Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

[wow]

Mat 19:24 And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mar 10:25 It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Luk 18:25 For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Mat 19:24 And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mar 10:25 It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Luk 18:25 For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Especially if he’s running on a pro-abortion ticket.

 

[mikew262]

The economy is tanking right now…after most of Bush’s policy choices have been enacted. What are we to conclude? That it’s Clinton’s fault?

And am I biased? Absolutely. I used to be a dittohead and am totally appalled at what it resulted in. I don’t deny it. At least I’m honest about that.

The economy is not tanking; you’re believing too much of the liberal press. It’s simply making an adjustment. I listened to a economist the other day on the radio who basically said the same thing. The stock market has simply made an adjustment; it’s been up now a couple of days in row. Unemployment is only 5%. Inflation is well under control. Interest rates are low.

The mortgage business has been overplayed in the press. Over 95% of mortgage holders still pay their mortgages on time. Yes, there has been an increase in foreclosures, but some unscrupulous bankers and people who don’t read the fine print on their loan are mostly to blame for that.

If you want an example of an economy that was tanked. Look at the Jimmy Carter years. 20% interest rates, 10% unemployment, etc.

You can maybe blame Bush for a # of things, but the economy is not one of them.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

How much more do you want to tax the wealthy?

Actually, I’m for a graduated tax structure.

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.

This is a common talking point but I’ve never seen proof of it.

Even if it’s true, do the top 5% rake in 50% of the total income? Additionally, why are capital gains taxed at a different rate than income from labor? Seems to me we are subsidizing the wealthy.

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.

The estate tax is not a tax on the person who died, it’s a tax on the transfer from the original owner to the receipients. It doesn’t even apply to estates valuing less than $2,000,000.

Who do you think drives the economy? Newsflash! Its the wealthy and corporations.

Nonsense. It’s the middle class and the poor who spend, as a group, most of the money in the economy.

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.

Cut taxes on the middle class, where it’s needed most. That’s fine.

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

I’ve yet to see good evidence of this.

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.

Economics from 100 years ago? Wasn’t that the Gilded Age, a time of massive wealth gap and little to no middle class? Is THAT what you want to go back to? Ewww!

 

[rpp]

This thread makes me feel so sad. One can only feel sympathy for those who have clearly suffered very serious head injuries.

http://bestsmileys.com/darwin/1.gif

 

[LCMS_No_More]

The economy is not tanking; you’re believing too much of the liberal press. It’s simply making an adjustment. I listened to a economist the other day on the radio who basically said the same thing. The stock market has simply made an adjustment; it’s been up now a couple of days in row. Unemployment is only 5%. Inflation is well under control. Interest rates are low.

Inflation is “under control” because the things that have been increasing in cost drastically (fuel and food costs) have been removed from the formula. Fuel costs more than twice what it did eight years ago and my grocery bills keep getting higher and higher. Eggs and milk both cost almost double what they cost only a couple years ago.

 

[blossom02]

Do people understand the concept of the lesser of two evils?

Would you vote for the murder of 100,000 Babies
or
Would you vote for 5,000 adults killed in war?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Do people understand the concept of the lesser of two evils?

Would you vote for the murder of 100,000 Babies
or
Would you vote for 5,000 adults killed in war?

As a Catholic, I don’t do either/or. I say neither.

 

[dmelosi]

Do people understand the concept of the lesser of two evils?

Would you vote for the murder of 100,000 Babies
or
Would you vote for 5,000 adults killed in war?

I know blossom, should be very easy to understand, but many go to extremes to ease their conscience.

 

[wow]

As a Catholic, I don’t do either/or. I say neither.

I agree.

 

[anthony022071]

I am curious, why would a Catholic vote for a prochoice canidate? Do they not see abortion as evil?

Part of it has to do with the way that many people think of themselves as being Catholic.
A lot of people call themselves Catholic simply because they were born into a household that attended Catholic church services,not because they are really “in communion” with the Church and its teachings.
So being Catholic,for many people,is simply family heritage,like being Irish. But there’s no commitment involved with their being Catholic.
It doesn’t occur to many Catholics that true Catholics take heed of the teachings of the pope and magisterium.

 

[dmelosi]

As a Catholic, I don’t do either/or. I say neither.

I don’t of any Catholic that would, but that was not the point and I am sure you know that.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I don’t of any Catholic that would, but that was not the point and I am sure you know that.

Actually, in the last Presidential election, many made exactly that choice and they are denizens of this very forum.

I bowed out and voted “none of the above.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, in the last Presidential election, many made exactly that choice and they are denizens of this very forum.

I bowed out and voted “none of the above.”

To paraphrase Kipling:

After the fight at Otterburn, before the ravens came
The witch-wife rode across the fern and called dead Percy’s name
"Stand up, stand up Northumberland. Stand up and tell me true
“If ever ye dealt in blade and brand, how went the fray with you?”

“Hither and yon,” the Percy said, “as every fight must go
For some they fought, and some they fled
And some struck ne’er a blow.”

To do nothing is neither herioc nor meritorious.

 

[RobbyS]

Exactly right, Vern.

Not voting isn’t a good option.

One-issue voting isn’t a good option either, methinks, unless the candidates are otherwise equal (and that’s rarely the case).

Hypothetically, let’s say we’ve got a far right wingnut who wants to nuke Iraq, but is “pro-life” (ironic, no?) vs. a “pro-choice” lefty who would work for peace (also ironic, yes?).

Clearly, two evil choices. One of them is going to get elected in this hypothetical situation. Do you let the rest of our secular society choose or make your vote heard?

We have to ask what is objectively the greater evil, the “nuking” of Iran or the abortion of a child. But I think you are dragging in a strreaw man, because how likely are we going to get to choose between a man who WILL nuke Iran and a man who will not? On the other hand, every day we get to choose between men who will vote for free abortions and the man who will not. War may seem to you the greatest of evils, but any read of the “Screwtape Letters,” will see a different view, and Lewis was a combat veteran of the Great War, who had seen the evil that war can do. I hate the "seamless garment approach, because it is essentially dishonest. Who can deny that the execution of a convicted murderer by the state is not as vicious an act as a mother’s cold-blooded decision to kill her child?

 

[PLAL]

Vern,

I still have to disagree with your promoting of “voting the lessor of two evils”. Here are some points I want to make…

1. We have been voting “lessor of two evils” for 35 years now and Abortion still is legal!
2. I think we have to redefine victory in a election. You define it as the “lessor of two evils” candidate must win. I define it as a good percentage of the voters need to support a 100% Pro-Life candidate across the board. This will show both parties in future elections we will not compromise our Pro-Life principles ever again.
3. Your way tries to restrict the number of abortions done in America. I want to end it period. By the way, partial birth abortions are still going on & we now have a presidential candidate who is Pro-Infanticide.

In the end we all want the same outcome. I think you and many others are going about it the wrong way. I gaurantee you if people keep voting “the lessor of two evils”, abortion will never end.

The politicians will just keep throwing you the usual bone and Abortion will always be legal.

 

[seekerz]

In the end we all want the same outcome. I think you and many others are going about it the wrong way. I gaurantee you if people keep voting “the lessor of two evils”, abortion will never end.

The politicians will just keep throwing you the usual bone and Abortion will always be legal.

And somehow politicians taking steps to make abortion illegal will bring and end to a practice that preceded Roe v. Wade by many centuries (probably even by several millenia)?

The only answer to the culture of death is evangelization - as long as people are not committed to Christ, they can never be truly committed to life in all it’s fullness.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We have to ask what is objectively the greater evil, the “nuking” of Iran or the abortion of a child. But I think you are dragging in a strreaw man, because how likely are we going to get to choose between a man who WILL nuke Iran and a man who will not? On the other hand, every day we get to choose between men who will vote for free abortions and the man who will not. War may seem to you the greatest of evils, but any read of the “Screwtape Letters,” will see a different view, and Lewis was a combat veteran of the Great War, who had seen the evil that war can do. I hate the "seamless garment approach, because it is essentially dishonest. Who can deny that the execution of a convicted murderer by the state is not as vicious an act as a mother’s cold-blooded decision to kill her child?

I think we must take a risk management approach – we must rate the probability and the consequences.

What is the probability of any president ordering a nuclear attack on Iran at whim? Very small.

What is the probability of continued abortion? Almost certainty.

What are the consequences of a nuclear attack on Iran? Very grave.

What are the consequences of continued abortion? Graver still.

Clearly, abortion, both in terms of certainty and loss of innocent life is the greater risk.

 

[mikew262]

Actually, I’m for a graduated tax structure.

This is a common talking point but I’ve never seen proof of it.

Even if it’s true, do the top 5% rake in 50% of the total income? Additionally, why are capital gains taxed at a different rate than income from labor? Seems to me we are subsidizing the wealthy.

The estate tax is not a tax on the person who died, it’s a tax on the transfer from the original owner to the receipients. It doesn’t even apply to estates valuing less than $2,000,000.

Nonsense. It’s the middle class and the poor who spend, as a group, most of the money in the economy.

Cut taxes on the middle class, where it’s needed most. That’s fine.

I’ve yet to see good evidence of this.

Economics from 100 years ago? Wasn’t that the Gilded Age, a time of massive wealth gap and little to no middle class? Is THAT what you want to go back to? Ewww!

• Proof of %s what taxpayers pay: IRS
• Estate Tax: Dems have their way, there will be no exclusion. It’s an unfair tax on success.
• Your middle class and poor spend more comment? Nonsense back at you. They buy consumables and low tickets items mainly; surely they contribute to the economy, but in a minor way. The wealthy and corporations are the main drivers.

Pls crack a economics book and do some research vs. reading media reports or liberal websites. Then report back.

 

[vern_humphrey]

• Proof of %s what taxpayers pay: IRS
• Estate Tax: Dems have their way, there will be no exclusion. It’s an unfair tax on success.
• Your middle class and poor spend more comment? Nonsense back at you. They buy consumables and low tickets items mainly; surely they contribute to the economy, but in a minor way. The wealthy and corporations are the main drivers.

Pls crack a economics book and do some research vs. reading media reports or liberal websites. Then report back.

I think it’s only fair to point out that he admits doesn’t understand economics.