Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

[boppaid]

I think thats a bad excuse to vote for a pro-choice candidate. Its amazing that there are Catholics who will shove aside a baby’s life so they can get the troops out.

The number of babies saved from Bush’s partial birth abortion law are significantly lower than the numbers of lives killed in the war. Does that mean you are assigning more value to the lives of the babies than the lives of those in Iraq?

 

[boppaid]

I’ve been voting for “pro life” candidates for YEARS-and what I’ve seen is more death. I have become convinced that the “pro life” mantra sold by these candidates is nothing more than pandering.

Pre-emptive war and a culture of war is NOT pro life. The death penalty is NOT pro life. Policies that make CEO’s 400 times richer than workers on the line are NOT pro life. Policies that leave people homeless and without healthcare are NOT pro life.

Abortion will end in this country when women themselves see that it is the taking of a life. Legislation won’t do it. If we as Catholics really want to end abortion, we should stop working for legislation and start working WITH the women most likely to abort and helping them find ways to solve the problems that led them to choose abortion. Not condemning them, not demonizing them-but LOVING them and helping them. It’s going to take time, because you can’t change minds quickly-but it will be more lasting.

Your post moved me to tears.

 

[dmelosi]

The number of babies saved from Bush’s partial birth abortion law are significantly lower than the numbers of lives killed in the war. Does that mean you are assigning more value to the lives of the babies than the lives of those in Iraq?

It is hard to discuss something with someone who keeps changing things.

2 threads ago, you talk about derailing the thread by talking about the war, then the very next thread, you use it.

 

[boppaid]

It is hard to discuss something with someone who keeps changing things.

2 threads ago, you talk about derailing the thread by talking about the war, then the very next thread, you use it.

I was responding to a post that was directed to me. And this is the only thread I’ve been on lately, so I’m a little confused.

 

[dmelosi]

I was responding to a post that was directed to me. And this is the only thread I’ve been on lately, so I’m a little confused.

I mispoke, meant posts.

In post 575 you said you did not want to derail the thread into a war thread.

Then in the very next post, 576, you use the war to make a point.

The bottom line is that abortion just does not seem to be that important to so many that try to dumb down the fact on what it really is.

I have only seen 1 poster that said that. All other try to ease their conscience by changing the issue or discussion.

 

[ribozyme]

The Democratic Party is NOT the “party of abortion.”

I’ll quote this enlightening piece for the Daily Kos:

One of the key problems with the Democratic Party is that single issue groups have hijacked it for their pet causes. So suddenly, Democrats are the party of abortion, of gun control, of spottend owls, of labor, of trial lawyers, etc, etc., et-frickin’-cetera. We don’t stand for any ideals, we stand for specific causes. We don’t have a core philosophy, we have a list with boxes to check off.

So while Republicans focus on building an ideological foundation for their cause, we focus on checking off those boxes on the list. Check enough boxes, and you’re a Democrat in good standing.

Problem is, abortion and choice aren’t core principles of the Democratic Party. Rather, things like a Right to Privacy are. And from a Right to Privacy certain things flow – abortion rights, access to contraceptives, opposition to the Patriot Act, and freedom to worship the gods of our own choosing, or none at all.

dailykos.com/story/2005/5/23/3371/25466

 

[Ender]

Problem is, abortion and choice aren’t core principles of the Democratic Party. Rather, things like a Right to Privacy are. And from a Right to Privacy certain things flow – abortion rights, access to contraceptives, opposition to the Patriot Act, and freedom to worship the gods of our own choosing, or none at all. (Daily Kos)

The problem with such interpretations is that words lose their meaning when used this way. I’m not surprised that someone running a political blog would employ such arguments - after all, we see the same sort of imaginative interpretations from the Supreme Court - but these arguments really shouldn’t be taken seriously.

The “Right to Privacy”: where does it come from and what does it mean? Yes, I know the SCOTUS said it was in the Constitution (which just confirms my comment above), but it is just a formless vessel into which any claim at all can be poured … as Kos demonstrates.

Kos recognizes the damage the abortion issue does to the prospects of liberal candidates and he is trying to change the focus of attention to vague, undefined “principles” and away from the bloody truth that accompanies their implementation.

Ender

 

[dmelosi]

The Democratic Party is NOT the “party of abortion.”

I’ll quote this enlightening piece for the Daily Kos:

dailykos.com/story/2005/5/23/3371/25466

Do you dismiss what the democratic platform states on abortion?

Do you dismiss what the republican platform states on abortion?

The links directly to their sites have been listed on the threads many, many times.

Want me to look them up for you?

 

[Aramis]

Do you dismiss what the democratic platform states on abortion?

Do you dismiss what the republican platform states on abortion?

The links directly to their sites have been listed on the threads many, many times.

Want me to look them up for you?

Having heard a sitting Republican senator state she’s pro-abortion-on-demand…

The party platform is not enough to base a vote upon.

 

[dmelosi]

Having heard a sitting Republican senator state she’s pro-abortion-on-demand…

The party platform is not enough to base a vote upon.

The democratic party platform is enough to determine that you know for CERTAIN that any democrat president will most certainly nominate a completely pro choice judge to the supreme court.

Anyone can pick a bad apple in anything you do, another example of dumbing down the fact of what abortion really is.

 

[BamaRider]

What I learned in 35 pages of threads? Some folks will go to great lengths to cover one party’s pro abortion stance.

They will tell you they are pro Catholic, anti abortion, and turn right around and vote for a guy that supports, legislates, and has openly avowed to insure Roe V Wade is the law of the land. They vote a party that believes abortion is NOT a moral issue, but a religous dogma, open for debate.

No excuse is too far, every position can reasoned, and any spin is fact, thats all ya gotta know, just take it for what it is. Otherwise you’re blood pressure is just gonna keep goin up LOL.

 

[dmelosi]

What I learned in 35 pages of threads? Some folks will go to great lengths to cover one party’s pro abortion stance.

They will tell you they are pro Catholic, anti abortion, and turn right around and vote for a guy that supports, legislates, and has openly avowed to insure Roe V Wade is the law of the land. They vote a party that believes abortion is NOT a moral issue, but a religous dogma, open for debate.

No excuse is too far, every position can reasoned, and any spin is fact, thats all ya gotta know, just take it for what it is. Otherwise you’re blood pressure is just gonna keep goin up LOL.

Very well said!

 

[ProVobis]

“I have a lot else to worry about already. It seems like the pickens is slim though, but I don’t know if it’s right to not vote for the " lesser evil " candidate? I’m looking for a solution though other than not voting altogether.”

Let’s not forget voting for a third-party candidate. And the “you’re giving a vote to the pro-choice candidate by doing so” doesn’t wash. Imagine how many people would vote for the third party candidate if indeed they wouldn’t use that excuse. To me, it is sending wrong signals to vote for a party just for one of its platforms if everything else they represent, for example, borrowing and spending and deceiving the public, is something you consider immoral. Say what you want but I vote third-party almost all the time; They’ll never win because of lack of press coverage, lack of money, and voter apathy, but at least, my conscience is clear.

 

[Namesake]

Do you find it enlightening that 2 people running in one party are the two most liberal in that party.
Deacon Ed B

And just how is it that you know they are the two most liberal in their party?

 

[rlg94086]

And just how is it that you know they are the two most liberal in their party?

I’ll PM you a link to an annual ranking, since opening it would reveal the name of candidates and that is not allowed.

 

[pdelcecatodixon]

Why WOULD a Catholic vote for a Pro-choice candidate? I have to tell you that this has been extremely difficult for me! Let me say right up front that I absolutely agree that abortion is wrong and is against everything we have been taught and believe about the sanctity of life.

As it happened, our RCIA class (I am a team member) had an in-depth discussion several weeks ago on the Church’s social teachings. I realized that there were so many very important social issues facing our country/society, that I needed to make a decision about what I felt was important to me and to my community.

Our parish hosts a community Soup Kitchen on the weekends and I can tell you that more needs to be done for our homeless adults and teens, our veterans, the disinfranchised, the lonely, the ill, our senior citizens - the list goes on and on. So, how do you decide which is more important? As I said, this decision has been very difficult for me, but God gave us all free will and the ability to make decisions based on our abilities and intellect. I am supporting a pro-choice candidate for President - that decision was made for many reasons and needs I see, not solely on the candidates stand on the abortion issue. I have had a lot of conversations with God about this!

I believe both Democratic candidates are Christian and sincerely hope which ever of them is elected will seriously address all the many issues we face in our country, not just one single problem.

It is a dilemma for many of us - no doubt about it!

 

[Ender]

Why WOULD a Catholic vote for a Pro-choice candidate? … I realized that there were so many very important social issues facing our country/society, that I needed to make a decision about what I felt was important to me and to my community.

I am curious as to how you weigh the relative importance of different issues. You clearly view abortion as a significant problem and recognize that your support for a pro-abortion candidate will mean, if elected, that no progress will be made on that issue during his term in office. You go on to say, though, that the combined significance of other concerns outweighs abortion. How do you do the math? Do you say that success on immigration, health care, taxation, and energy offset 1.3 million annual abortions or do you believe that nothing can (or will) be done to end abortion on demand anyway so you are freed of the responsibility to try?

Ender

 

[brigid12]

IMHO, their priorities are skewed. The Dems are (often) anti-war, for important and charitable social programs, etc. Many Rep are pro-life, however. The Catholics who vote for a pro abortion/euthanasia candidate doesn’t think those are very important in comparison to the social good/charity that is offered.

I am super pro-life, however if I weren’t (and didn’t care about abortion, infanticide - mascarading as partial birth abortion, and euthanasia) I would probably be voting Dem myself.

 

[boppaid]

I mispoke, meant posts.

Oh, duh. Sorry.

In post 575 you said you did not want to derail the thread into a war thread.

Then in the very next post, 576, you use the war to make a point.

If you look at post 576, I was directly responding to this person’s comments (which I even quoted in post 576). I’m sure I see what you mean?

riginally Posted by stringbeanduck View Post
I think thats a bad excuse to vote for a pro-choice candidate. Its amazing that there are Catholics who will shove aside a baby’s life so they can get the troops out.

The bottom line is that abortion just does not seem to be that important to so many that try to dumb down the fact on what it really is.

That is not my bottom line. The bottom line for me is that life lost in abortion is no MORE important to me than the life lost in war. (Or the lives of people who are hurt by that loss.) Now, numbers-wise…I don’t see where Bush saved MORE lives with the partial birth abortion ban than he caused with this senseless war.

Edited to add that the only reason I mentioned the war again is because it directly related to my position of how I value lives lost either via abortion or war. IOW, Bush may have saved a few lives with the PBA ban, but caused many more than he saved. I think that point is valid for this thread. I think to discuss the MERITS of the war would derail it. Just wanted to clarify.

 

[BamaRider]

In post #586 I said-

They will tell you they are pro Catholic, anti abortion, and turn right around and vote for a guy that supports, legislates, and has openly avowed to insure Roe V Wade is the law of the land. They vote a party that believes abortion is NOT a moral issue, but a religous dogma, open for debate.

No excuse is too far, every position can be reasoned, and any spin is fact, thats all ya gotta know, just take it for what it is. Otherwise you’re blood pressure is just gonna keep goin up LOL.

---

Then Boppaid sez -

That is not my bottom line. The bottom line for me is that life lost in abortion is no MORE important to me than the life lost in war. (Or the lives of people who are hurt by that loss.) Now, numbers-wise…I don’t see where Bush saved MORE lives with the partial birth abortion ban than he caused with this senseless war.

Edited to add that the only reason I mentioned the war again is because it directly related to my position of how I value lives lost either via abortion or war. IOW, Bush may have saved a few lives with the PBA ban, but caused many more than he saved. I think that point is valid for this thread. I think to discuss the MERITS of the war would derail it. Just wanted to clarify.

I rest my case.