Watch "Dear Greta, Are Trees Worth More Than Babies?" on YouTube

[LeafByNiggle]

The fact that life is uncertain and confusing does not excuse one from acting prudently and morally.

I believe what I have described is acting prudently and morally. Is it prudent to throw away my vote on someone who says they are pro-life, but in truth has no chance of affecting abortion, only to reap the much more certain evils this person represents?

 

[Mike1w]

1. it is the height of hubris to think that we puny humans can destroy the earth en masse. Maybe the majority of ourselves, and certain small areas on land, but everything? really?
2. This is a false dichotomy, since abortion and climate change aren’t really related in any substantive way.
3. As long as the child is willing, isn’t being hurt, and isn’t deliberately and outright lying, I don’t concern myself. I have issues both more pressing and closer to home.

 

[Mike1w]

Short of a constitutional convention, which is a conglomeration of states issue, and highly unlikely,
only the president, by way of SCOTUS appointments, and SCOTUS members have direct influence on national policies on abortion in the US.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Even that is a role of the dice. And if RvW is overturned, there will still be lots of states where it will be legal. People do travel.

 

[goout]

Even that is a role of the dice. And if RvW is overturned, there will still be lots of states where it will be legal. People do travel.

After all this, you are still left with the responsibility to make prudent and moral decisions. And still, the right for a human to live precedes all other human rights.

In the US, our legislators of all kinds fund social programs to an extreme degree, such that debates are about the amounts. There is no political platform that denies the right to food or work, for instance. These are decisions of prudent judgment about how best to accomplish programs.

There are however legislators who deny the objective right to human life, and that is a barbaric position that should be opposed as a primary objective.
Because all other human rights will eventually be abrogated if this continues.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is important to note that my comments in this thread all address the doctrinal question raised by the bishops’ letter. Whereas you are making a prudential argument.

Also you are making huge assumptions about what competing concerns I might have.

 

[goout]

It is important to note that my comments in this thread all address the doctrinal question raised by the bishops’ letter. Whereas you are making a prudential argument.

Also you are making huge assumptions about what competing concerns I might have.

I for one am not sure what your issue is then. The statement speaks for itself on the importance of all human rights issues, and the preeminence of abortion. Yet you are debating something.
What are you debating then?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I am debating the implication that I would be sinning if I vote for Amy Klobuchar instead of Donald Trump. There is no binding doctrine that implies it, and the one lettter that supposedly says it is not binding, but is only the opinion and advice of several bishops.

 

[goout]

I am debating the implication that I would be sinning if I vote for Amy Klobuchar instead of Donald Trump. There is no binding doctrine that implies it, and the one lettter that supposedly says it is not binding, but is only the advice of several bishops.

Right, it’s not a sin to vote democrat or republican per se.
Only you can distill all the moral factors and come to a moral decision.
And the fact that responsibility is yours to claim or refuse does not give excuse to absolute license. If you know better, you are tasked with deciding and acting better, rather than hiding behind perceived freedom of choice.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Right, it’s not a sin to vote democrat or republican per se.

I didn’t ask you about some generic Democrat and some generic Republican. I asked about two specific individuals. You know everything about their position as well as I do. So do you think Catholic doctrine in this very specific case prevents me from voting as I said? Or might it be that I could vote for Amy without sinning?

Only you can distill all the moral factors and come to a moral decision.

Wow, this sounds like we are in total agreement.

 

[Peeps]

Where as you can take a bike to work every day.
Saavy?

No, no, we cannot take a bike to work everyday.

We have ice and snow covered streets and sidewalks as of last night, and it’s dangerous enough for cars to be out there. I personally think that bikes in the winter in Northern Illinois should be against the law–it’s terrifying for cars to see these people on the streets and roads.

And even in the good weather, not all of us are capable physically of taking a bike to work everyday. I am currently sitting at work with my knee elevated and hoping that I will be able to get out to my car without falling–my bad knee acted up this afternoon (probably after shoveling snow this morning before work), and I am in a lot of pain right now, trying not to cry at work, and not feeling kindly towards people who think that everyone can just ride a bike. I wish.

 

[Peeps]

The letter was not approved unanimously. There were some notable dissenters. Therefore it does not define binding doctrine.

Wow. Just wow.

This kind of rationalization is how Catholic Democrats (and Republicans and Libertarians) justify voting for policies that make abortion a “choice” instead of a killing.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to err on the side of compassion and saving human life rather than figuring out a way to justify allowing abortion?

 

[RCIAGraduate]

On the flip side, are carbon taxes really that bad? Maybe it’s something to get used to? Perhaps it can help resolve our deficit while helping the environment though that would be extremely regressive especially compared to an income rebate.

 

[niceatheist]

And also live nearly twice as long. Anyone who thinks Feudalism was actually good for most people knows precious little about feudalism. It isn’t a Nintendo game.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

justify voting for policies that make abortion…

Catholics do not vote for these policies. They vote for people who incidentally hold those policies, but not for that reason.

This kind of rationalization

Rationalization, when it expresses rational thought, is not a bad thing. Faith is compatible with reason.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to err on the side of compassion and saving human life…

“Erring on the side of anything good” makes sense when the cost of doing so is low or non-existent. In this case, in 2020, it is my judgement that that cost is huge. So I would want to know with some certainty that the good thing will result, in order to justify the huge cost.

 

[Anrakyr]

We have ice and snow covered streets and sidewalks as of last night, and it’s dangerous enough for cars to be out there. I personally think that bikes in the winter in Northern Illinois should be against the law–it’s terrifying for cars to see these people on the streets and roads.

Don’t split hairs, no one is asking you to be unsafe. Just do more for the planet actively.

 

[Mike1w]

IMO, all taxes are bad, except possibly for national defense.
But that is an argument for another time. Why should all people have to pay for the agenda, and blame, of a small number of individuals, at least as a percentage.
J

 

[Mike1w]

I missed the edit.
J = just saying

 

[goout]

goout:

Right, it’s not a sin to vote democrat or republican per se.

I didn’t ask you about some generic Democrat and some generic Republican. I asked about two specific individuals. You know everything about their position as well as I do. So do you think Catholic doctrine in this very specific case prevents me from voting as I said? Or might it be that I could vote for Amy without sinning?

Only you can distill all the moral factors and come to a moral decision.

Wow, this sounds like we are in total agreement.

We are most definitely not in agreement. (I think you know that).
The fact that you must follow your conscience increases your responsibility to recognize the moral factors in play, rather than abdicate responsibility.

Again, talk about various ways to promote human rights are meaningless if one does not recognize and promote the objective right for humans to live.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

goout:

Right, it’s not a sin to vote democrat or republican per se.

I didn’t ask you about some generic Democrat and some generic Republican. I asked about two specific individuals. You know everything about their position as well as I do. So do you think Catholic doctrine in this very specific case prevents me from voting as I said? Or might it be that I could vote for Amy without sinning?

Only you can distill all the moral factors and come to a moral decision.

Wow, this sounds like we are in total agreement.

We are most definitely not in agreement. (I think you know that)

Well, if only I can distill all the moral factors and come to a moral decision, then it is possible I could come to a decision to vote for Amy Klobuchar to avoid what I distill as a worse threat from Trump. I don’t consider it abdicating my responsibility. I consider it living up to my responsibility. That’s all I claim.