The Duty of Exercising the Electoral Franchise.—(a) There is a grave duty of using the privilege granted to citizens of voting in public elections, and especially primaries; for the welfare of the community and the moral, intellectual and physical good of individuals depend on the kind of men who are nominated or chosen to rule, and on the ticket platforms voted for. Hence, those who neglect to vote coöperate negatively with a serious harm (viz., evil in power), or at least with public unconcern about public matters—for example, those who neglect through laziness or indifference to condemn by their vote. A grave inconvenience (e.g., sickness, ostracism, exile, persecution), but not a slight inconvenience (such as loss of time, trouble, ridicule), excuses from the duty; for an affirmative law has exceptions. Neither is there an obligation to vote when an election is a mere formality, as when there is but one candidate or party.

I don’t know where this quote comes from. Certainly not from the Catechism, for CCC 2643 is this:

The Eucharist contains and expresses all forms of prayer: it is “the pure offering” of the whole Body of Christ to the glory of God’s name and, according to the traditions of East and West, it is the “sacrifice of praise.”

But I did eventually find your quote, not in any official Church document, but in a book by McHugh, O.P., & Callan, O.P. Even accepting it as a fair representation of Church teaching, it still relies on the interpretation of “cooperation” with evil. This has been a much-analyzed subject, going all the way back to Aquinas. This chart may help in summarizing the issues related to “cooperation”:
http://archphila.org/HHS/pdf/CoopEvilChart.pdf

It seems to me we are talking about Material Mediate Remote cooperation, which is allowed when there is a proportionate reason to do so.

 

[PaulinVA]

Or it could be read as if pigs had wings, they could fly. I don’t see where one comes up with this convoluted logic.

I’m disappointed in the disparagement of a perfectly good comment.

If one doesn’t agree, fine. I think inherent in all of this is that those who support pro-abortion candidates are facilitating the act as well and I think this should be said as well when one always runs into basically whimsical arguments on Catholic teaching.

As I’ve said till I’m blue in the face, the President has very little affect on actual abortions. The majority of people who say they are “pro choice”, which I am not, have zero effect on actual abortions being performed.

However, the President can really, actually, affect whether children and parents at the border are well cared for. The President really affects whether people can get help in a time of need. The President has a really and actual affect on many aspects of our lives.