Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics

[frankadams]

Frankadams,

I eagerly await the answer to my question. The reason that either Kerry or Bush could feasibly be acceptable in 2004, depsite their pro-choice positions, was that one was more evil than the other.

In terms of unnegotiable evils, that made the decision very obvious - Bush was clearly the lesser of the two evils in 2004.

How could a Catholic come to the conclusion the Kerry was the “lesser of the two evils”, as you claim?

Estesbob has asked essentially the same question and I will answer him (and you). In the interest in fairness, I am patiently awaiting a reply to my own question. I answered Estesbob’s question clearly within five minutes of it being asked, and, in the interest of fairness, I would like to see the courtesy of an answer be reciprocated before I answer another of his questions.

 

[estesbob]

Estesbob has asked essentially the same question and I will answer him (and you). In the interest in fairness, I am patiently awaiting a reply to my own question. I answered Estesbob’s question clearly within five minutes of it being asked, and, in the interest of fairness, I would like to see the courtesy of an answer be reciprocated before I answer another of his questions.

I answered your question repeatedly. I even gave you quotes and links to articles by Bishop Garcia, Bishop Chaput , then Cardinal Ratzinger and Jimmy Akins explaining how a Catholic should determine who to vote for in a case neither candiate perfectly matches the Church’s teachings on abortion Tim has explained it to you at least 3 times… You have refused again and again to tell us what issues or combination of issues Kerry favors that trump his support of the killing of 1.2 million children a year

 

[Ridgerunner]

If the avowedly pro-abortion candidates received virtually no Catholic votes this election cycle AND LOST THE OFFICES SOUGHT (something wasting votes on third party candidates would not accomplish) those who conduct the exit polls and all the other polls would know in a hurry what happened. So would the political parties and future candidates.

The Democrat faithful in here might then, and only then, have some hope of the party actually changing to a prolife party. Otherwise, they don’t. If it wins with an abortion plank, it will only be more persuaded that it’s a ticket to victory.

Those who encourage third party voting are encouraging the Democrat party to continue in its pro-abortion ways.

If Catholics actually united, even one time, on the foremost life issue, politicians would take notice. All this quibbling about “seamless garments”, miniscule stuff like whatever Blackwater is alleged to have done (if any of that is even true) is just a way to ensure that abortion on demand remains the law of the land.

I become more and more curious as I watch these threads whether we really are seeing a partisan effort to persuade Catholics that it’s okay to vote for abortions. I know what people say about themselves, but every argument of some actually favors abortion.

 

[estesbob]

If

I become more and more curious as I watch these threads whether we really are seeing a partisan effort to persuade Catholics that it’s okay to vote for abortions. I know what people say about themselves, but every argument of some actually favors abortion.

The end effect being when demanding perfection from the candidate who supports 500 abortions the candidate who supports 1.2 million abortions wins. In effect Jim and Frank are voting the same.

 

[iamrefreshed]

It’s so terribly sad that some Catholic’s utter contempt for a party blinds them to the murder of 1,200,000 babies per year.

Abortion is the greatest offense against God that mankind commits thousands of times daily.

But you go ahead and justify your party affiliation by reconciling your conscience that you are preventing 42 executions.

I’d vote any party that saved our babies.

 

[Nino]

Excellent response and evaluation of the entire rather sick and grisley practice of abortion…a money making,soul destroying,values nuetralizing legal act…now a so called ‘constitutional right’…yeh sure!Also sadly true that the American leadership in our church has been sadly lacking…and frankly totally PC and thus we have this blood letting daily!When an actress Ingrid Bergman had an extra -marital affair with a movie producer the entire nation was shocked and out raged…after all she had played a nun in movies ,her career went down hill after that…but gradually in the mid-50s the movies changed…the glorification of bike punks,cons always more noble then prison guards and wardens,teachers seen as too harsh and un-flexable,parents depicted as out-dated and cold hearted,unless of course they allowed full 'freedom’to their children…but the abortion issue…with its outrageous ads and that ‘abortion by clothes hanger’ nonsense…plus the motto…‘every child a wanted child’ there for abortion was the key etc etc etc…empty cribs…one famous tennis star bragged about her abortion,she said she had to finish her tour…one wonders if she looks at her dusty trophies and wishes she had that child instead…

 

[frankadams]

I answered your question repeatedly. I even gave you quotes and links to articles by Bishop Garcia, Bishop Chaput , then Cardinal Ratzinger and Jimmy Akins explaining how a Catholic should determine who to vote for in a case neither candiate perfectly matches the Church’s teachings on abortion Tim has explained it to you at least 3 times… You have refused again and again to tell us what issues or combination of issues Kerry favors that trump his support of the killing of 1.2 million children a year

No, my question has not been answered. However, this is likely due to my question being misunderstood rather (I hope) purposefully dodged, so I will try again at the end of this post.

You have refused again and again to tell us what issues or combination of issues Kerry favors that trump his support of the killing of 1.2 million children a year

No, it was not a refusal. I answered your first question quickly and clearly, and politely asked that you answered my first question before I proceded to respond to your second one. Nonetheless, I will try answer here.

You call yourself more “pragmatic” than ideal in regards to this issue. As such, you say that is morally sound to support a candidate who supports some abortion over one who supports none on the basis that you don’t believe the truly pro-life candidate has a chance of winning.

A vote for John Kerry over George Bush could be justified in a similar manner. You justifiy your pro-choice vote by saying “I think he won’t get elected.” One could justify* their* pro-choice vote by saying, “I don’t think he’ll end abortion.” Both you and he would be making “pragmatic” decisions.

I do not know exactly what factors went into your conclusion tht a truly pro-life candidate “cannot win.” A Catholic who reaches a conclusion that a semi pro-life candidate “cannot or will not end abortion” might take in a variety of factors. This might include his statements about abortion before, during, and after the election. He might consider his Supreme Court nominees (if any) during his presidency. He might also consider the previous performance of other “pro-life” presidents of his party and the entire history of Roe and Casey and the relationship between those decisions and the party who helped make them possible. He may end up, like you, making a “pragmatic” decision that the candidate cannot or will not end abortion.

Beyond that “pragmatic” decision, he might consider other issues which directly address Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. He likely would especially take into account the hundreds of thousands killed by the war (not to mention the millions more injured and displaced.) He might examine other life issues, both in terms of their victims and their contributions to what Mother Church calls a “culture of death.”

The social programs that you dismiss so readily might further solidify his “pragmatic” decision. He might think about circumstances that help fuel more, rather than less, abortion. He might thing about circumstances that violate Catholic social justice teachings on “vast inequalities” which demonstrate a lack of respect for human dignity. He might look at Catholic teaching on human rights. He might look at particulars of Catholic social justice teaching, especially those of the magisterium here in America that have applied Catholic teaching to American issues, such as health care, the environment, global warming, welfare, taxes, affirmative action, immigration and a host of other issues that the Church deems important.

Mind you, he could recognize that abortion is a more important issue, but having already made (just like you) a “pragmatic” decision about what he think a president cannot or will not do, these dozens of other issues can further cement his decision to vote for Kerry.

Both of you are compromising. Both of you are voting for a candidate who supports an “intrinsic evil.” You made what you view as a “pragmatic” decision as the basis for your compromise. He did likewise.

My question remains: why is your “pragmatic” decision/compromise (arrived at in good faith and with “careful deliberation”) acceptable, but the Kerry voter’s “pragmatic” decision/compromise (arrived at the same way) categorically illicit?

 

[estesbob]

No, my question has not been answered. However, this is likely due to my question being misunderstood rather (I hope) purposefully dodged, so I will try again at the end of this post.

No, it was not a refusal. I answered your first question quickly and clearly, and politely asked that you answered my first question before I proceded to respond to your second one. Nonetheless, I will try answer here.

You call yourself more “pragmatic” than ideal in regards to this issue. As such, you say that is morally sound to support a candidate who supports some abortion over one who supports none on the basis that you don’t believe the truly pro-life candidate has a chance of winning.

A vote for John Kerry over George Bush could be justified in a similar manner. You justifiy your pro-choice vote by saying “I think he won’t get elected.” One could justify* their* pro-choice vote by saying, “I don’t think he’ll end abortion.” Both you and he would be making “pragmatic” decisions.

I do not know exactly what factors went into your conclusion tht a truly pro-life candidate “cannot win.” A Catholic who reaches a conclusion that a semi pro-life candidate “cannot or will not end abortion” might take in a variety of factors. This might include his statements about abortion before, during, and after the election. He might consider his Supreme Court nominees (if any) during his presidency. He might also consider the previous performance of other “pro-life” presidents of his party and the entire history of Roe and Casey and the relationship between those decisions and the party who helped make them possible. He may end up, like you, making a “pragmatic” decision that the candidate cannot or will not end abortion.

Beyond that “pragmatic” decision, he might consider other issues which directly address Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. He likely would especially take into account the hundreds of thousands killed by the war (not to mention the millions more injured and displaced.) He might examine other life issues, both in terms of their victims and their contributions to what Mother Church calls a “culture of death.”

The social programs that you dismiss so readily might further solidify his “pragmatic” decision. He might think about circumstances that help fuel more, rather than less, abortion. He might thing about circumstances that violate Catholic social justice teachings on “vast inequalities” which demonstrate a lack of respect for human dignity. He might look at Catholic teaching on human rights. He might look at particulars of Catholic social justice teaching, especially those of the magisterium here in America that have applied Catholic teaching to American issues, such as health care, the environment, global warming, welfare, taxes, affirmative action, immigration and a host of other issues that the Church deems important.

Mind you, he could recognize that abortion is a more important issue, but having already made (just like you) a “pragmatic” decision about what he think a president cannot or will not do, these dozens of other issues can further cement his decision to vote for Kerry.

Both of you are compromising. Both of you are voting for a candidate who supports an “intrinsic evil.” You made what you view as a “pragmatic” decision as the basis for your compromise. He did likewise.

My question remains: why is your “pragmatic” decision/compromise (arrived at in good faith and with “careful deliberation”) acceptable, but the Kerry voter’s “pragmatic” decision/compromise (arrived at the same way) categorically illicit?

So your belief is that increased social programs offset 1.2 million dead children a year?. how sad.

Of course you have the right to suport of abportion apologists all you want but please dont try to pass it off as if it was anyway in line with Catholic teaching.

 

[SoCalRC]

In terms of unnegotiable evils, that made the decision very obvious - Bush was clearly the lesser of the two evils in 2004.

Why? Bush publicly supported upholding Roe in the 2000 campaign. His stated personal position on abortion is held to be intrinsicallly evil (EVANGELIUM VITAE, #58).

He had a history of making pro choice judicial appointments, and had personally been active in expanding the use of the death penalty, something that the local Catechism for US Catholics contends promotes a culture of death and is connected to abortion and euthanasia.

Everyone ‘gets’ that 1+ million is a big number, but rather or not it is an honest comparison is another matter. Do we have any evidence that George Bush has stopped a single abortion in the US? Abortions have continued to trend downward under his presidency, but at a slower rate than Clinton!

He signed the partial birth abortion ban, but we have zero evidence to suggest that even the 2000 abortions it proports to target each year have been effected at all. Even the Supreme Court decision upholding it contends that it will not stop any.

If people are going to make relative measurements (something I think can devalue life on its own), they should at least try to use honest numbers.

At the Vatican’s conference on climate change, Pope Benedict referred to climate change as “right to life issue”. Would it be fair for Frank to argue that 6 billion lives effected by climate change trumps 25 million lives effected by abortion?

I would think no, the causal relationship to too vague to make a compelling proportional reasons argument against intrinsic evil. But I also would find the 1 million children argument illegitimate. The comparison is not 1 million children killed under a theoretical Kerry presidency and hundreds of thousands of war deaths under a Bush presidency. It is silly to even suggest such a thing. Bush is president now, and the 1 million children still died (more than 7 million actually, the figure is per year).

At present, all lives ‘saved’ is still theoretical. Bush made two Supreme Court nominations, but they stated their support of “stare decisis” and, so far, have followed it, applying Roe and Casey as proper legal precedent without comment in Carhart.

Personally, I think both applications of proportional reasons are suspect. We’re 25% of the electorate and we can’t get a major party to run a presidential candidate that is wholly in sync with one infallible teaching?!! But if Catholics feel compelled to make such compromises, they should accept that, however remote, they are still complicent with intrinsic evil. Once one is skirting with evil of that nature, it would seem wise to be mindful of the possible error of one’s own moral conscience and respectful of other Catholics making similiar difficult decisions.

 

[OntheMount9]

I guess I am the worst cave dweller of all.

It seems fairly simple to me; more simple than better-educated people than me make it out.

Abortion is the #1 “legal evil” in the U.S. It admits of no compromise. There is no clearer evil going on. Nothing, not the war, not welfare, not the economy, not anything even comes close in seriousness to one million murdered children per year.

If all Catholics voted against pro-abortion candidates, without exception, it would send a message that no candidate or party could ignore. No party can give up 20% of voters (Catholics) starting out, plus perhaps an equal number of Evangelicals and have any hope of winning.

If that happened, then the bishops could attack “evil #2” and so on down the line. No political party could possibly ignore that.

The problem is that the bishops have so many blurry positions that are subject to prudential judgment that it gets confusing and allows people to avoid seeing the obvious.

Until the worst evil is corrected, there is no point in worrying about lesser ones, because there will be no effective focus on any of them. Nor, because of the moral corruption that toleration of abortion engenders, will anybody truly care. If I am willing to see babies killed, what a liar I am to pretend compassion for someone who doesn’t have health insurance or who has a heavy tax burden!

I’m sorry to say it, but the continuation of abortion on demand in the U.S. lies squarely on the shoulders of U.S. Catholics. We could end it, but we don’t.

This post reminds me of a quote by Henry David Thoreau:

There are thousands striking at the branches of evil, but only one striking the root.

I just can’t bring myself to vote for any of the candidates. Thats why I will be voting for my father.

 

[frankadams]

So your belief is that increased social programs offset 1.2 million dead children a year?

I was hoping that you would read all of my post, rather than the ten or so lines from which you might infer “increased social programs,” but it appears you did not. If you wish to try to tell all those reading that I stated that one could justify a vote for Kerry on “(my) belief is that increased social programs offset 1.2 million dead children a year,” I cannot stop you. I will, however, provide evidence to the contrary to expose your lie.

What you said about my belief is flat-out wrong. For others reading, the “increased social programs-inferring lines” has been specially marked to help direct your attention to the **remainder **of the post.

No, my question has not been answered. However, this is likely due to my question being misunderstood rather (I hope) purposefully dodged, so I will try again at the end of this post.

No, it was not a refusal. I answered your first question quickly and clearly, and politely asked that you answered my first question before I proceded to respond to your second one. Nonetheless, I will try answer here.

You call yourself more “pragmatic” than ideal in regards to this issue. As such, you say that is morally sound to support a candidate who supports some abortion over one who supports none on the basis that you don’t believe the truly pro-life candidate has a chance of winning.

A vote for John Kerry over George Bush could be justified in a similar manner. You justifiy your pro-choice vote by saying “I think he won’t get elected.” One could justify* their* pro-choice vote by saying, “I don’t think he’ll end abortion.” Both you and he would be making “pragmatic” decisions.

I do not know exactly what factors went into your conclusion tht a truly pro-life candidate “cannot win.” A Catholic who reaches a conclusion that a semi pro-life candidate “cannot or will not end abortion” might take in a variety of factors. This might include his statements about abortion before, during, and after the election. He might consider his Supreme Court nominees (if any) during his presidency. He might also consider the previous performance of other “pro-life” presidents of his party and the entire history of Roe and Casey and the relationship between those decisions and the party who helped make them possible. He may end up, like you, making a “pragmatic” decision that the candidate cannot or will not end abortion.

Beyond that “pragmatic” decision, he might consider other issues which directly address Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. He likely would especially take into account the hundreds of thousands killed by the war (not to mention the millions more injured and displaced.) He might examine other life issues, both in terms of their victims and their contributions to what Mother Church calls a “culture of death.”
N.B: SOCIAL PROGRAMS PARAGRAPH BELOW!!! READ ALL THE OTHER STUFF!!!
The social programs that you dismiss so readily might further solidify his “pragmatic” decision. He might think about circumstances that help fuel more, rather than less, abortion. He might thing about circumstances that violate Catholic social justice teachings on “vast inequalities” which demonstrate a lack of respect for human dignity. He might look at Catholic teaching on human rights. He might look at particulars of Catholic social justice teaching, especially those of the magisterium here in America that have applied Catholic teaching to American issues, such as health care, the environment, global warming, welfare, taxes, affirmative action, immigration and a host of other issues that the Church deems important.

N.B: SOCIAL PROGRAMS PARAGRAPH ABOVE!!! READ ALL THE OTHER STUFF!!!

Mind you, he could recognize that abortion is a more important issue, but having already made (just like you) a “pragmatic” decision about what he think a president cannot or will not do, these dozens of other issues can further cement his decision to vote for Kerry.

Both of you are compromising. Both of you are voting for a candidate who supports an “intrinsic evil.” You made what you view as a “pragmatic” decision as the basis for your compromise. He did likewise.

My question remains: why is your “pragmatic” decision/compromise (arrived at in good faith and with “careful deliberation”) acceptable, but the Kerry voter’s “pragmatic” decision/compromise (arrived at the same way) categorically illicit?

You may disagree with this logic, but I don’t think any fair-mided reader would say this means that “(my) belief is that increased social programs offset 1.2 million dead children a year.” You may find it easier to argue against this straw man than engaging what I actually said and answering the question you keep avoiding, but your straw man is a blatant lie.

Kindly answer my question.

 

[estesbob]

I was hoping that you would read all of my post, rather than the ten or so lines from which you might infer “increased social programs,” but it appears you did not. If you wish to try to tell all those reading that I stated that one could justify a vote for Kerry on “(my) belief is that increased social programs offset 1.2 million dead children a year,” I cannot stop you. I will, however, provide evidence to the contrary to expose your lie.

What you said about my belief is flat-out wrong. For others reading, the “increased social programs-inferring lines” has been specially marked to help direct your attention to the **remainder **of the post.

You may disagree with this logic, but I don’t think any fair-mided reader would say this means that “(my) belief is that increased social programs offset 1.2 million dead children a year.” You may find it easier to argue against this straw man than engaging what I actually said and answering the question you keep avoiding, but your straw man is a blatant lie.

Kindly answer my question.

12,000 children have been slaughtered since this thread began . but by gosh if they had lived and kerry would have been elected they would have had better day care!

 

[estesbob]

This post reminds me of a quote by Henry David Thoreau:

There are thousands striking at the branches of evil, but only one striking the root.

I just can’t bring myself to vote for any of the candidates. Thats why I will be voting for my father.

Menawhile the children will continue to die.

 

[frankadams]

12,000 children have been slaughtered since this thread began . but by gosh if they had lived and kerry would have been elected they would have had better day care!

And by gosh, if Bush got elected they would have died. Which they did, as a matter of fact. Along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans and God knows how many more should this war not only continue but expand into other countries as well.

You’ve chosen to ignore everything in my post except a paragraph about social programs. Tell you what, for purposes of expediency, I’ll renounce it. It’s wrong, irrelevant, meaningless, whatever you wish to call it.

That being said, I politely request that you address the rest of my post. I have posted it below for your convenience. I have now answered your questions as any honest observer should attest. Please extend that same courtesy to me rather than respond the way you did above.

No, my question has not been answered. However, this is likely due to my question being misunderstood rather (I hope) purposefully dodged, so I will try again at the end of this post.

No, it was not a refusal. I answered your first question quickly and clearly, and politely asked that you answered my first question before I proceded to respond to your second one. Nonetheless, I will try answer here.

You call yourself more “pragmatic” than ideal in regards to this issue. As such, you say that is morally sound to support a candidate who supports some abortion over one who supports none on the basis that you don’t believe the truly pro-life candidate has a chance of winning.

A vote for John Kerry over George Bush could be justified in a similar manner. You justifiy your pro-choice vote by saying “I think he won’t get elected.” One could justify* their* pro-choice vote by saying, “I don’t think he’ll end abortion.” Both you and he would be making “pragmatic” decisions.

I do not know exactly what factors went into your conclusion tht a truly pro-life candidate “cannot win.” A Catholic who reaches a conclusion that a semi pro-life candidate “cannot or will not end abortion” might take in a variety of factors. This might include his statements about abortion before, during, and after the election. He might consider his Supreme Court nominees (if any) during his presidency. He might also consider the previous performance of other “pro-life” presidents of his party and the entire history of Roe and Casey and the relationship between those decisions and the party who helped make them possible. He may end up, like you, making a “pragmatic” decision that the candidate cannot or will not end abortion.

Beyond that “pragmatic” decision, he might consider other issues which directly address Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. He likely would especially take into account the hundreds of thousands killed by the war (not to mention the millions more injured and displaced.) He might examine other life issues, both in terms of their victims and their contributions to what Mother Church calls a “culture of death.”

Both of you are compromising. Both of you are voting for a candidate who supports an “intrinsic evil.” You made what you view as a “pragmatic” decision as the basis for your compromise. He did likewise.

My question remains: why is your “pragmatic” decision/compromise (arrived at in good faith and with “careful deliberation”) acceptable, but the Kerry voter’s “pragmatic” decision/compromise (arrived at the same way) categorically illicit?

 

[Ridgerunner]

This post reminds me of a quote by Henry David Thoreau:

There are thousands striking at the branches of evil, but only one striking the root.

I just can’t bring myself to vote for any of the candidates. Thats why I will be voting for my father.

I mean you no offense. Nor do I mean any toward your father. But one thing is for sure. The pro-abortionists will not be voting for your father. They will be voting for the pro-abortion candidates. By voting for the only remotely prolife candidate, (the one NARAL says is anti-abortion, by the way) you would cancel one vote for abortion. By voting for your father, you allow that pro-abortion vote to count. One vote isn’t much. But it’s all you or I have.

 

[dmelosi]

Would anyone please refute these 6 or agree with them;
A democratic president will almost certainly nominate a supreme court justice that is pro choice and put any chance of reversing the legallity of killing.
The democratic platform is pro abortion on demand.
A republican president is much much much more likely of nominating a pro life justice.
The republican platform is mostly pro life.
One of the presidential candidates voted to NOT allow extended life saving measures to an abortion gone wrong where the baby was actually born.
Abortion is ending the life of a human being.

 

[SoCalRC]

Would anyone please refute these 6 or agree with them;
A democratic president will almost certainly nominate a supreme court justice that is pro choice and put any chance of reversing the legallity of killing.

A Democratic president would almost certainly try to nominate a more liberal judge. And this could have an effect on the outcome of certain kinds of cases. But there is nothing to suggest that any president will have the ability to make a significant effect on the status of Roe via appointments.

Case in point, Bush made two appointments. Both were unified in supporting corporations, both were unified in expanding the use of the death penalty. But both indicated that the were inclined to defer to legal precedent with regards to abortion, and did so, supporting Roe and Casey as law without comment in Carhart.

There are five GOP appointed Catholics on the Supreme Court now, and legal precedent grows year after year.

The democratic platform is pro abortion on demand.

True.

A republican president is much much much more likely of nominating a pro life justice.

Again, if that were really true, the votes to overturn Roe would already be there.

The republican platform is mostly pro life.

I’d have to say that is false. The GOP platform currently takes an absolute stance on abortion, which matches Catholic teaching. But five of the last six presidential elections (including the last three) the GOP candidates have stated that they do not agree with it.

But Catholic pro-life teaching is not just about abortion. We have an “any stage” “any condition” belief. This is best explained in something like CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (#38), or the Pastoral Constitution of the Church. Using the Catholic definition of “right to life”, both the GOP and Democratic platforms are intrinsically evil.

One of the presidential candidates voted to NOT allow extended life saving measures to an abortion gone wrong where the baby was actually born.

Actually, all remaining major party candidates have made similiar votes against life. It is difficult to discuss in detail within the constraints of the forum rules.

All have publicly supported upholding Roe within the last two presidential election cycles. Candidates in both parties have also supported the expansion of practices that the Church, in principle, considers direct euthanasia.

Abortion is ending the life of a human being.

No, abortion is always, infallibly, a grave moral disorder. It is also the termination of human life, but it is not always the ending the life of a human being (or ‘person’). The Church has never abandoned its long standing tradition and embraced ‘simultaneous animation’, nor does it need to in order for our teaching on abortion to be valid.

See DONUM VITAE, and the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’s Declaration on Procurred Abortion (in particular, footnote 19), for more details.

 

[dmelosi]

A Democratic president would almost certainly try to nominate a more liberal judge. And this could have an effect on the outcome of certain kinds of cases. But there is nothing to suggest that any president will have the ability to make a significant effect on the status of Roe via appointments.

Case in point, Bush made two appointments. Both were unified in supporting corporations, both were unified in expanding the use of the death penalty. But both indicated that the were inclined to defer to legal precedent with regards to abortion, and did so, supporting Roe and Casey as law without comment in Carhart.

There are five GOP appointed Catholics on the Supreme Court now, and legal precedent grows year after year.

These were questions on abortion not the death penatly. And your suggestion that more pro life judges can have no effect on the status of Roe would mean that pro life judges do not think it is the taking of a human life.

That there are five GOP appointed Catholics on the Supreme Court shows the harm that Bishops allowing Pro Choice Catholics to take communion is doing.

Again, if that were really true, the votes to overturn Roe would already be there.

I just said they were more likely, not that they definitly would.

I’d have to say that is false. The GOP platform currently takes an absolute stance on abortion, which matches Catholic teaching. But five of the last six presidential elections (including the last three) the GOP candidates have stated that they do not agree with it.

But Catholic pro-life teaching is not just about abortion. We have an “any stage” “any condition” belief. This is best explained in something like CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (#38), or the Pastoral Constitution of the Church. Using the Catholic definition of “right to life”, both the GOP and Democratic platforms are intrinsically evil.

It states clearly in the Republican party platform that they are against abortion.

Actually, all remaining major party candidates have made similiar votes against life. It is difficult to discuss in detail within the constraints of the forum rules.

All have publicly supported upholding Roe within the last two presidential election cycles. Candidates in both parties have also supported the expansion of practices that the Church, in principle, considers direct euthanasia.

I did not find where the other candidates voted to not allow life saving measures on a failed abortion attempt where the baby lives. I did an extensive search, perhaps you have other info?

No, abortion is always, infallibly, a grave moral disorder. It is also the termination of human life, but it is not always the ending the life of a human being (or ‘person’). The Church has never abandoned its long standing tradition and embraced ‘simultaneous animation’, nor does it need to in order for our teaching on abortion to be valid.

See DONUM VITAE, and the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’s Declaration on Procurred Abortion (in particular, footnote 19), for more details.

Evangelium vitae calls the unborn a human being.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But both indicated that the were inclined to defer to legal precedent with regards to abortion, and did so, supporting Roe and Casey as law without comment in Carhart.

This is simply false. I challenge you, SoCalRC, to quote Roberts or Alito saying they support abortion in any way. You can’t do it and you know you can’t do it. The rules in Roe and Casey were not before the Court in Carhart. Only a law banning partial birth abortion was before the Court, not one banning all abortions. You know that. The opinion of the majority, simply said that banning partial birth abortion was not inconsistent with Roe or Casey.

You should not slander justices Roberts and Alito as you have. It’s shameful that you, in your desire to have Catholics vote for abortionists just because they’re Democrats, (If that’s the only reason.) have done so.

The Democrat appointees all voted to keep partial birth abortion legal. Clinton-appointed Ginsberg found the majority ruling against partial birth abortion “alarming” because it upheld the ban on partial birth abortion. “Alarming”. There’s your party’s appointee’s view of a ban on partial birth abortion. It’s “alarming” to them that a doctor can’t legally scramble the brains of a baby that’s already mostly born.

To all who might have any questions about the matter, don’t take my word for it or SoCalRC’s. Ignore what both of us say. Read Carhart yourself. It’s easy to find by just googling “Carhart” & “partial birth abortion”. You will see that neither Bush appointees, Roberts and Alito, said they support the rules in Roe or Casey. Actually, neither of them said anything at all. They simply joined in the result expressed in Anthony Kennedy’s opinion supporting the ban on partial birth abortion. That’s the only question that was before the Court; a law banning partial birth abortion alone. Even Anthony Kennedy himself didn’t say he supports the rules in Roe or Casey (though as a Catholic, shamefully unfaithful to this teaching of the church, he has before). He simply said banning partial birth abortion is not inconsistent with Roe or Casey. The Democrat appointees certainly are supportive of Roe and Casey, and all opposed a ban on partial birth abortion.

We’re going to see more obfuscation from the supporters of Democrat abortionist candidates presently, so please read the decision yourselves. Don’t take my word for it or theirs. Read it yourselves.

Since I will probably be accused again (I have lost count) by the abortionist supporters in here of being a Republican, I am going to once again state that I am not a Republican. I have never been a Republican. I have always been a Democrat. Both my wife and I held offices in the Democrat party before the party became devoted to abortion. Unfortunately, we cannot find a Democrat to vote for because all of them on our ballots support abortion on demand. Every last one. I guess I will have to admit that I am an “old fashioned” Democrat; the kind that used to be faithful to the party before it enshrined abortion as a platform plank. I will not make excuses for those politicians, any more than Archbishop Burke or Bishop Naumann or Bishop Finn or Bishop Chaput or Cardinal Egan did, all of whom said Catholic politicians who support abortion cannot even receive Communion worthily.
I do not wish to join the crowd of excommunicates, nor, with your vote, should you. I will not pretend that the war or the death penalty or national healthcare or anything else is more important than the murder of a million totally innocent children a year. No issue facing the American voter even comes close to the seriousness of that.

I will again point out that Planned Parenthood thinks Roberts and Alito are prolife. NARAL thinks the Repub candidate for President is prolife and a threat to “abortion rights”. Those organizations, despicable though they are, are at least open about what they believe.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m going to add that I don’t care for the Repub presidential candidate at all, for reasons that are not relevant here. But I’m going to vote for him because he’s opposed to abortion on demand, unlike both Dem candidates, who support it without reservation or exception.