Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter deb1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven’t read all the posts on this thread, so at the risk of rehashing stuff I suggest the following possible answers to the title question:
  1. I don’t believe (correct me if I’m wrong) that any candidate actually holds to the Catholic position. I believe all would allow abortion at least in the 2 instances of (a) incest and (b) life-threatening concerns of the mother.
  2. Since no candidate holds the Catholic position, the door opens to consider other issues along with their position on abortion.
While I agree that, if a candidate held the Catholic position, it would be non-negotiable to not vote for all opposed to to the Catholic position, that situation simply doesn’t exist - that I am aware of.

Note, that another answer could depend on what you mean by the shorthand “pro-choice”. If by “pro-choice” you mean someone actively in favor of a “right” to abortion, then you would, IMHO, have a hard time justifying a vote for that person absent the situation in 1 and 2, above. However, if a candidate actually were affirmatively anti-abortion in all situations (i.e., held the Catholic position) but was “pro-choice” only in his/her positions on the applicable civil prohibition (say, he didn’t believe it should be criminalized, or criminalized as a misdemeanor rather than a felony, etc., in the effort to stop it - it’s not a “right” per se, but the proper civil response to reduce the incidence long term is not the exercise of the police power or is a limited exercise of that power), that could provide a basis for voting for him. Perhaps in the absence of anyone else who held the Catholic position, he might be the only candidate one could vote for! There would be considerations of what is the proper role of a civil servant in using his position to stop abortion, but it would, at least, muddy the water. Generally, the Church has no particular competence in civil matters, i.e., defining a required civil response to moral injustice - noting, however, that certain civil actions of themselves could be immoral - and in which the Church would then have competence to intrude. I note this is the position many Catholic candidates try to enunciate, but mess up.

In any event, it’s possible given the dearth of candidates holding the Catholic position.
 
johnnykins said:
  1. I don’t believe (correct me if I’m wrong) that any candidate actually holds to the Catholic position. I believe all would allow abortion at least in the 2 instances of (a) incest and (b) life-threatening concerns of the mother.
Click to expand...
Would you admint there is a difference between a candidate who would only allow abortion in those two instances, and one who would allow it in all instances – and pay for it with taxpayer money?
johnnykins said:
  1. Since no candidate holds the Catholic position, the door opens to consider other issues along with their position on abortion.
Click to expand...
We’ll never have a perfect candidate, so our duty is to vote for the best of those who are running. And then to get off our butts and see that next time we have better candidates.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
When the system is designed to move money from the middle class and poor to the rich, absolutely.

Feelings are irrelevant.

Indeed? Have you ever read this?

A Day in the Life of Joe Republican

A story floating around the internet…

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans.

The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”
Click to expand...
:sleep:
 
vern_humphrey said:
Would you admint there is a difference between a candidate who would only allow abortion in those two instances, and one who would allow it in all instances – and pay for it with taxpayer money?
Click to expand...
yes
We’ll never have a perfect candidate, so our duty is to vote for the best of those who are running. And then to get off our butts and see that next time we have better candidates.
Click to expand...
and that’s why the issue is complex - who is “best”?

I know the point you’re going to make next, Vern, i.e., when does the matter abortion for incest only etc get outweighed, if it is at all possible to be outweighed, by other issues? I’m not trying to answer that. I simply am trying to respond the the title question.
 
johnnykins said:
yes

and that’s why the issue is complex - who is “best”?

I know the point you’re going to make next, Vern, i.e., when does the matter abortion for incest only etc get outweighed, if it is at all possible to be outweighed, by other issues? I’m not trying to answer that. I simply am trying to respond the the title question.
Click to expand...
It is it possible to vote for a Nazi, with the stink of the crematoria in your nostrils? We have killed four times as many innocent human beings as the Nazis did.

If there is no candidate who wants to completely eliminate abortion, vote for a candidate who wants to reduce this holocaust. Given the rate of abortion, even a tiny reduction will save many lives.
 
vern_humphrey said:
It is it possible to vote for a Nazi, with the stink of the crematoria in your nostrils?
Click to expand...
You might want to ask the good people of Austria who voted for Waldheim, not me. In any event, the point is, to use your own comparison, ALL THE CANDIDATES ARE NAZIS WITH THE STINK OF THE CREMATORIUM IN OUR NOSTRILS
We have killed four times as many innocent human beings as the Nazis did.
Click to expand...
If there is no candidate who wants to completely eliminate abortion, vote for a candidate who wants to reduce this holocaust. Given the rate of abortion, even a tiny reduction will save many lives.
Click to expand...
I guess you’re OK with voting for the “good” Nazis? What does that say?
 
What if the candidate wanted to eliminate abortion without criminalizing it - is that OK? Especially if they are opposed to all abortion.
 
Hey Vern! Today is Friday and its Super Bow Weekend! (No Packers though 😦 ). What time ya gonna let class out, or are ya gonna hang around as long someone needs schooling? 😃

My wife sez I gotta go to the store for some stuff, (SB party) but I told her I was afraid I might miss sumptin.
 
johnnykins said:
You might want to ask the good people of Austria who voted for Waldheim, not me. In any event, the point is, to use your own comparison, ALL THE CANDIDATES ARE NAZIS WITH THE STINK OF THE CREMATORIUM IN OUR NOSTRILS
I guess you’re OK with voting for the “good” Nazis? What does that say?
Click to expand...
What’s your alternative?

We – that is, you and I – failed to work hard enough. We failed to get involved early enough. We allowed other people to select our candidates for us.

This mess is our fault. Now, how do you propose to clean it up?
 
johnnykins said:
What if the candidate wanted to eliminate abortion without criminalizing it - is that OK? Especially if they are opposed to all abortion.
Click to expand...
That would represent a step in the right direction, no? Why would that not be OK?
 
BamaRider said:
Hey Vern! Today is Friday and its Super Bow Weekend! (No Packers though 😦 ). What time ya gonna let class out, or are ya gonna hang around as long someone needs schooling? 😃

My wife sez I gotta go to the store for some stuff, (SB party) but I told her I was afraid I might miss sumptin.
Click to expand...
You won’t miss anything – I’ve hauled two round bales of hay (1500 lbs) 15 miles for my horses, and felled and cut up two big dead trees today – gotta have the fireplace going, you know – and plan to enjoy the snow…😃
 
vern_humphrey said:
What’s your alternative?

We – that is, you and I – failed to work hard enough. We failed to get involved early enough. We allowed other people to select our candidates for us.

This mess is our fault. Now, how do you propose to clean it up?
Click to expand...
I do believe we are in agreement, yet again. We’re going to have to stop meeting like this 🙂

My proposal to clean it up:
#1-8 prayer
#9 proper catechesis
#10 prayerful exercise of our franchise consistent with our best understanding of the issues after prayer and proper catechesis.
 
johnnykins said:
I do believe we are in agreement, yet again. We’re going to have to stop meeting like this 🙂

My proposal to clean it up:
#1-8 prayer
#9 proper catechesis
#10 prayerful exercise of our franchise consistent with our best understanding of the issues after prayer and proper catechesis.
Click to expand...
How about:
  • Joining political organizations?
  • Working our way to positions of influence?
  • Recruiting and backing candidates who are more in tune with Ctholic morality?
  • Raising money for those candidates and volunteering for their campaigns?
 
vern_humphrey said:
How about:
  • Joining political organizations?
  • Working our way to positions of influence?
  • Recruiting and backing candidates who are more in tune with Ctholic morality?
  • Raising money for those candidates and volunteering for their campaigns?
Click to expand...
of course - as well as working to change the hearts and minds of the general population. It’s just that the 10 steps above are, IMHO, a necessary, and sadly largely overlooked, prerequisite.
 
johnnykins said:
of course - as well as working to change the hearts and minds of the general population. It’s just that the 10 steps above are, IMHO, a necessary, and sadly largely overlooked, prerequisite.
Click to expand...
Yes – but we are expected to work as well as pray. And to fix the mess we’re in, we’ll need a lot of both.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
Of course, it’s not what happens. It’s more like, “what can I do to help corporations and rich people get more powerful and rich?” The poor and middle class don’t even enter their minds, except, perhaps, as the rabble and lowborn.
Click to expand...
How much more do you want to tax the wealthy? If I remember this correctly (IRS figures), the top 5% of wage earners already pay more than 50% of the taxes. The bottom 50% don’t pay any at all. The Estate tax taxes money that was already taxed when it was earned. Yet, the Democrats want to bring the estate tax back. Sure, punish somebody who has happened to make a good life for himself and wants to pass it on.

Who do you think drives the economy? Newsflash! Its the wealthy and corporations. The more you tax, the less buying and spending power they have. The less you take, the more they spend and buy and make and that drives the economy.

The tax cuts of 2003 have brought in more revenue than before the cuts.

BTW, I was a economics major in college, and while thats about 100 yrs ago, I still remember a little bit. I’m also a member of the middle class, but I can see through the Democrat smoke screens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top