Who will you be supporting in the U.S. presidential election with our Catholic values in mind?

Status
Not open for further replies.
drcube said:
Always been against adultery, so it may be going on for a long time, but it’s still an evil that results in many abortions and I will not support a political candidate that is an adulterer.
Click to expand...
Rather support millions of real killings than the theoretical possibility that the relationship of a person who married his partner in adultery might have resulted in abortion. We understand.
 
Just because someone votes for a candidate who thinks the current laws on abortion should remain doesn’t mean the voter supports abortion.

I am fully against all abortions, yet realize that without a Constitutional Amendment, it will remain legal in this country. Nothing a politician can do about it.
 
pnewton said:
the Church does not teach that we are to be single issue voters
Click to expand...
No. Nor did I make that claim. What Pope Benedict said was:

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

Tell us what your “proportionate reasons” are to the deliberate killing of millions of children per year, so we can make the comparison.
 
farronwolf said:
Just because someone votes for a candidate who thinks the current laws on abortion should remain doesn’t mean the voter supports abortion.

I am fully against all abortions, yet realize that without a Constitutional Amendment, it will remain legal in this country. Nothing a politician can do about it.
Click to expand...
Ah, the Dem counsel of despair.

Of course there’s something a politician can do about it. Lots of them have in the states. Trump has in the appointment of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and 150 other federal judges. Why do you think the Dems attacked Kavanaugh so viciously? They were afraid he might vote to overturn Roe. And that’s also why they are so viciously attacking Trump. They’re afraid he’ll appoint more of them.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Rather support millions of real killings than the theoretical possibility that the relationship of a person who married his partner in adultery might have resulted in abortion. We understand.
Click to expand...
There isn’t a political solution to abortion at this point. The older generation of pro-life advocates assured that when they tied themselves to the Republican Party and then let that party act in a way that many consider to be racist and misogynist.

The issue needs to be addressed other ways, such as pushing forth sexual morality so that fewer abortions happen. Now, if you seriously think that Trump had one affair, then that’s another data point for readers when considering your ability to actually distinguish facts and draw opinions from those facts.
 
Ridgerunner said:
what your “proportionate reasons” are to the deliberate killing of millions of children per year
Click to expand...
The fatal flaw in this line of thinking has been pointed out to you many times.

The "reasons must be “proportionate” measured against the reality reducing abortion, not against some theoretical idea: professing a pro-life posture does actually eliminate the killing “millions of children per year”. Neither Trump, nor any Republican Congress leaders have done anything that would have the effect of eliminating of killing “millions of children per year”. The standard is fake.
 
Last edited:
drcube said:
There isn’t a political solution to abortion at this point. The older generation of pro-life advocates assured that when they tied themselves to the Republican Party and then let that party act in a way that many consider to be racist and misogynist.

The issue needs to be addressed other ways, such as pushing forth sexual morality so that fewer abortions happen. Now, if you seriously think that Trump had one affair, then that’s another data point for readers when considering your ability to actually distinguish facts and draw opinions from those facts.
Click to expand...
Prove Trump’s affairs, other than the one with the woman he later married. If you can’t, you’re just slandering the man for political reasons.

You might want to prove the preposterous assertion about the “older generation” of prolife advocates. At one time, there were Dem prolife advocates too. Not anymore of course.

And let’s see the proof of racism and misogyny. Just saying “many consider” (i.e. you) think it doesn’t mean it’s so.

Yes, Democrats have been pushing “sexual morality” for decades while simultaneously pushing the killing of millions of children. Do you really think anyone who sees the Democrats pushing that slaughter really think anything of “sexual morality”? Many Nazis, I understand, were kind to animals.
drcube said:
if you seriously think that Trump had one affair
Click to expand...
I have no idea. Neither do you.
 
And how many of the laws that states have recently passed making abortion very restrictive have been upheld in the courts? How many of them have been struck down?
 
I don’t have a count, but there have been many of them. Possibly one of the clearest was the enactment allowing state banning of partial birth abortion. Ultimately it went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld states’ rights to ban the practice. In voting on that decision, every Republican appointee voted for the ban. Every Democrat appointee voted against it.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Possibly one of the clearest was the enactment allowing state banning of partial birth abortion. Ultimately it went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld states’ rights to ban the practice. In voting on that decision, every Republican appointee voted for the ban. Every Democrat appointee voted against it.
Click to expand...
What decision are you talking about? It sounds like you are talking about Carhart.

But that was not a state law but a federal one.
The law did not ban “partial birth abortions”, but a type of procedure used in late term. leqving others available.
The law was upheld in a 5-4 vote. Two of the dissenting judges were nominated by Republican Presidents.

In the year, the SCOTUS has declined to support restrictive state laws.


Loading…

www.reuters.com
 
Last edited:
Those people who want to cut through the misrepresentations might want to read this:

Loading…

supreme.justia.com

In fact, it would be reasonable to read the case itself. Google “550 U.S. 124” and read it. It reversed some lower courts, and by affirming a federal enactment, allowed states to ban partial birth abortion. The justices who voted for that were all of the Republican appointees. All the Democrats voted against allowing states to ban partial birth abortion. One important thing, perhaps the most important one, is seeing how pro-abortion Democrat appointees really are.

Alternatively, you can see it here.

Loading…

case-law.vlex.com

Read the case. You’ll see.
 
Remember, if you vote for a Democrat for president, you’re voting for the appointment of Supreme Court justices who will be pro-abortion. They always are now, just like the Dem senators and representatives are.
 
Last edited:
Because of the nature of lifetime appointments, Supreme Court Justices have often departed from the precise ideology of the one who appointed them and made their decisions based on the merits of each case presented to them. This is by design by the founding fathers. Therefore we can never know for sure how any Supreme Court appointee will vote on any specific case until that case comes up and they render their decision. Voting for a candidate based on specific outcomes one expects from specific cases is iffy at best.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Those people who want to cut through the misrepresentations might want to read this:
Click to expand...
Indeed, thanks for the link.
… Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Act) to proscribe a particular method of ending fetal life in the later stages of pregnancy. [emphasis added]
Click to expand...
It was argued that the law was overly broad, but the court ruled against that idea holding that the law was specific to intact D&E.
 
Just a reminder that Pope Francis and the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have said that we must not be single-issue voters. It seems that just about every time that politics is being discussed here some always resort to the same line: abortion. Yes, abortion is very important to counter, but it’s not the only thing that involves the issues of Catholic moral teachings.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Therefore we can never know for sure how any Supreme Court appointee will vote on any specific case until that case comes up and they render their decision.
Click to expand...
Except that every Dem appointee is pro-abortion. At some point we have to admit that. It’s always a pretty fair sign when NARAL endorses someone and NRL doesn’t or vice versa.
 
Metis1 said:
Just a reminder that Pope Francis and the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have said that we must not be single-issue voters
Click to expand...
I don’t think they ever said it was okay to vote against murdering children even if that was your reason. Maybe you can give me the quote where they said it’s okay to vote for child-killing in order to accomplish other things they named.

Otherwise, “Proportionate” is still the rule. What do you think is “proportionate” enough to justify supporting abortion?
 
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Therefore we can never know for sure how any Supreme Court appointee will vote on any specific case until that case comes up and they render their decision.
Click to expand...
Except that every Dem appointee is pro-abortion…
Click to expand...
As I said, you never know for sure how they are going to vote once they are confirmed for life. And that goes for the conservative appointees too.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
As I said, you never know for sure how they are going to vote once they are confirmed for life. And that goes for the conservative appointees too.
Click to expand...
Seems never to fail in the case of Democrats. But then, they’re vetted by NARAL, so of course they’re pro-abortion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top