Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

[SpiritMeadow]

One tiny correction. We do not hold to just these two issues as you say. We, as Catholics believe and teach as a matter of faith and morals, that there are five non-negotiable issues. They are abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and cloning. If you are accusing us of something, get it right.
Deacon Ed B

No, you as CAF adherents claim 5 non-negociables. But of course that voting sheet is repudiated by the USCCB and most others. Your list involves only right to life issues + gay rights. You do not spend time working on poverty, war, women’s issues, race, environment, death penalty issues, etc. As I said, there are true evangelicals who are now trying to bridge that gap and get off the single issues of abortion and gay rights. I laugh at Catholics who join with right wing fundamentalists who would make Catholicism illegal if they gain power. They call Catholics the whore of Babylon. Hagee’s recent endorsement has even been given a pass, and he’s notorious for hating Catholics. Strange bedfellows make well, you may someday find out.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, you as CAF adherents claim 5 non-negociables. But of course that voting sheet is repudiated by the USCCB and most others. Your list involves only right to life issues + gay rights. You do not spend time working on poverty, war, women’s issues, race, environment, death penalty issues, etc.

Who says we don’t?

What evidence do you have to back that accusation?

 

[zab]

No, you as CAF adherents claim 5 non-negociables. But of course that voting sheet is repudiated by the USCCB and most others. Your list involves only right to life issues + gay rights. You do not spend time working on poverty, war, women’s issues, race, environment, death penalty issues, etc. As I said, there are true evangelicals who are now trying to bridge that gap and get off the single issues of abortion and gay rights. I laugh at Catholics who join with right wing fundamentalists who would make Catholicism illegal if they gain power. They call Catholics the whore of Babylon. Hagee’s recent endorsement has even been given a pass, and he’s notorious for hating Catholics. Strange bedfellows make well, you may someday find out.

You do have a point here. There is some truth to the article I read about the death of the Religious Right. Many have turned Moderate.

 

[dmelosi]

No, you as CAF adherents claim 5 non-negociables. But of course that voting sheet is repudiated by the USCCB and most others. Your list involves only right to life issues + gay rights. You do not spend time working on poverty, war, women’s issues, race, environment, death penalty issues, etc. As I said, there are true evangelicals who are now trying to bridge that gap and get off the single issues of abortion and gay rights. I laugh at Catholics who join with right wing fundamentalists who would make Catholicism illegal if they gain power. They call Catholics the whore of Babylon. Hagee’s recent endorsement has even been given a pass, and he’s notorious for hating Catholics. Strange bedfellows make well, you may someday find out.

What a stretch…make Catholicism illegal? That is the first time I have heard that anywhere, did you just make that up?

Somewhere along the line you came to the conclusion that abortion was a belief and not murder…when do you come to that conclusion?

 

[zab]

You do have a point here. There is some truth to the article I read about the death of the Religious Right. Many have turned Moderate.

And that is the situation that we are in today. The candidates of both leading parties are pro-choice.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

And that is the situation that we are in today. The candidates of both leading parties are pro-choice.

Correction - One claims to be pro life. Forum rules state we cannot name names. But I think you know who he is.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

No, you as CAF adherents claim 5 non-negociables. But of course that voting sheet is repudiated by the USCCB and most others. Your list involves only right to life issues + gay rights. You do not spend time working on poverty, war, women’s issues, race, environment, death penalty issues, etc. As I said, there are true evangelicals who are now trying to bridge that gap and get off the single issues of abortion and gay rights. I laugh at Catholics who join with right wing fundamentalists who would make Catholicism illegal if they gain power. They call Catholics the whore of Babylon. Hagee’s recent endorsement has even been given a pass, and he’s notorious for hating Catholics. Strange bedfellows make well, you may someday find out.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

No, you as CAF adherents claim 5 non-negociables. But of course that voting sheet is repudiated by the USCCB and most others.

Since when did the USCCB repudiate the 5 non-negotiables. Please show us.
Deacon Ed B

 

[vern_humphrey]

Deacon_Ed_B:

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow
No, you as CAF adherents claim 5 non-negociables. But of course that voting sheet is repudiated by the USCCB and most others.

This is a false statement, and it has been proved to the poster that it is false.

The USCCB supported the CAF non-negotiables, until their lawyers told them it might jeopardize the Church’s tax-free status. They never “repudiated” it.

 

[zab]

Correction - One claims to be pro life. Forum rules state we cannot name names. But I think you know who he is.
Deacon Ed B

Claiming to be pro-life in order to win the votes of moral conservatives does not mean that one is pro-life, especially when a person has not changed his views and does not intend to.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Since when did the USCCB repudiate the 5 non-negotiables. Please show us.
Deacon Ed B

As I pointed out above, they supported the 5 non-negotiables, until their lawyers advised them it might jeopardize the Church’s tax-free status.

And the original poster knows this. It has been pointed out to him before.

 

[dmelosi]

And that is the situation that we are in today. The candidates of both leading parties are pro-choice.

What is your motive behind saying this? Take a look at the naral website, clearly shows 0% pro choice record.

 

[zab]

Correction - One claims to be pro life. Forum rules state we cannot name names. But I think you know who he is.
Deacon Ed B

Forum rules also state that you cannot allude to a particular candidate. As you know that is kind of difficult to do at times. It is no more true that the Republican candidate is pro-life than stating that both of the leading Democrats are 100% pro-death. I know of at least one case in which one of those candidates voted pro-life.

 

[zab]

What is your motive behind saying this? Take a look at the naral website, clearly shows 0% pro choice record.

My motive? Truth is my motive. Ask him if he believes that it is the woman’s right to choose?

 

[dmelosi]

My motive? Truth is my motive. Ask him if he believes that it is the woman’s right to choose?

What’s his number?

I am going off of his voting record, didnt realize you knew him personally.

 

[zab]

What’s his number?

I am going off of his voting record, didnt realize you knew him personally.

I don’t know him personally, but I have listened to the words from his own mouth when interviewed about this. And like I said, the voting record of one of the leading Democrats will show that this person voted against infanticide.

There are videos and transcripts and websites available through the internet that you can reseach about this.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Im gonna repost my opinons, as they were deleted(accidently mentioned a candidate).

Read the Constitution. Nowhere does abortion fall under one of the responsibilities given to any part of National Government. Thus, a Presidential Candidate being prochoice or prolife should not make any difference, as he/she has no jursdiction to effect any law. Niether does any Congressperson. Justices overstepped thier boundary with Roe v. Wade, and should reverse the decision, not to say abortion is illegal, but to say that abortion is up to the states. It is at STATE LEVEL that ProChoice and ProLife should matter. At that level, Abortion could be made legal or illegal. Same goes for Gay Marriage, Death Penalty, and many other policies that the states have willing given to our “limited” national government.

Also what if the prolife candidate was Pro-war, Anti-immigration, Pro-capital punishment, Pro-stem cell research, and others. Those first three are common positions of Republicans(the generally Pro-life party). What about the rights of those people. Do they not also have a right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness? Pro-life does not inherently mean he is the best candidate, or even the one who respects life the most.

Let me finish by saying I am pro-life. Which to me is anti-abortion, anti-war(pro-Iraq war, but anti-war, but thats a different topic), anti-death penalty. I would not vote for candidates who advocated any of these positions. Ever.

 

[zab]

I believe that a candidate who says that issue of abortion should be left to the states to decide is like washing his hands of any responsibilty regarding the massacre of human lives.

 

[Insight]

Hi SpiritMeadow,

 Catholicism is not the only religion the frowns upon cold blooded murder of innocent children, that goes back to the Old Testament: “Thou Shall Not Kill”.  Every law ever legislated forces a belief.

Hi Zab,

 If Roe vs. Wade gets overturned, that’s what automatically would happen, it would fall upon the decision of each State.  Which would be better than one big Pro-Death decision.  There are States that have already prepared themselves to implement Pro-Life legislation should Roe be overturned.

God Bless

 

[dmelosi]

I believe that a candidate who says that issue of abortion should be left to the states to decide is like washing his hands of any responsibilty regarding the massacre of human lives.

1 party states that it is pro choice in their platform.
1 party states that it is pro life in its platform.

Who would you rather have nominating judges?

Certain pro death?