T
THurifer2
Guest
Has the Church dogmatically defined single isssue voting?
- Status
S
SoCalRC
Guest
You are correct. There is a difference. But look at the concurring opinion. Two justices were concerned enough that the majority opinion was reaffirming that they expressly differentiated themselves from the rest of the majority and noting that they were doing the former, not the latter of your options.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Read the document, the Church gives 9 examples of absolute moral principles, and also cites complete and correct understanding of the human person, per the Second Vatican Council, and an absolute must.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
The problem is rather or not you use the Church’s understanding of Life, or a narrow, politically opportunistic concept of life.
Euthanasia is a life issue, so politicians who make it easier to remove hydration and nutrition because a patient cannot pay don’t get my vote.
Torture and murder are both life issues, so politicians who support them don’t get my vote.
And our teaching is a complete ban on abortion, not just lip service to secular laws on abortion. Notice that two years after the White House press secretary promised a complete report on the White House’s interactions with jailed lobbying Abramof, and his scheme of funnelling money from human trafficing and forced abortions to the GOP, newspapers are reporting that Congress is still waiting…
If Life trumps all issues, why are so many Catholics willing to compromise on it?
E
estesbob
Guest
No. But the church has said emphatically that no issue or a combination of issues trump abortion and euthanasia. It is also gave specific examples of issues that do not rise to the same level as abortion- the Iraq war and the death penalty.
The fallacy here is that anybody is voting on a single issue. Being pro-life is merely the entry-level qualification for one asking a Catholic to vote for them. If a candidate is pro-life and you disagree to his stands on immigration or welfare or the war then you don’t vote for him. What you can’t do is say since I don’t agree with his stands on these issues its okay to vote for pro-abortion candidate who I agree with on everything but abortion. All rights flow from the right to life. There simply is no way a Catholic can get around this and claim to be adhering to the teachings of the Church.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
What!? What about the “if you don’t vote for the Republican candidate claiming to be pro-life, you’re automatically voting pro-abortion?”faints in shock
E
estesbob
Guest
Nice try but I have never said that
faints in shock
B
buffalo
Guest
Consciences of convenience and ignorance.
E
estesbob
Guest
If ones politics trump their faith they can always find a way to rationalize voting for a pro-abortion canidate
E
Ender
Guest
This is a misrepresentation of this ruling. Scalia and Thomas acknowledged that the ruling correctly applied existing law and they took the opportunity to repeat their long standing position that there is no basis for laws regarding abortion in the Constitution. Alito and Roberts have made no prior statement one way or the other on the Constitutionality of Roe and chose not to use this ruling to make such a statement. Ginsburg, one of the most outspoken supporters of abortion, explicitly lamented the fact that this ruling merely recognized the existence of previous rulings without reaffirming them.
Given that Ginsburg recognized that the ruling in this case did not reaffirm Roe there is little doubt that Scalia and Thomas recognized it as well. A claim that they they were worried that this ruling was a reaffirmation of Roe is simply fantasy.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
The US church - and by that I specifically mean the USCCB - has been singularly bad on this point. I suspect they have issued no document that makes such a statement without being immediately followed by some “and”, “but”, or “however” modifier which effectively eviscerates the meaning of what they just said.
This seems a perfect example to make my point (USCCB statement on Social Development and World Peace): “every person has a fundamental right to life **and **a right to those things required for human decency.” Not only does this put a combination of other issues up there with abortion and euthanasia but it puts individual issues on the same level as well, such as a “living” wage, decent housing, universal health care. Anything anyone can conceive of as “required for human decency” is now just as important as abortion. After all, they are all life issues in such an expanded and meaningless definition.
The USCCB provides intellectual and moral cover for everyone who cannot reconcile putting abortion on a different plane from other (quality of) life issues. I have little doubt believing that this influence has been deliberate.
Ender
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Ginsburg only meantioned Roe in the context of calling it a flawed ruling.
Let’s deal in reality. If I were to propose that Casey represented a victory in that it put some constraints on first trimester abortions, multiple heads would explode. But the same heads are willing to spout nonesense about Carhart making such a change, although none exists.
The Partial Birth Aboriton Ban was political theatre. It raised a lot of money and effort and will not stop a single abortion. The only reason to see it as special is if one is primarily motivated by politics, not principle.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Is there any part of the Church heirarchy you are willing to accept per the First Vatican Council?
If one rejects our apostolic nature, why be Catholic?
E
Ender
Guest
You are so determined to insist that the Republicans have done nothing beneficial whatever in the anti-abortion cause that you have turned the Carhart decision on its head. It is not, as you claim, the old conservatives on the court (Scalia and Thomas) who found the decision to be a reaffirmation of Roe, rather it is the pro-abortion liberals who found it to be the opposite.
This is from Ginsburg’s lament … er … dissent: she found that the majority decision “…cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court”. I think this is one case where I can agree with Ginsburg. It may be a small victory but it is not an irrelevant one. The major battle is yet to be fought and it is not clear how the current court would rule on a clear challenge to Roe but it should be very clear that one more justice in the mold of Roberts or Alito in place of any of the liberal justices would just about guarantee the death of Roe.
Since the only way such a justice will be appointed is by a Republican president I am hard put to understand why anyone who wants to see Roe overturned would not work to get a Republican elected as president.
Ender
E
estesbob
Guest
Ender;2927530**:
Ender
Thats nicer than his usual comments-wait until he starts telling you how the republcians are in favor of slave labor and forced abortion. It is at that point that most realize rational discussion is not possible.
It is not, as you claim, the old conservatives on the court (Scalia and Thomas) who found the decision to be a reaffirmation of Roe, rather it is the pro-abortion liberals who found it to be the opposite.
Ender
Thats nicer than his usual comments-wait until he starts telling you how the republcians are in favor of slave labor and forced abortion. It is at that point that most realize rational discussion is not possible.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Yes I have read that.
But I have also read that the reason why Alito and Roberts did not join Scalia and Thomas here is that Alito and Roberts did not want to tip their hands on how they would vote on any Roe. v. Wade reversal. Scalia and Thomas however had already tipped hands by voting in Casey.
That seems reasonable to me.
In other words I don’t think we know either way from Carhart how Alito and Roberts will vote should they have the opportunity at a future time to overturn Roe v. Wade.
E
estesbob
Guest
What we do know for a fact is that in the only vote thus far concerning abortion Alito and Roberts sided with life. Had they not been appointed and a Democrat had filled their postions sucking the brains out of children who were inches from exiting the womb would still be legal.
H
Holly3278
Guest
In my opinion, it is definitely immoral to vote for a pro-choice person. In my opinion, abortion should be our #1 concern when voting.
E
Ender
Guest
Suppose both the Republican and Democrat candidates for president are pro-choice. On that basis there is nothing to choose between them but suppose that one of them said he would nominate justices to the Supreme Court like Roberts and the other said he would nominate justices like Ginsburg. Surely there is now an enormous difference between them so the question is: which is more important to you, the personal stance of the president or the kind of justice he would appoint to the court? If you answer the latter then you might need to take a closer look at this race as the only Republican candidate to support abortion has in fact said that he would appoint strict constructionist judges like John Roberts.
Ender
E
estesbob
Guest
This is the situation where porportionalty comesn. The Church teaches you could vote for the canidate who would the least harm on abortion. In my case howver I would refuse to vote for either. Hopefully the Republican party wont force voters like myself out of the party.
- Status