Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[estesbob]

Well I suppose you mean back to the Fifties without all the lynching and denial of civil rights for those of us blessed with a little extra melanin in our skin, right?

And the party in the 50s that was supporting denying civil rights and lynching of blacks now supports the slaughter of 400,000 black children a year. They were on the wrong side of history then and now on the wrong side of history now. Democrat Party policies on abortion have killed more blacks than all the white supremacy groups in history put together.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Demonstrably false. And it is been refuted so many times one wonders why people continue to post this falsehood. In fact the only people who think Republicans have not done anything to limit abortion are allegedly pro-life Democrats trying to rationalize their support of abortion

While it maybe an opinion, it is not false. I have posted examples that I base my opinion on.

Next, it is FALSE to accuse someone of supporting abortion because they do not agree with a ‘single party’ to ‘save’ us. That is an old tactic that simply does not fly, with me at least.

It is foolhardy to put your trust into any human, especially based on a political affiliation.

You are sorely mistaken if you believe the church does not explicitly condemn support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand . You are also sorely mistaken if you do not believe that this is not a core tenet of the Democrat Party Pat platform As far as Supreme Court justices go your point is totally irrelevant .The fact that not every judge appointed to the Supreme Court by Republican has turned out to be pro-life does not give a Catholic free reign to support a pro-abortion politician.

Another false statement. Please show me anywhere that I said the Church does not explicitly condemn support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand.

Almost my entire lifetime I’ve seen republican appointed justices on the bench. How long am I supposed to believe, we only need ‘one’ more? After a while it seems like common sense that someone is getting played, and I don’t like being played, or pandered too as someone put it.

I don’t know. But again why does it matter? We’re talking whether a Catholic can legitimately support a pro-abortion candidate. Are you making the case that a Catholic could not support George Bush? Unless I am mistaken he is not rening in 2012

Actually the topic of discussion is ‘Who will you vote for in 2012?’ I have said I plan on voting for Ron Paul, and that he was the ONLY candidate to attend the right to life rally in Washington, D.C., prior to the last presidential election. It really seems there were other issues that some avoided voting for him to see through.

As for G.W.B., he said he was against abortions, but did nothing to stop the deal with the Chinese who was primarily supplying an abortifacient to the US. Must have been other political motives that outweighed the right to life. I’m sorry, but I’m calling it as I see it. Was I being used, as was a whole bloc of voters?

The only people engaging in partisan politics in this thread are Democrat Catholics trying to rationalize why they can reject the teachings of the Church in favor of their political agenda . Again you have not said a single thing in support of the proposition that a Catholic can legitimately vote for pro-abortion candidate

Political agendas are the cause of all voters, even Republicans. You cannot see in the hearts of anyone who voted in any election, yet you have no problem stating that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is ‘supporting abortion’.

As for who is engaging in partisan politics on this thread, it speaks for itself and the spins are not hiding it.

And the relevance of that vacuous comment to the discussion is?

God is not partisan.

 

[Cider]

Why does every thread on the election have to turn into justification by “catholics” of how they can vote for pro abortion candidates?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why does every thread on the election have to turn into justification by “catholics” of how they can vote for pro abortion candidates?

Spin…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No such thing. Next.

While they are few, there are pro-life Democrats. The ‘single issue’ is not owned by any one political party.

BTW, no one cared to respond to the question. If a pro-life Democrat was running for the office, would you consider that candidate? There are accusations that Democrats ‘hate’ Republicans, but I haven’t seen a response to that question. Is it because some Republicans hate Democrats?

 

[estesbob]

While it maybe an opinion, it is not false. I have posted examples that I base my opinion on.

You have posted only spurious accusations about George Bush funding abortions in China and the fact that not all Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans were pro-life. Totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand

Next, it is FALSE to accuse someone of supporting abortion because they do not agree with a ‘single party’ to ‘save’ us. That is an old tactic that simply does not fly, with me at least.

Nonsense. You vote for somebody who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand your supporting abortion. Can you tell us what issue or combination of issues trumps abortion? Can you show us any place for the church says what issues or combination of issues trump abortion?

It is foolhardy to put your trust into any human, especially based on a political affiliation.

Actually is foolish to claim to be pro-life and vote for pro-abortion candidates and expected somehow that is going to end abortion.

Another false statement. Please show me anywhere that I said the Church does not explicitly condemn support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand.

Sorry-I musnderstood your comment.

Almost my entire lifetime I’ve seen republican appointed justices on the bench. How long am I supposed to believe, we only need ‘one’ more? After a while it seems like common sense that someone is getting played, and I don’t like being played, or pandered too as someone put it.

Again totally irrelevant.

Actually the topic of discussion is ‘Who will you vote for in 2012?’ I have said I plan on voting for Ron Paul, and that he was the ONLY candidate to attend the right to life rally in Washington, D.C., prior to the last presidential election. It really seems there were other issues that some avoided voting for him to see through.

A Catholic can in good conscience vote for Ron Paul.

As for G.W.B., he said he was against abortions, but did nothing to stop the deal with the Chinese who was primarily supplying an abortifacient to the US. Must have been other political motives that outweighed the right to life. I’m sorry, but I’m calling it as I see it. Was I being used, as was a whole bloc of voters?

Again George W. Bush is not running in 2012. However under George W. Bush we did see abortion reaches its lowest level since Roe V Wade was imposed and we did see him sign into law the first restriction on abortion procedure since Roe was imposed. He also reinstituted the Mexico City policy cutting off funding for foreign abortion providers. And appointed two solid pro-life justices United States Supreme Court and many pothers to Federal District courts. he .

Political agendas are the cause of all voters, even Republicans. You cannot see in the hearts of anyone who voted in any election, yet you have no problem stating that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is ‘supporting abortion’.

As for who is engaging in partisan politics on this thread, it speaks for itself and the spins are not hiding it.

God is not partisan.

 

[JimG]

While they are few, there are pro-life Democrats. The ‘single issue’ is not owned by any one political party.

BTW, no one cared to respond to the question. If a pro-life Democrat was running for the office, would you consider that candidate? There are accusations that Democrats ‘hate’ Republicans, but I haven’t seen a response to that question. Is it because some Republicans hate Democrats?

If the Democratic candidate were more pro-life than the GOP candidate I would certainly vote for him or her over a less pro-life candidate, especially if he pledged to appoint pro-life nominees to the US Supreme Court. I don’t expect that to happen though. In view of the firmly pro-abortion stance of the Democratic party platform over the past decades, it is unlikely that a truly pro-life Dem candidate could be nominated.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You have posted only spurious accusations about George Bush funding abortions in China and the fact that not all Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans were pro-life. Totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand

Last time I try to clarify this. The deal was allowed for China to sell abortifacients to the US.

To me voting for the same party that had impact on the supreme court the majority of appointments speaks loudly, and as this turned into the ‘GOP is the only party to be trusted’, it is relevant.

Nonsense. You vote for somebody who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand your supporting abortion. Can you tell us what issue or combination of issues trumps abortion? Can you show us any place for the church says what issues or combination of issues trump abortion?

I have not said I vote for anyone to support abortion, no matter how you spin it. In fact I believe if you read through my posts, you’ll see I said we need to forget party affiliations and start holding individuals accountable.

Again totally irrelevant.

Irrelevant for someone in the mid-fifties to see the majority of justices on the supreme court were appointed by Republicans and then lose trust in Republicans? If you say so, I’m very wary now myself.

A Catholic can in good conscience vote for Ron Paul.

But he was overlooked by a large majority of Republicans last election. Why? What other issues prevented them from supporting him?

Again George W. Bush is not running in 2012. However under George W. Bush we did see abortion reaches its lowest level since Roe V Wade was imposed and we did see him sign into law the first restriction on abortion procedure since Roe was imposed. He also reinstituted the Mexico City policy cutting off funding for foreign abortion providers. And appointed two solid pro-life justices United States Supreme Court and many pothers to Federal District courts. he .

So it was okay for him to allow the deal with the Chinese?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If the Democratic candidate were more pro-life than the GOP candidate I would certainly vote for him or her over a less pro-life candidate, especially if he pledged to appoint pro-life nominees to the US Supreme Court. I don’t expect that to happen though. In view of the firmly pro-abortion stance of the Democratic party platform over the past decades, it is unlikely that a truly pro-life Dem candidate could be nominated.

Our problem is, I don’t see Obama stepping aside for another candidate. My main point was, there are pro-lifers on both sides of the isles. This issue is not own by a single party.

 

[estesbob]

If the Democratic candidate were more pro-life than the GOP candidate I would certainly vote for him or her over a less pro-life candidate, especially if he pledged to appoint pro-life nominees to the US Supreme Court. I don’t expect that to happen though. In view of the firmly pro-abortion stance of the Democratic party platform over the past decades, it is unlikely that a truly pro-life Dem candidate could be nominated.

A situation that is not happened on the presidential level since 1980

 

[mary_bobo]

Our problem is, I don’t see Obama stepping aside for another candidate. My main point was, there are pro-lifers on both sides of the isles. This issue is not own by a single party.

You are correct. Pro-life is not only a label for Republicans. But how many Dems do we know that will buck the far left of their party who happen to be in charge and vote pro-life?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Spin…

Priorities…

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

While they are few, there are pro-life Democrats. The ‘single issue’ is not owned by any one political party.

BTW, no one cared to respond to the question. If a pro-life Democrat was running for the office, would you consider that candidate? There are accusations that Democrats ‘hate’ Republicans, but I haven’t seen a response to that question. Is it because some Republicans hate Democrats?

No, its because there is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat politician. When the rubber meets the road, they all cave in to party politics.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are correct. Pro-life is not only a label for Republicans. But how many Dems do we know that will buck the far left of their party who happen to be in charge and vote pro-life?

Not enough…

We need to pick the BEST pro-life candidate to oppose those in office. Like I said, the other issues distract those who claim a ‘single issue’ from supporting the BEST because they always blame the outcome on the other side. We cannot be divided to begin with and expect our house to stand.

Another point I find interesting is the support Romney seems to be enjoying. Can we support someone whose faith tells him the Catholic Church is in apostasy in the primary?

 

[estesbob]

Not enough…

We need to pick the BEST pro-life candidate to oppose those in office. Like I said, the other issues distract those who claim a ‘single issue’ from supporting the BEST because they always blame the outcome on the other side. We cannot be divided to begin with and expect our house to stand.

Another point I find interesting is the support Romney seems to be enjoying. Can we support someone whose faith tells him the Catholic Church is in apostasy in the primary?

As we saw with the health care vote we must be very very careful about trusting Democrats who say they are pro-life-more often than not they cave in the party pressure when push comes to shove.

At any rate a Catholic can in good conscience support someone who is pro-life regardless of their party affiliation. We’re of course not required to vote for somebody just because they are pro-life -just forbidden to vote for them if they are not.( unless, of course, there opponent is more pro-abortion than they are)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, its because there is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat politician. When the rubber meets the road, they all cave in to party politics.

Well that’s an idea. Let’s further demoralize any Democrat trying to take a stand for right and tell them they will never amount to anything positive. That ought to generate some positive numbers across the board, don’t ya think?

 

[Big_Ro]

And the party in the 50s that was supporting denying civil rights and lynching of blacks now supports the slaughter of 400,000 black children a year. They were on the wrong side of history then and now on the wrong side of history now. Democrat Party policies on abortion have killed more blacks than all the white supremacy groups in history put together.

Have you ever considered decaf?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Well that’s an idea. Let’s further demoralize any Democrat trying to take a stand for right and tell them they will never amount to anything positive. That ought to generate some positive numbers across the board, don’t ya think?

Then maybe if a Democrat politician is truely pro-life, they should look at running as a third party candidate or something if they hate the GOP that much.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As we saw with the health care vote we must be very very careful about trusting Democrats who say they are pro-life-more often than not they cave in the party pressure when push comes to shove.

At any rate a Catholic can in good conscience support someone who is pro-life regardless of their party affiliation. We’re of course not required to vote for somebody just because they are pro-life -just forbidden to vote for them if they are not.( unless, of course, there opponent is more pro-abortion than they are)

Seems Ratzinger didn’t use the word ‘forbidden’.

“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 favor 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.”

The Holy Father didn’t explain proportionate reasons.

The Church teaches to form a faith based conscience and use that to make decisions. It also teaches against anyone ‘forcing’ another to go against their conscience.

No one can see in another person’s heart and we have to have faith. Jesus said the Father knows our needs and to pray the ‘Our Father’. We have to have faith His will is being done and our prayer is being answered, even if we don’t understand it. We should not be losing our Christian charitable tones with others. I think we can agree that is certainly against the Church’s teachings.

 

[estesbob]

Seems Ratzinger didn’t use the word ‘forbidden’.

“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 favor 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.”

The Holy Father didn’t explain proportionate reasons.

The Church teaches to form a faith based conscience and use that to make decisions. It also teaches against anyone ‘forcing’ another to go against their conscience.

No one can see in another person’s heart and we have to have faith. Jesus said the Father knows our needs and to pray the ‘Our Father’. We have to have faith His will is being done and our prayer is being answered, even if we don’t understand it. We should not be losing our Christian charitable tones with others. I think we can agree that is certainly against the Church’s teachings.

To claim a Catholic can vote for pro-abortion candidate when a pro-life alternative is available take such an absolute suspension of belief and/or total ignorance of the teachings of the church I am amazed every time somebody advances the argument.

Hopefully you are not going to advance the argument we see others advance in these forms that it’s okay to support abortion because Jesus never explicitly mentioned it.