Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

[vern_humphrey]

IMO there is not a conservative running this year.

Unfortunately true.

But we have no one to blame but ourselves.

 

[zab]

How do you not settle for the candidate who will do the least harm – other than by settling for the one who will do the most?

It’s very easy to play holier-than-thou and abandon the fight, but we are responsible for the candidates we are offered. And we are responsible for the outcome of the election.

I am certainly not abandoning the fight. I am still supporting a pro-life conservative candidate who is still running for President.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am certainly not abandoning the fight. I am still supporting a pro-life conservative candidate who is still running for President.

Riiight. It would be more effective to flush your voter ID card down the toilet.

 

[zab]

Riiight. It would be more effective to flush your voter ID card down the toilet.

At least I am not a coward, who is afraid to vote for the best candidate. What is more important–your love for the party or your love for God?

 

[vern_humphrey]

At least I am not a coward, who is afraid to vote for the best candidate. What is more important–your love for the party or your love for God?

At least I am not a coward, who is afraid to vote for the best candidate who can win. What is more important–your love for the party or your love for God?

 

[zab]

At least I am not a coward, who is afraid to vote for the best candidate who can win. What is more important–your love for the party or your love for God?

I am not afraid to vote for a candidate that can win. Who says the best candidate can’t win?

 

[lampstand]

I don’t think it’s been proven that abortion will cease if it’s not legal. There are fewer abortions now than when it was illegal, at least in the U.S. You can stop it other ways, by promoting adoption, counseling young people and so on. Also, more people are using birth control. You may not like it, but it’s unrealistic to say everyone is going to wait until they get married. Marriage doesn’t mean much yet to the mind of someone in the age bracket where this is a problem, teens and thereabouts. It’s easy to stick your nose up in the air and say, “They should know better.” Of course they should, but they don’t. They’re kids. They don’t understand what that means. So we’ll have to continue to respond to the problem in other ways. Talk to them and spend more time with them. Keep them from having so much time to waste with an irresponsible boyfriend or girlfriend to begin with.

 

[dmelosi]

I don’t think it’s been proven that abortion will cease if it’s not legal. There are fewer abortions now than when it was illegal, at least in the U.S. You can stop it other ways, by promoting adoption, counseling young people and so on. Also, more people are using birth control. You may not like it, but it’s unrealistic to say everyone is going to wait until they get married. Marriage doesn’t mean much yet to the mind of someone in the age bracket where this is a problem, teens and thereabouts. It’s easy to stick your nose up in the air and say, “They should know better.” Of course they should, but they don’t. They’re kids. They don’t understand what that means. So we’ll have to continue to respond to the problem in other ways. Talk to them and spend more time with them. Keep them from having so much time to waste with an irresponsible boyfriend or girlfriend to begin with.

What is undisputed is that the democratic party’s platform says abortion on demand, no exceptions and the republican platform is anti abortion…

That is proven. But many still claim that the democrat’s way will reduce abortion and ease their guilt for sticking to their pro-death party.

 

[mary_bobo]

I don’t think it’s been proven that abortion will cease if it’s not legal. There are fewer abortions now than when it was illegal, at least in the U.S. You can stop it other ways, by promoting adoption, counseling young people and so on. Also, more people are using birth control. You may not like it, but it’s unrealistic to say everyone is going to wait until they get married. Marriage doesn’t mean much yet to the mind of someone in the age bracket where this is a problem, teens and thereabouts. It’s easy to stick your nose up in the air and say, “They should know better.” Of course they should, but they don’t. They’re kids. They don’t understand what that means. So we’ll have to continue to respond to the problem in other ways. Talk to them and spend more time with them. Keep them from having so much time to waste with an irresponsible boyfriend or girlfriend to begin with.

Please cite a source for your statement that there are fewer abortions now than when it was illegal.

 

[bcuster]

I can think of a possible reason to vote for a prochoice candidate. The way our election system works, it often weeds out the people I find to be qualified pro-life candidates. Usually by the time some states ( I live in Oregon) get to vote in the Primaries ( May 20th this year) the preferred prolife candidate is not longer running. I guess what I am trying to say is that often voters have to choose between the lesser of two evils. I can’t remember a time when I had to choose a prochoice candidate, but I can see it might happen in the future. Even with pro-life candidates some not that strongly pro-life–wishy washy I would say. If it did come down to a vote where I felt the only choice I had was vote for the lesser of two evils I would want to run it by my confesser to make sure I was thinking straight.

 

[zab]

I can see no good reason to vote for evil at all. There is a good candidate running and as long as he is in the race, I will support him.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Well, without reading 49 pages of posts, i will make my case.

First off, A voter who votes on one issue alone is not casting a quality vote. Just becuase they are pro-life does not mean they are the best candidate.

Secondly, because the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that abortion is constitutional, a President can do nothing to change that. A law cannot be passed. At this point, a constitutional ammendment is needed. That only requires the Congress and the States. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could reverse thier ruling, which is highly unlikely(only done a few time, one being Segregation), and although Justices are appointed by the President, they dont always have the same mindset. Souter was appointed by H.W. Bush, but is one of the most liberal justices.

Thirdly, Abortion, like many other issues, is NO BUSINESS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. There is no part of the listed powers that state the National Government has such a power.

 

[stringbeanduck]

First off, A voter who votes on one issue alone is not casting a quality vote. Just becuase they are pro-life does not mean they are the best candidate.

So those in the womb are just another issue. Pro-life should be at the top of the agenda when considering who to vote for. Then we can narrow it down to whom we think is best. We know it is going to take more than a pro-life president to change the way things are. Still we need a pro-life leader. Just go ahead and say “its okay to vote pro-choice”. You don’t have to candy coat it.

 

[Insight]

Greetings SenorSalsa,

 It is true that no election has one issue, it is also true that some issues are more important than other issues.  Some Roman Catholics are so blinded by the candy promised by Pro-Death Candidates, that they disregard their morals, the 50 million little lives become ignored.  Their right to live is bargained away for a few shallow promises.

  It is highly likely that the next President will have the opportunity to appoint enough Supreme Court Justices to overturn Roe v Wade.  The decision would then fall on the individual States.  Instead of one big Pro-Death decision, there could be 50 different State level decisions.  Anyway you look at it, it would give better odds for the unborn.  In their own campaign speeches, both frontline Democratic Candidates said they would promote and fully fund international programs that will promote abortion here and abroad (more taxes!).  Both want to push forward late term abortions.  NARAL websites worship the ground they walk on.

God Bless

 

[BamaRider]

Look y’all, I told y’all about 20 pages ago, some are more liberal than pro life. They are not gonna vote for a conservative no matter how many pro life appointments he might make. If you vote pro life, you’re gonna hafta to vote for a conservative, end of story. I don’t know a single pro life politician that would be liberal on other social and foreign issues. Those things just don’t seem to mix on the national and state level candidates.

There are many that will spin a pro choice vote into all kinds of reasons. Having been on this thread from the get go, I can save ya the trouble of scrolling back. They break down as follows:

“well he only says he’s pro life, he won’t actually do anything.” Not true, witness our new Chief Justice,and the President’s veto of the stem cell reaserch bill.

“His only pro life to get votes” So you vote pro choice and remove all doubt? I can promise ya, they NEVER not vote pro choice when called upon to do so.

“I’m not a one issue voter, I hafta look at the entire package” So increasing the MW, social healthcare, open borders etc is more important then millions of children?

And one of my favorites, “It’s more complicated then that.” Which really means I don’t wanna talk about it.

I don’t think its complicated at all, if a Catholic votes for a pro choice candidate, he is more socially liberal then he is pro life. That’s not making a judgement, that’s stating a fact.

 

[elt1956]

I don’t think it’s been proven that abortion will cease if it’s not legal. There are fewer abortions now than when it was illegal, at least in the U.S. You can stop it other ways, by promoting adoption, counseling young people and so on. Also, more people are using birth control. You may not like it, but it’s unrealistic to say everyone is going to wait until they get married. Marriage doesn’t mean much yet to the mind of someone in the age bracket where this is a problem, teens and thereabouts. It’s easy to stick your nose up in the air and say, “They should know better.” Of course they should, but they don’t. They’re kids. They don’t understand what that means. So we’ll have to continue to respond to the problem in other ways. Talk to them and spend more time with them. Keep them from having so much time to waste with an irresponsible boyfriend or girlfriend to begin with.

Anyone know why Birthright doesn’t have a big lobby on either the state or federal level? You are right there are alternative means and Birthright is one of them. Peace.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Believe it or not there are other issues out there besides the abortion issue.

 

[morning_star_27]

Morning Star:

Can I ask you what your source is on the Bush Administration giving money to Planned Parenthood?

Because, I just tried to look it up and found Gov. Romney giving funding to Planned Parenthood while he was Governor of Mass.
Team Thompson Busts Romney’s Claim That As Governor Romney “Came Down on the Side of Life.”
punditreview.com/2007/12/page/2/

I did find Internarnational Planned Parenthood Foundation in the ASAID Page which is administered by the US Department of State. That doesn’t mean that we’re funding them - it just means they’re on the list of agencies. Of course, no one knows with the U.S. State Department…
usaid.gov/policy/budget/cbj2006/acronyms.html

Congress simply includes funding for Planned Parenthood in its annual Consolidated Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act each year, which President Bush essentially can’t veto without shutting down the Federal Government. Please remember, unlike State Governors, the President doesn’t have the “Line-Item Veto”, so he can’t just strike out the offending item while signing the rest of the Act into law.

It’s simply unfair to blame the President for that since the budget he proposes excludes funding for agencies such as Planned Parenthood. President Bush has prosposed and signed Anti-Abortion Legislation and Nominated at least 2 Justices to the Supreme Court who, as a result of their judicial philosophy, will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade should the issue reach the Court again. Please see my earlier discussion on “Strict Constructionism” and the most recent Supreme Court decision on an Abortion case which overturned a similar decision made just 7 years ago.

That leaves you with the link I posted earlier from Priests for Life, which was a “Reprint” of something Catholic Answers had published for the 2004 election:

Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics
Copyright © 2004, Catholic Answers.

Please read the entire “Pamphlet”. I’m sure it will be quite helpful to you.

And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.
Galatians 6:9 RSV

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Micahel,

I just want you to know I own the** Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics**, which I acquired from my parish in Huntsville, and I consider it a very great guideline for me, a serious Catholic who tries to be consistently in line with the Church and its teachings. With what it said I took with me during the Texas Primary, and I feel at peace with the candidate I voted for.

As for the matter with the Bush Administration and its involvement with Planned Parenthood, I have this link I found. This is the source I referred to in when I got on my little rant on the Bush Administration.However, in knowing that Bush has selected two judges that are Conservative and resolve to uphold the Constitution, I am praying that we will have a panel of Justices who will reverse deal with Roe v. Wade accordingly.

I would like to thank you for your advice, as it helped very much. Also, I know I can get a little cynical when it comes to the Government, but one thing I rely on is prayer and faith. And I thank you and others who help me in strengthening both.

Thank you.

 

[dmelosi]

Well, without reading 49 pages of posts, i will make my case.

First off, A voter who votes on one issue alone is not casting a quality vote. Just becuase they are pro-life does not mean they are the best candidate.

Secondly, because the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that abortion is constitutional, a President can do nothing to change that. A law cannot be passed. At this point, a constitutional ammendment is needed. That only requires the Congress and the States. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could reverse thier ruling, which is highly unlikely(only done a few time, one being Segregation), and although Justices are appointed by the President, they dont always have the same mindset. Souter was appointed by H.W. Bush, but is one of the most liberal justices.

Thirdly, Abortion, like many other issues, is NO BUSINESS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. There is no part of the listed powers that state the National Government has such a power.

When did YOU make the decision that abortion is not murder?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, without reading 49 pages of posts, i will make my case.

First off, A voter who votes on one issue alone is not casting a quality vote.

What in the name of Holy Gilhooley is a “quality vote?”

Just becuase they are pro-life does not mean they are the best candidate.

But a candidate who is pro-abortion can never be a “best candidate.”

Would you vote for Hitler, because apart from that thing with the Jews, he was the best candidate?

Secondly, because the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that abortion is constitutional, a President can do nothing to change that. A law cannot be passed. At this point, a constitutional ammendment is needed. That only requires the Congress and the States. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could reverse thier ruling, which is highly unlikely(only done a few time, one being Segregation), and although Justices are appointed by the President, they dont always have the same mindset. Souter was appointed by H.W. Bush, but is one of the most liberal justices.

Which is why we need both pro-life President and a pro-life Congress.

Thirdly, Abortion, like many other issues, is NO BUSINESS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. There is no part of the listed powers that state the National Government has such a power.

The Supreme Court made it the business of the national government when they set aside all state laws banning abortion.

And the death of over a million innocent children a year is most certainly the business of every citizen.