Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

[vern_humphrey]

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.

Saying that the issue of abortion should be left to the states is like saying the issue of slavery should be left to the states.

 

[zab]

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?

We should listen to what all of the candidates have to say before settling on a lesser of evils. We should not allow the party bosses to control our vote by their deceitful tactics in preventing certain voices from being heard. We have the means to do the research and find out what all of the candidates represent and to hear what they have to say. In answer to your question, none of the above.

 

[zab]

Saying that the issue of abortion should be left to the states is like saying the issue of slavery should be left to the states.

Right on, Vern!

 

[dmelosi]

We should listen to what all of the candidates have to say before settling on a lesser of evils. We should not allow the party bosses to control our vote by their deceitful tactics in preventing certain voices to be heard. We have the means to do the research and find out what all of the candidates represent and to hear what they have to say. In answer to your question, none of the above.

I am afraid that none of the above is not an option.

 

[zab]

I am afraid that none of the above is not an option.

That is because you are in the dark just like the party leaders want you to be. I’m not settling on the lesser of evil as long as a glimmer of hope remains.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am afraid that none of the above is not an option.

And that’s the point. There are really only two choices in the real world. If we had worked harder and earlier, we might have two different choices, but no matter what, we will never have a realistic third choice.

Therefore we must choose between the lesser of two evils. And who will not choose the lesser of two evils automatically chooses the greater of those two evils.

 

[zab]

And that’s the point. There are really only two choices in the real world. If we had worked harder and earlier, we might have two different choices, but no matter what, we will never have a realistic third choice.

Therefore we must choose between the lesser of two evils. And who will not choose the lesser of two evils automatically chooses the greater of those two evils.

Not so. Choosing the best candidate is not a choice for evil. What makes you think that there can never be a third viable choice? Perhaps there has never been a third viable choice until now.

 

[dmelosi]

Not so. Choosing the best candidate is not a choice for evil. What makes you think that there can never be a third viable choice? Perhaps there has never been a third viable choice until now.

Not sure what you consider viable, but there is not one.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not so. Choosing the best candidate is not a choice for evil.

We don’t get to choose a “best” candiate. We only get to choose between those on the ballot. If we didn’t put the best candidate on the ballot, shame on us.

Now we must make the best of where our laziness and lack of devotion have left us.

What makes you think that there can never be a third viable choice?

It’s no accident that the only time a viable third party emerged in this country, one of the two older parties died and we had a Civil War.

Our form of government, with its separation of powers, militates against third parties. In parliamentary systems, where the legislative, judicial, and executive powers are all vested in the parliament, third parties are viable and can have an impact by joining coalitions, because it is the majority that chooses the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

But in our system, coalitions are not needed and are powerless. A third party congressman or senator has to go hat-in-hand to join one of the major party caucuses.

A third party president would be hamstrung, with no allies at all in congress.

Perhaps there has never been a third viable choice until now.

“Third Party” and “viable” don’t go together in our system.

 

[zab]

Not sure what you consider viable, but there is not one.

You can’t make that determination at this time.

 

[rlg94086]

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.

You can, of course, vote as you see fit, but I would take exception with a couple of your characterizations.

1. No candidates are anti-war…I don’t think the people would elect an “anti-war” candidate President, as one of the president’s jobs is Commander-in-Chief. Candidates may be against a particular war, but don’t kid yourself into thinking that either party is anti-war. Look at history.
2. Not all Republicans are anti-immigrant. The current President isn’t, and the current nominee isn’t.
3. You can be opposed to the death penalty as a Catholic, but it is not prohibited by the Catechism. It isn’t a “non-negotiable” in my book, even though I would like to see the death penalty limited much more than it currently.

Regarding stem cell research, I hope everyone is pro-stem cell research. It has a lot of promise. That said, not all candidates are opposed to embryonic stem cell research, and it is an important consideration. I am hoping that particular issue diminishes thanks to scientific advancements in adult stem cell research.

 

[rlg94086]

You can’t make that determination at this time.

Sure we can. I’m pretty certain I know who you have been eluding to in several posts, and I’m 99.9% sure he has no chance of being elected. He wouldn’t even do as well as Perot did. I don’t see a third party candidate that could rally the public to get 35-50% of the vote, which would be necessary to win.

EDIT ADD: However, he might do well enough to help elect one of the two strongly pro-choice candidates, which would make the pro-choice crowd very happy.

 

[rlg94086]

Saying that the issue of abortion should be left to the states is like saying the issue of slavery should be left to the states.

Hi Vern,

According to the Constitution, as it is currently written, the issue of abortion should be left to the states…just as slavery was. The solution, of course is a constitutional amendment, so we can end abortion, just as we ended slavery.

Overturning Roe v. Wade would be difficult; however, we are in a closer position to accomplish it sooner than an amendment. This would turn the issue over to the states. While that is not preferred, it is better than the status quo, as it would allow states to outlaw or limit abortion.

We need to work toward both.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hi Vern,

According to the Constitution, as it is currently written, the issue of abortion should be left to the states…just as slavery was. The solution, of course is a constitutional amendment, so we can end abortion, just as we ended slavery.

Overturning Roe v. Wade would be difficult; however, we are in a closer position to accomplish it sooner than an amendment. This would turn the issue over to the states. While that is not preferred, it is better than the status quo, as it would allow states to outlaw or limit abortion.

We need to work toward both.

Yes, slavery was ended (legally) by consitutional amendment. But the idea that somehow states can make it okay to kill a certain class of people is simply wrong. Suppose Florida made it legal to kill Jews, New York to kill Blacks, Nevada to kill Catholics, and so on? Would that pass constitutional muster?

The fact is, the right to life is already in the Constitution – in the 5th and 14th Amendments – and the 14th Amendment specifically says:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(My emphasis)

 

[elt1956]

Yes I am well aware that I stand with a majority of Catholics on this issue. We believe that it is inappropriate to force others to abide by the beliefs we hold. We will try mightily to convince them, but I personally do draw the line at forcing others to abide by Catholic beliefs. You of course realize that your kind of enforcement falls disproportionately upon poor women. The rich always will get their abortion, the plane fare is not beyond their means. The poor are left to the take their chances with the back alley practitioners.

I agree in part with what you say. Especially the part regarding not forcing our beliefs, but I also say there is a line to be drawn when it comes to protecting the innocent and abortion isn’t just a “belief”, it has to do with Morality. Not so many decades ago, there was a Nation that considered 6 million and more of its citizens inferior because of their race and religion. Do you remember the horror of reading about what our forces found at Bretenau, Buchenwald, Chelmno, Dachau, Falstad, Bergen-Belsen, Auschwitz-Birkenau and approximately eight thousand other killing camps after WWII? All because good people stood by and let it happen.

For me the line is drawn at abortion. If we were truly a Christian nation, we would find another answer to support the women who are making a very painful decision to abort because they see no other answers. Instead of allowing the government to put our money into organizations such as Planned Parenthood which gives the only option, for a woman without support and in distress, the choice of only abortion, why isn’t our money given to such organizations as Birthright? Why hasn’t the Church been constant in its support of this organization? Why not have an extra collection at Mass for this and only this group? Peace.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree in part with what you say. Especially the part regarding not forcing our beliefs, but I also say there is a line to be drawn when it comes to protecting the innocent and abortion isn’t just a “belief”, it has to do with Morality. Not so many decades ago, there was a Nation that considered 6 million and more of its citizens inferior because of their race and religion. Do you remember the horror of reading about what our forces found at Bretenau, Buchenwald, Chelmno, Dachau, Falstad, Bergen-Belsen, Auschwitz-Birkenau and approximately eight thousand other killing camps after WWII? All because good people stood by and let it happen.

For me the line is drawn at abortion. If we were truly a Christian nation, we would find another answer to support the women who are making a very painful decision to abort because they see no other answers. Instead of allowing the government to put our money into organizations such as Planned Parenthood which gives the only option, for a woman without support and in distress, the choice of only abortion, why isn’t our money given to such organizations as Birthright? Why hasn’t the Church been constant in its support of this organization? Why not have an extra collection at Mass for this and only this group? Peace.

The idea that the Church doesn’t support mothers-to-be, both before and after they deliver is nonsense. We take up large collections in our little Catholic community.

First of all we have baby bottles – everyone takes one home and fills it with change. We hold fishfrys and other money-raising events to support women in need. We have second collections for women in need. We maintain a counseling service for women in need, provide them with support, transportation, and assist them in gaining help from the many available sources.

 

[Insight]

Hi Zab,

 One major party selected its candidate, National Right to Life compliments him on his strong pro-life voting record, while NARAL actually gives him a 96% Pro-Life rating.  The other party is down to two, both vowed to fully fund abortion here and abroad.  Well, plus 96% is better than minus 100%.  I guess we can consider ourselves lucky in this day and age to even have that.

Pope Benedict XVI, stated: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” For this reason, abortion and euthanasia are threshold issues. A “threshold issue” is one which does not allow more than one moral outcome. Threshold issues are fundamental and the Church’s position is morally binding.

The principles of voting Catholic are expressed in the following fundamental concepts:

• Life begins at conception. Therefore, a person’s right to exist begins at conception.

• Society’s duty is to protect innocent life from the moment of conception to natural death.

• The Catholic Church recognizes and teaches that protection of life is the paramount issue.

• The deliberate destruction of an innocent human being is a violation of the person’s rights and therefore always intrinsically wrong.

• Social issues such as hunger, adequate housing and health care, while worthy, are irrelevant if the human being is not first afforded the fundamental right to exist.

• Voting for a candidate based on his/her stand on social issues is unjustified if the candidate does not understand or support the person’s right to exist.

God Bless

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, slavery was ended (legally) by consitutional amendment. But the idea that somehow states can make it okay to kill a certain class of people is simply wrong. Suppose Florida made it legal to kill Jews, New York to kill Blacks, Nevada to kill Catholics, and so on? Would that pass constitutional muster?

The fact is, the right to life is already in the Constitution – in the 5th and 14th Amendments – and the 14th Amendment specifically says:

Today, our legal system defines personhood as post-birth, so overturning Roe v. Wade would not mean that the 14th Amendment would all of a sudden apply to the unborn.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Today, our legal system defines personhood as post-birth, so overturning Roe v. Wade would not mean that the 14th Amendment would all of a sudden apply to the unborn.

The simple basis of overturning Roe v Wade is to cite the 14th Amendment requirement for right to life.

 

[rlg94086]

The simple basis of overturning Roe v Wade is to cite the 14th Amendment requirement for right to life.

That won’t work. Again, if personhood is defined as post-birth, the argument won’t stand. The better argument based on the current constitutional amendments is that the decision should be left to the states. It is a first step…similar to the first steps taken with the slavery issue. The next step is to pass an amendment protecting the unborn.