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

[pnewton]

It doesn’t, but in any event, it does isolate the reasons why a person would support one candidate over another, all other things being equal.

The problem is that last phrase, “all things being equal.” People are very seldom equal to another. I asked for reasons. I gave a whole slew of them. You countered each, and I will not argue back and forth none, as each would need a whole lot of dialogue, something that is not happening here. The point remains, single-issue voting is not that simple, at least for me, or for most. Yet even taking a more holistic view of morality, I still have not been able to vote for a Democrat for President, though I did not vote for Trump.

I would like to be able to vote for a solid Republican candidate, and will, when there is one nominated. I will vote for someone else in the primary.

 

[Feanor2]

Um. . . Trumptrain.

I think you have inadvertently repeated your posts.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And we’re talking about the US in this thread. Which do you think is more relevant in discussing how to lower abortions in the US, data from the US or data from the entire world?

If sex by unmarried people is NOT the greatest cause of abortion worldwide, which it manifestly isn’t, then there’s nothing about being unmarried that makes one more vulnerable to it. There is no reason to think otherwise. Certainly, you have not offered any.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I still have not been able to vote for a Democrat for President

That’s progress, at least.

 

[pnewton]

LOL Progress? I have said that as long as CAF has been here. I probably have voted as you did many times, just from a much more circuitous route.

Hey, if I would understand the bumper sticker, “You can’t be Catholic and support abortion,” but not the one, “You can’t be Catholic and a Democrat.” I see the difference between the two.

Anyway, have a blessed day.

 

[drcube]

If sex by unmarried people is NOT the greatest cause of abortion worldwide, which it manifestly isn’t, then there’s nothing about being unmarried that makes one more vulnerable to it. There is no reason to think otherwise. Certainly, you have not offered any.

You are coming to the wrong conclusion. If there is a vast difference in the statistics, it suggests there is something different about the US than the rest of the world. That is, in the US, the major cause of abortion can be sex outside of the marriage, but that isn’t true in the rest of the world. As such, I think we should focus on the US and how sex outside of marriage results in abortions, as is statistically proven and whether the Republican party truly believes in sexual morality given their leader.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

pnewton:

Another would be the likelihood of starting an unjust war

No war in this century or the last half of the last century has even come close to the death rate abortion has caused in this country alone. Not proportionate. And the Church has never declared any of them “unjust”.

There is a flaw in your calculation. Deaths in an unjust war are caused by the leaders that makes the decision to go to war. Deaths from abortion are not like that. The cause of the death in abortion is the women who make the decision and the people around them who coerce them into doing it and the doctors that actually perform the act. They are the primary cause. The government is a secondary cause when they allow it. There is still culpability on the part of the government, but it is not the same level of culpability as when the government takes an action that is deliberately causes the evil effect. Combine this with the fact very few people who are pro-choice also promote abortion as a good. They are still culpable, but not on the same level as when a person deliberately chooses an evil and causes it. These factors enter into the calculation of proportionality when making this decision. And finally, the calculation is a personal one. The Church does not specify the formula (as in counting up the number of dead bodies, as you have done.) The Church wisely leaves that determination to the prudential judgement of the faithful. One of the key features of prudential judgement is the individual members of the Church may disagree with each other, sometimes quite strongly, and both of them remain in communion with the Church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That is, in the US, the major cause of abortion can be sex outside of the marriage, but that isn’t true in the rest of the world.

A total guess, based on nothing at all.

As such, I think we should focus on the US and how sex outside of marriage results in abortions, as is statistically proven and whether the Republican party truly believes in sexual morality given their leader

Nobody believes in adultery except perhaps Bill Clinton. I realize you are just dying to make Trump guilty of abortion, at least conceptually, but you’re just not getting it done. Why not accuse him of something for which there is some scintilla of evidence?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Deaths in an unjust war are caused by the leaders that makes the decision to go to war. Deaths from abortion are not like that. The cause of the death in abortion is the women who make the decision and the people around them who coerce them into doing it and the doctors that actually perform the act. They are the primary cause. The government is a secondary cause when they allow it.

And you feel okay supporting what you consider the “secondary cause” of abortion?

very few people who are pro-choice also promote abortion as a good. They are still culpable

Agreed.

And finally, the calculation is a personal one

This is Protestantism, not Catholicism.

The Church wisely leaves that determination to the prudential judgement of the faithful. One of the key features of prudential judgement is the individual members of the Church may disagree with each other, sometimes quite strongly, and both of them remain in communion with the Church.

Obviously, Pope Benedict disagreed with you, but since you regard the morality or immorality of abortion as a matter of personal conscience only, this is not surprising.

 

[drcube]

A total guess, based on nothing at all.

It’s based on data.

15% of abortions are performed on married women in the US.
72% of abortions are performed on married women worldwide.

Nobody believes in adultery except perhaps Bill Clinton.

Oh, good slam on Bill Clinton. That certainly adds weight to your argument.

I realize you are just dying to make Trump guilty of abortion, at least conceptually, but you’re just not getting it done. Why not accuse him of something for which there is some scintilla of evidence?

The behavior of men like Trump results in abortions. You seem to want to blame Democrats for all abortions while not holding those who act with sexual immorality responsible in the least. And that’s why younger people won’t take your pro-life arguments seriously.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Deaths in an unjust war are caused by the leaders that makes the decision to go to war. Deaths from abortion are not like that. The cause of the death in abortion is the women who make the decision and the people around them who coerce them into doing it and the doctors that actually perform the act. They are the primary cause. The government is a secondary cause when they allow it.

And you feel okay supporting what you consider the “secondary cause” of abortion?

Of course not. But no matter who I vote for there is going to be something about that person that does not make me feel good.

very few people who are pro-choice also promote abortion as a good. They are still culpable

Agreed.

And finally, the calculation is a personal one

This is Protestantism, not Catholicism.

You are incorrect if you think that Catholicism allows for no personal calculations in prudential judgments. For example, the Church teaches that the faithful have a responsibility to offer financial support for to the Church. The the calculation exactly how much I should donate is a personal one, not dictated by the Church. Another example is that the Church teaches that attendance at Sunday mass is mandatory, unless for good reason, such as sickness. But the Church does not specify exactly what temperature of fever a person must have, or any other specific measure of sickness. That is another calculation that the Church - the Catholic Church - leaves to the prudential judgement of the faithful. Since the Church has not specified how “proportionate” is to be calculated when voting for a legislator or an executive, that too is left to the prudential judgment of the faithful.

The Church wisely leaves that determination to the prudential judgement of the faithful. One of the key features of prudential judgement is the individual members of the Church may disagree with each other, sometimes quite strongly, and both of them remain in communion with the Church.

Obviously, Pope Benedict disagreed with you…

Not so obvious. It is your claim that you have not supported.

, but since you regard the morality or immorality of abortion as a matter of personal conscience only,

I did not say that, and your rudeness of deliberately misstating my position is noted.

 

[JimG]

I wonder. Does the Church teach that a million abortions every year is the lesser of evils? A million dead innocents each year is something we have to learn to live with?

 

[dvdjs]

Does the Church teach that a million abortions every year is the lesser of evils?

Lesser among which evils?

More to the point:
How has the trend in the number of abortions chaged in repose to voting in one party or another since RvW?

 

[JimG]

What I remember is that even after RvW, many state legislatures tried to pass laws placing restrictions on abortion: parental consent for minors, restrictions on types of abortions, prohibition of partial birth abortion and many others. Democrat appointed judges overturned those regulations. It has been a state by state battle going on for decades, and it was always Democrats along with Planned Parenthood fighting for no restrictions and pro-life activists fighting to reduce abortions, and Roe v Wade working along with Democrats to cause more and more abortion, and Democrats vociferously opposing judges for the Federal bench or SCOTUS who might be pro-life. Finding a Democrat to oppose abortion used to be a rarity, not its nearly an impossibility.

 

[marybobo]

More and more supposition. Not you, specifically, but in general, this is very boring. If one cannot justify their OPINION with facts, one should quell the desire to comment at all.

 

[drcube]

More and more supposition. Not you, specifically, but in general, this is very boring. If one cannot justify their OPINION with facts, one should quell the desire to comment at all.

I have provided facts. It is interesting that you think facts are opinions and might I suggest that, if you find this very boring (not me, of course, but since you decided to respond to my post and call this very boring, I feel free to give you this advice), go read something else.

 

[dvdjs]

What I remember …

… seems not to have to do with the number of abortions

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of course not. But no matter who I vote for there is going to be something about that person that does not make me feel good.

It is good to hear that killing millions does not make you feel good.

You are incorrect if you think that Catholicism allows for no personal calculations in prudential judgments

Never said that. But it does not allow for making moral judgments against or notwithstanding the teachings of the Church.

Another example is that the Church teaches that attendance at Sunday mass is mandatory, unless for good reason, such as sickness.

Not applicable. What churchman has ever said elective abortion is okay under any circumstance other than as a secondary and unintended effect to a medical treatment to save the life of the mother?

 

[Willing_Spirit]

Nothing can be done to immediately eliminate abortion. Our government is setup with checks and balances, all sorts of lengthy processes. Republicans have for the most part worked towards eliminating abortion only to be set back when a Democrat is elected.

Even if it were true that Republicans have done nothing to eliminate abortion, it is certainly true that Democrats do all they can to lessen restrictions and make abortion more commonplace even to the point of advocating infanticide for some candidates. I don’t think there is an argument to be made for voting for pro-choice candidates.

 

[dvdjs]

Republicans have for the most part worked towards eliminating abortion only to be set back

That is myth. Republicans may virtue signal, some with around the margins, making a show of passing unconstitutional legislation, and defundindg most anything that goes to people who voted against them. But they haven’t made a heavy lift to move the needle.