Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

[rpp]

RR, Don’t take it personally. SoCalRC, like his archbishop and cardinal like to that with everything, even Church documents. I think that is where he learned it from. He demonstrates that it is possible to lie by making truthful comments. It is an amazing thing to watch how an intellectually dishonest person operates. It is also very sad.

Personally, I would suggest doing what I do, never respond to his comments or engage in dialog with him/her/it.

RR, see what I mean?

 

[SoCalRC]

RR, Don’t take it personally. SoCalRC, like his archbishop and cardinal like to that with everything, even Church documents. I think that is where he learned it from. He demonstrates that it is possible to lie by making truthful comments. It is an amazing thing to watch how an intellectually dishonest person operates. It is also very sad.

Personally, I would suggest doing what I do, never respond to his comments or engage in dialog with him/her/it.

Actually, this would be an example of violating forum rules. But, feeling some level of Christian charity, I never feel compelled to report such mean spirited and juvenile behavior. I just pray for the people doing it.

 

[SoCalRC]

RR, see what I mean?

Yes, Church documents on the subject at hand - written by our current pope and approved by our last, distributed by the US Bishops, must somehow be a ‘lie’, because it does not match what you want to believe. I think I understand perfectly.

 

[vinessa]

Re Ruth Bader Ginzburg? I am astounded you don’t know this. Google it, and you’ll see.

Will do. Confirming that I am looking for Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s advocacy of free, unencumbered homosexual activity allowed at an “age of consent” that she defines as age 12. I’ll let you know what I find.

So, maybe you can clear it up. Do you intend to vote for the pro-abortion candidate, and if so, why?

Ridge, I haven’t decided. It’s obviously a quandary. I’m different than I was. But the question driving this discussion is “Why Would A Catholic Vote for A ProChoice Candidate?.” I’m explaining why, and I can understand why, there are good reasons. But that does not mean it’s what I am going to do.

But you know, it doesn’t really sound right to say, e.g., that a prototypical pregnant woman wants to keep her child but doesn’t have the societal support to do it and thus opts for abortion.

I didn’t say it was “right”, I said it was real. It was also my experience. You can read more about it in my first posting on this thread. I was alone, without family, without community, and nobody else was around to help. I’m not saying it was a right choice – but at the time I had no other info, nothing tangible. Regardless of the sin I committed and have since repented of, I fail to see how putting me in prison would have helped.

I know lots of single women who brought their children to term and are raising them. They’ll all tell you it’s not easy. Few now offer a child for adoption. But to kill rather than risk poverty and hardship when it’s not an “either/or” anyway, just seems corrupt to me, particularly when the cause of the pregnancy is almost always a voluntary act. When a society offers profoundly immoral “easy ways out”, that society encourages moral corruption in its members.

There’s an assumption here that choosing to abort is (or was) an “easy” choice, or an “easy way out”. For some it might have been, but for me it was not.

It could also be argued that the test of moral fortitude and compassionate action ONLY happens in a society that offers free choices, and in which some people fail. If society had created a little bubble around me, and protected me from my sin and its consequences, why would I need Christ? And how could you learn to love and forgive a poor sinner like me? The answers are in our hearts, not in our ability to legislate and create systems that remove risk, temptation, and failure from our lives.

 

[mary_bobo]

Well, the people who are actually in politics will say anything, isn’t that so? You say the McGovernites re-ordered the delegate system to advance a leftist agenda. As if the Reaganites and Bushites a la Rove did not? I will listen to politicians, but I prefer to also corroborate what they are saying, and especially to “follow the money.”

The McGovernites did not suddenly re-staff the Supreme Court either. The justices who heard and ruled on Roe v Wade were selected by *previous presidents *(good “Old Party Democrats” and a reasonably progressive Republican), and confirmed by a Congress we elected.

I don’t see anywhere in my postings where I say that. It would be interesting to hear a response to what I actually am saying.

I would appreciate seeing your source on this.

There are a number of reasons given for seeking an abortion, none good enough to rationalize the taking of a human life.

You are drawing conclusions from thin air. I haven’t said who I am going to vote for. The question on the table is “Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Candidate?” I think you will find, if you read my postings, that I have tried to answer that. There are reasons, and they have to do with a larger picture that involves the question of trying to legislate morality, the truth that just because something is legal and available does not require anybody to participate in it, the fact that in isolation criminalizing sterile abortion does nothing to address the underlying problem of why women seek abortion, and the fact that we are stuck with all bad choices.

Do you (or I) stay in the Democratic Party, or do we jump ship and go to the other side, fantasizing that “pro-life” somehow mixes just fine with the National Rifle Association

That in the world does the NRA have to do with abortion? the oil company lobbies,

How about the lobbies such as the NEA, the AARP lobbies.

and the GIANT weapons manufacturing lobbies?

There are no GIANT weapons manufacturing lobbies. Indeed, there are no GIANT manufacturers. If anti-abortionists can no longer influence the Democratic Party, what makes you think they will be able to influence the war-minded, corporation-protecting, environmentally degrading policies of the Republican Party? You have certainly learned the liberal mantra well. I take exception to your description of the GOP. Just because policies don’t match your ideas does not make them wrong. There is more than one way to skin a cat, as the old saying goes.

Both parties have a forked tongue.

And yet, as I was reading on UCCB last night, Catholics are called to vote – not just sit out elections and leave the choices to others.

So here we are, with our unfortunate two party system (as opposed to parliamentary), and the modern reality that money talks, people lie, and power sees huge numbers of people as disposable – whether unborn infants, or “darkies” of a different religion halfway around the world. Because the main goal, as always, is to NOT have to live a different way. We like our comfortable houses, our strawberries in January, our over-abundance of cheap Chinese goods, our techno toys, and our comfy, expensive cars running on relatively inexpensive gas (compared to the rest of the world). What me, live different? You mean actually open my personal life and coffers up to a hurting, pregnant woman who would rather keep her child, but who needs many years of involvement and support to do so?

With all due respect, class envy is alive and well in your post.

I would appreciate it if you would show your source. As I said, I went through the reports last night and I tallied up Emily’s List contributions at roughly $158,000 total.

Which one man is that? Amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote. The Supreme Court also consists of nine judges, meaning at least five together create a ruling. What “one man” forced something into the Constitution?

Nothing is impossible to reverse. This is fear-mongering and grandstanding, for what purpose?

 

[BamaRider]

I vote pro life. Please y’all don’t come up with all kinds of fringe scenarios i e “well what if a pro life guy wants to nuke France, etc. what would ya do”

Given the current top 4 candidates (which is all that is revelant if we’re discussing the 2008 presidential election) 2 are pro choice, abortion on demand people, 2 are not. Not complicated, but SoCal will probably respond with one of those reall Loooooooooong posts as why I can’t be driven by one issue.

I’ll leave that talk for the guy voting a pro choice candidate.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

RR, Don’t take it personally. SoCalRC, like his archbishop and cardinal like to that with everything, even Church documents. I think that is where he learned it from. He demonstrates that it is possible to lie by making truthful comments. It is an amazing thing to watch how an intellectually dishonest person operates. It is also very sad.

Personally, I would suggest doing what I do, never respond to his comments or engage in dialog with him/her/it.

what would probably be even better would be to act like you are singulairly adressing one member(which for some reasone you did publically not PM), and using that friendly advise as an underhanded way to slander a forum member, Catholic Bishop, and Archbishop, rather than at least haveing the honesty to openly accuse them, and make yourself open to be held accountiable for you charges

atta way:thumbsup:

honesty and integrity at it’s finest:juggle:

(the juggle is irrelivent, I just find it funny)

 

[rpp]

what would probably be even better would be to act like you are singulairly adressing one member(which for some reasone you did publically not PM), and using that friendly advise as an underhanded way to slander a forum member, Catholic Bishop, and Archbishop, rather than at least haveing the honesty to openly accuse them, and make yourself open to be held accountiable for you charges

atta way:thumbsup:

honesty and integrity at it’s finest:juggle:

(the juggle is irrelivent, I just find it funny)

Thank you, I appreciate the compliment.

And the misspellings.

 

[fix]

Archbishop Burke said he recognized the fact that often no candidate upholds the moral law in its entirety. He said that, according to church teaching, in such a case the Catholic voter must choose the candidate who will most limit “the evil of abortion or other intrinsically evil practices.”

His letter is “the presentation of Catholic teaching, not particularly the teaching of the Archdiocese of St. Louis,” he said.

“This is the universal moral law, not some local interpretation,” he added when asked whether the residents of another diocese would be exempted from such a teaching.

“This is a question of universal moral law, not a question of the archbishop making a particular law, for example, a law regarding the placement of the tabernacle,” Archbishop Burke said…
Vote in accordance with church teaching, archbishop tells Catholics

 

[Ridgerunner]

I didn’t say it was “right”, I said it was real. It was also my experience. You can read more about it in my first posting on this thread. Whoa! I’m sorry Vinessa! I guess I didn’t read closely enough. I meant you no personal offense in anything I said.
It could also be argued that the test of moral fortitude and compassionate action ONLY happens in a society that offers free choices, and in which some people fail. If society had created a little bubble around me, and protected me from my sin and its consequences, why would I need Christ? And how could you learn to love and forgive a poor sinner like me? ** It is not up to me to judge, at all. I have sometimes thought that perhaps I could fully forgive someone who had wronged me alone, and that perhaps God accepts that forgiveness as full. But I do not judge you. ** The answers are in our hearts, not in our ability to legislate and create systems that remove risk, temptation, and failure from our lives.** I agree. I do think, though, that a society’s laws can either be edifying or cause a creeping corruption of soul in its citizens. Unfortunately, many tend to assume that anything “legal” is also “right”, and have no greater underpinning of their moral concepts than that. It’s a sad commentary, but it’s so. There were those, largely laughed at, who argued the “slippery slope” argument, and perhaps the slope is not as slippery as they maintained. But who would have ever thought society would so readily then follow on with cloning and using fetuses as “parts factories”? Who would have thought euthanasia would be so widely accepted? It’s hard for me to believe that someday euthanasia will become mandatory for, e.g., the severely disabled. But neither would I have believed what has come to pass in the last 30 years either. I am going to share with you, Vinessa, that I have an autistic daughter. Mostly, I don’t think she will ever be in danger of being declared “unfit”, or her life “useless” and quietly euthanized, but sometimes I worry a great deal about it. I think her siblings will protect her when my wife and I are gone, but will they even know? Will they be deemed competent to make a decision for her continued life? Or will it be determined by some judicial decision? There seems to be a certain hardness of heart forming in our society; a certain excess of utilitarianism, and when that’s sufficiently pervasive, then perhaps the law is all there will be standing in the way of the worst instincts of that society. And the more the law panders to those instincts, the greater is the encouragement to further societal corruption.
**

 

[SoCalRC]

what would probably be even better would be to act like you are singulairly adressing one member(which for some reasone you did publically not PM), and using that friendly advise as an underhanded way to slander a forum member, Catholic Bishop, and Archbishop, rather than at least haveing the honesty to openly accuse them, and make yourself open to be held accountiable for you charges

atta way:thumbsup:

honesty and integrity at it’s finest:juggle:

(the juggle is irrelivent, I just find it funny)

What an interesting observation. The last time RPP accused me of “lying” and distorting Church teaching was on the subject of Euthanasia. After repeatedly accusing me of gross distortion, RPP finally provided a quote from the Church. I then took my original quote, which seemingly offended him so greatly, and put it side by side with what he provided. It turned out I was quoting the Church almost verbatim…

 

[IvanKaramozov]

What an interesting observation. The last time RPP accused me of “lying” and distorting Church teaching was on the subject of Euthanasia. After repeatedly accusing me of gross distortion, RPP finally provided a quote from the Church. I then took my original quote, which seemingly offended him so greatly, and put it side by side with what he provided. It turned out I was quoting the Church almost verbatim…

how odd

 

[rpp]

This thread has inspired me to update certain aspects of my profile.

 

[SoCalRC]

I vote pro life. Please y’all don’t come up with all kinds of fringe scenarios i e “well what if a pro life guy wants to nuke France, etc. what would ya do”

Given the current top 4 candidates (which is all that is revelant if we’re discussing the 2008 presidential election) 2 are pro choice, abortion on demand people, 2 are not. Not complicated, but SoCal will probably respond with one of those reall Loooooooooong posts as why I can’t be driven by one issue.

I’ll leave that talk for the guy voting a pro choice candidate.

Alas, the Church can be wordy - it doesn’t have talk radio’s need to collapse morality into short simple sound bites. But I am glad you vote wholly pro-life, it is held to be an inalienable right by the Church:

"In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of therights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: <<All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>" - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, quoting LUMEN GENTIUM

The Church ties virtually all its nine negotiables in voting to the “right to life”, I’m glad you vote all of them. Alas, I don’t find it at all simple.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Thank you, I appreciate the compliment.

And the misspellings.

You know why I like symbolic logic? You can discuss an entire subject and never have to write a word(theoretically), pure reasoning, no hideing, no superficial sophistry nothing

(x)(Wx---->Lx)

just logic

 

[SoCalRC]

how odd

That’s the problem with emoticons, is it the calling me a “liar” without foundation that you applaud, or the idea that I support wholly voting my faith (as defined by the Magesterium) that is objectionable to you?

 

[SoCalRC]

You know why I like symbolic logic? You can discuss an entire subject and never have to write a word(theoretically), pure reasoning, no hideing, no superficial sophistry nothing

(x)(Wx---->Lx)

just logic

How are the express teachings of the Church illogical to you?

 

[IvanKaramozov]

How are the express teachings of the Church illogical to you?

they are not,not at all,

I was responding to his remark about my spelling(which is bad).

 

[SoCalRC]

There are a number of reasons given for seeking an abortion, none good enough to rationalize the taking of a human life.

So how do you feel about the termination of ectopic pregnancies in Catholic hospitals? Theologians are fiercely divided and the Church has declined to weigh in, referring inquires to the 1902 answer from the Tribunal of the Holy Office.

I take the declaration at face value, but many self described “pro life” Catholics here disagree, arguing that “double effect” inarguably applies.

 

[SoCalRC]

they are not,not at all,

I was responding to his remark about my spelling(which is bad).

Sorry, in context, I agree with your point. Ideas are best tested by reason and evidence, not grammar.