Voting Pro-life

[LCMS_No_More]

Whoa, hard to know where to start…

…Democrat is probably much more in line with most of the fiscal policies of the Church perhaps you shouldn’t write them off so quickly.

Socialism is not a church teaching. Forcibly taking from me to give to you is not a teaching of the Church. We are to give because of our faith and works in grace. Having a life line for those in need is different from socialist programs that determine by force what we give. Besides how many of those so called compassionate Dems give to charity and how much? Darn little.

So if the Republican is not pro-life, and pro stem cell, they are probably also pro death penalty, against environmental issues…

Against the fraud undertaken by our biggest carbon footprint frauds, yes. The death penalty is not against church teaching. Besides those who have have been given the death penalty were found guilty of taking a human life. Pro adult stem cell research is a yes.

• Most Democrats fall in line with the teachings of the Church except for abortion and stem cell research as gay marriage is really a moot point,*

Except for abortion (the murder of the innocent), embryonic stem cell research (yet more murder), gay (homosexual) marriage, not marriage at all but a sham. Those exceptions look pretty big to me.

If abortions went up under GWB (and that is entirely possible) it is not because he is a Republican.

It seems to me the biggest issue you have is how can I safely vote for a Democrat and still be a practicing Catholic in good standing?

Well, I’d say your first step would be to change the channel from FOX and turn the radio from Beck and Limbaugh to music or a Catholic station.

 

[Miriam1947]

Well, I’d say your first step would be to change the channel from FOX and turn the radio from Beck and Limbaugh to music or a Catholic station.

Ha, ha, ha. You are so funny. NOT. Nothing like a little stereotyping.

I don’t watch Beck, occasionally watch Chris Wallace on Fox on Sunday, and generally don’t listen to Limbaugh.

I listen to Catholic radio and watch EWTN. And get a lot of news from the 'net.

Methinks your partisan hat is on.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Ha, ha, ha. You are so funny. NOT. Nothing like a little stereotyping.

I don’t watch Beck, occasionally watch Chris Wallace on Fox on Sunday, and generally don’t listen to Limbaugh.

I listen to Catholic radio and watch EWTN. And get a lot of news from the 'net.

Methinks your partisan hat is on.

Well, look at it this way. Since 1980, we’ve had 20 years of Republican presidents. We’ve had a Republican Congress for almost 20 years. I’ve seen absolutely NO ground gained on abortion or any other of the “non-negotiables.” What I have seen is a steady erosion of the American Middle Class. That wells me that the Republican party is not interested in dealing with any of the “non-negotiables.”

Therefore, I don’t have a political party. I’m just anti-Republican. End of line.

 

[estesbob]

WELL SAID!!!

I’ve long said that the Republican Party has no interest in once and for all banning abortion or any of the other “life issues” because they know that the moment they do, their fiscal policies would force Christians to the Democratic Party.

You may have long said it but you have never offered any proof . In fact we have on numerous times posted detailed lists of the accomplishments of the Republican Party concerning life issues.

Basically appears we are getting him the same old refrain-“since I don’t believe Republicans do enough to keep Democrats from enabling the killing babies it’s okay for me to support people who enable the killing babies”

 

[LCMS_No_More]

You may have long said it but you have never offered any proof . In fact we have on numerous times posted detailed lists of the accomplishments of the Republican Party concerning life issues.

You’ve provided a vote here and there that nibbles at the edge of the issue.

Basically appears we are getting him the same old refrain-“since I don’t believe Republicans do enough to keep Democrats from enabling the killing babies it’s okay for me to support people who enable the killing babies”

Snarky much?

It’s not that I don’t believe Republicans “do enough,” I don’t believe they have any INTENTIONS of doing anything. They’ve had multiple chances, but have done NOTHING. Abortion is just as available as ever. It’s a ruse to get you to vote for them so they can impose their Gilded Age economic platform. Nothing more. End of line.

 

[Miriam1947]

Well, look at it this way. Since 1980, we’ve had 20 years of Republican presidents. We’ve had a Republican Congress for almost 20 years. I’ve seen absolutely NO ground gained on abortion or any other of the “non-negotiables.” What I have seen is a steady erosion of the American Middle Class. That wells me that the Republican party is not interested in dealing with any of the “non-negotiables.”

Therefore, I don’t have a political party. I’m just anti-Republican. End of line.

20 years Republican congress? Don’t think so. In fact the Democrats took over in 2006 under a Republican president.

I don’t know about you but, I was a lot better off before Obama. And I am so glad I didn’t fall for his “hope and change”. How’s that working for you?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

20 years Republican congress? Don’t think so. In fact the Democrats took over in 2006 under a Republican president.

And the 1990s didn’t count?

I don’t know about you but, I was a lot better off before Obama. And I am so glad I didn’t fall for his “hope and change”. How’s that working for you?

Actually, I didn’t vote for Obama. I don’t want to discuss my vote because it makes me sick to my stomach that I allowed myself to be manipulated into voting Republican (no more!).

As to how I’m doing now, Obama doesn’t have anything to do with it…it’s all on our REPUBLICAN Governor (who is a True Republican: pro-corporate, anti-labor, pro-abortion, pro-gay “marriage”), the Austrian.

 

[Miriam1947]

12 years.

And I’m sorry you are stuck in California. The dems have been in charge forever and have turned the state into almost another Detroit.

Arnold is not a Republican, he is a RINO who is married to a very liberal Kennedy Catholic. Which means he has no true beliefs. (Just MHO)

 

[estesbob]

It is very easy. Either you follow the teachings of the church or you don’tAll the rationalizations in the world cannot undo that simple fact.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

12 years.

And I’m sorry you are stuck in California. The dems have been in charge forever and have turned the state into almost another Detroit.

In spite of today’s extreme heat, I love California. I was born and raised here and I love the Golden State. Nowhere else can you surf in the morning and ski in the afternoon (or vice versa). Nowhere else are there almost all the major climates known to man within a few hours drive. It’s an amazing place to live.

Arnold is not a Republican, he is a RINO who is married to a very liberal Kennedy Catholic. Which means he has no true beliefs. (Just MHO)

No, he’s a True Republican. The modern Republican party is based on two principles:

1. The maximum accumulation of wealth into as few hands as possible
2. Distract people that #1 above is taking place.

The Republican party added the non-negotiables to their platform in order to fulfill #2, but the Austrian has been working night and day to ensure that #1 continues in California unabated, which is why he’s turned the state’s management structure into an hourglass (lots of upper management) instead of a pyramid as well as awarding billions in contracts to his corporate buddies. No, the Austrian is a True Republican, through and through.

 

[Ender]

The modern Republican party is based on two principles:

1. The maximum accumulation of wealth into as few hands as possible
2. Distract people that #1 above is taking place.

Discussing the issue with someone who thinks this way is like talking with someone who believes in alien abductions but I will ask nonetheless: what evidence do you point to to support your position?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Considering that the Democrat is probably much more in line with most of the fiscal policies of the Church perhaps you shouldn’t write them off so quickly.

Does it strike you as likely that the Church would promote specific economic proposals as a matter of faith or morals? There are certain things she opposes but she takes no position on “fiscal policies.” Do you really think there is a Church position on the stimulus package?

Truly if you look at the teachings of the Church the only reason anyone would ever vote Republican is because of life issues, in almost every other area they go against the teachings of the Church.

This is not simply false but glaringly so. Except for a few issues (abortion, euthanasia, FCSR, gay “marriage”, human cloning) the Church has taken no specific position on anything. It is stunningly ironic that Democrats are on the wrong side of all the issues the Church actually has a position on but it is the Republicans who most often suffer the claim that they “go against the Church.”

The Church has no specific position on health care, immigration, unemployment compensation, the environment, or the thousands of other issues Congress debates. She has positions on only about five issues and on all five, one party is entirely right and the other is entirely wrong.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

Does it strike you as likely that the Church would promote specific economic proposals as a matter of faith or morals? There are certain things she opposes but she takes no position on “fiscal policies.” Do you really think there is a Church position on the stimulus package?

This is not simply false but glaringly so. Except for a few issues (abortion, euthanasia, FCSR, gay “marriage”, human cloning) the Church has taken no specific position on anything. It is stunningly ironic that Democrats are on the wrong side of all the issues the Church actually has a position on but it is the Republicans who most often suffer the claim that they “go against the Church.”

The Church has no specific position on health care, immigration, unemployment compensation, the environment, or the thousands of other issues Congress debates. She has positions on only about five issues and on all five, one party is entirely right and the other is entirely wrong.

Ender

The Social Encyclicals state that (if it cannot be done more proximally) a society has, as its first social duty, providing a decent life for those who cannot help themselves. Neither party has done anything for those people in decades, or even proposed doing it. All this latest Democrat stuff is simply shifting resources among members of the middle class. I say that as a lifelong Democrat who cannot, unfortunately, vote for any Democrat candidate; first, because the party is no longer consistent with the social teachings of the Church, and second because it supports abortion and fetal stem cell research and clinical use of fetal tissues (i.e., cannibalism). The Democrat party, I believe, once really did provide for the most helpless in this society. But it doesn’t any more, and hasn’t for a very long time.

Some Catholics (seemingly most of those with whom I attended a Catholic college and grad school) have figured this out. That’s probably why most white Catholics vote Republican whereas their parents (and perhaps they, like me) used to vote Democrat without fail. (Hispanics are a different story) Some Catholics haven’t yet figured out that the present Democrat party does nothing for the truly needy, and that it’s “living off its patrimony” like the dissolute son of a self-made millionaire. Some Catholics don’t care because they would like to see the government give them money taken from middle class people slightly better off than they are themselves. But even that is a sham, because all “free lunches” are a sham.

I find myself amused at people who somehow think that by, e.g., raising taxes on higher earners they’ll somehow do better than they did when the government borrowed and spent more money than raising “higher earners’” taxes could possibly raise.

But I think some are starting to figure it out.

 

[elts1956]

So I am from Michigan and the Republican candidate that is running for Governor is not prolife and has actually donated a lot of money to help fund stem cell research. And I don’t want another Dem in office, so there is no option there. Do I not vote this November? What are my moral obligations??

Our obligation is to vote for the candidate that does not cause further evil? In the case of two candidates being pro aborition, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research etc. you should compare the other issues of these candidates side by side. Voting third party usual gives the vote to the stronger member of our two party system, ie. in this case the Dems.

I have the same delimma. What I intend to do is write the Pub. Candidate who is pro choice telling him I am voting for him to keep the more progressive Dem out of office, but I will fignt for a pro life candidate to fill his office in the next Primary and Mid Term elections. Sad state of affairs, but we must vote to prevent further evil as well as we can.

 

[elts1956]

So I am from Michigan and the Republican candidate that is running for Governor is not prolife and has actually donated a lot of money to help fund stem cell research. And I don’t want another Dem in office, so there is no option there. Do I not vote this November? What are my moral obligations??

Considering how much power politicians have and will continue to wield over children’s lives in the womb and the family I cannot vote for any candidate that will not protect children’s lives or the family. Ever. Again. I did for a couple years but I realized, heck,** they’ll both evil, not the lesser of two evils**. Both evil. And I will not vote for someone who is not good and holy. Which unfortunately means I must research the other candidates more who don’t stand a chance but oh well. I will not contribute to helping the country become God-forsaken.

You are giving up a vote in opposition to a greater evil by voting third party. I am strongly anti abortion, anti the Pro Death Culture, but I am going to swallow my wish for perfection in a political candidate this Nov. and vote for the lesser evil as both candidates are pro abortion. The Republicn in this instance is very wily. He can get votes from both sides, both pro life and pro abortion.l

 

[elts1956]

The broad responsibilities of elected officials make their selection an important matter for all citizens. Pro life issues are but a small part of government administration.

National defense, education, public health, civil and criminal law, and environmental regulation are a few of the other things government does. Maybe the government does these things and I am sure the Church approves of their support, BUT what does the Church say about the Intrinsic evils, of which abortion is one of the BIGGIES?
We are remiss if we limit ourselves to one issue, even if it is an important one, in our selection of candidates for public office.

Wrong friend. You can’t support any part of a house without a foundation. The Life issues are the foundation of a society. Ours has eroded so terribly, the walls have crumbled.

 

[elts1956]

The broad responsibilities of elected officials make their selection an important matter for all citizens. Pro life issues are but a small part of government administration.

National defense, education, public health, civil and criminal law, and environmental regulation are a few of the other things government does.

We are remiss if we limit ourselves to one issue, even if it is an important one, in our selection of candidates for public office.

I agree with the lesser of two evils post. Considering that the Democrat is probably much more in line with most of the fiscal policies of the Church perhaps you shouldn’t write them off so quickly. Most Democrats fall in line with the teachings of the Church except for abortion and stem cell research as gay marriage is really a moot point, it’s going to be decided by the courts eventually.

So if the Republican is not pro-life, and pro stem cell, they are probably also pro death penalty, against environmental issues (the Vatican released updated mortal sins a couple of years ago related to the environment), probably against social justice issues for the poor etc…

Truly if you look at the teachings of the Church the only reason anyone would ever vote Republican is because of life issues, in almost every other area they go against the teachings of the Church… considering most really haven’t done anything but say they are pro life that doesn’t give us much. Especially since they have been in office twice as long as the Dems since RvW and put most of the Judges on the Bench as well… considering that abortions went up under GWB after going down under Clinton… why would anyone vote Republican at all?

Just a thought…

I am not a Republican and neither am I a Democrat. It is a crying shame members of any political party are not held to a Pro Life stance. However, the Church says that in the last election, there were five Intrinsic Evils which must be considered as essential BEFORE any other issue. They were…yes, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual unions, and human cloning. These issues are still very much alive. These MUST be given priority to one’s conscience even if both parties are only mouthing platitudes. We must vote to check, or keep these evils from spreading. And under this administration they have indeed spread. The Pro Death teams have been given their head and they are running for the finish line. The Party of Death , so named by Archbishop Burke, must be defeated and hopefully, the Repulican’s (what choice do we have???) will have their feet held to the fire to make them fulfill their campaign promises.

 

[Ender]

Voting third party usual gives the vote to the stronger member of our two party system, ie. in this case the Dems.

This is a point that usually ignored or misunderstood.

I have the same delimma. What I intend to do is write the Pub. Candidate who is pro choice telling him I am voting for him to keep the more progressive Dem out of office, but I will fignt for a pro life candidate to fill his office in the next Primary and Mid Term elections. Sad state of affairs, but we must vote to prevent further evil as well as we can.

I think this is exactly the right approach. You do the best you can with the options available to you, which (as in your case) are often between bad and worse, but then you work in the primary to make the choice between bad and better. We have seen this play out in a big way in this year’s primaries where a startling number of incumbents have been tossed out, especially on the Republican side. Making things better starts with working from where you are, not in protesting that you are not where you want to be.

Ender