Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

[elt1956]

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

Unfortunately Vern, I don’t think trying to apply the 14th amendment to this issue will work. The majority of Justices decided in favor of the semantics, confusion and political correctness of the pro-choice voters and lobbiests. I wish it wasn’t so. :banghead: Peace.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That won’t work.

Why not?

Again, if personhood is defined as post-birth, the argument won’t stand.

“Personhood” – despite the self-serving pleadings of the pro-choice crowd – is not defined in the Constitution. Prior to Roe vs Wade there was no definition of “personhood” that distinguished between a “person” and a mere human being.

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.

Or the court could simply say there in no such thing as a human being who is not a person, and the 14th Amendment requirement that all persons have the right to life stands.

 

[elt1956]

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.

Hey, did I say NO ONE was supporting Birthright? If that is what I said, it isn’t what I meant. I just think we Christians who are anti-abortion should be more visible at the National Level. Planned Parenthood gets monetary suppot, why not us?? I think what you are doing at your Church is MOST WONDERFUL I just don’t think it is done enough in other Churchs to make an impact on society. PEACE!!!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hey, did I say NO ONE was supporting Birthright? If that is what I said, it isn’t what I meant. I just think we Christians who are anti-abortion should be more visible at the National Level. Planned Parenthood gets monetary suppot, why not us?? I think what you are doing at your Church is MOST WONDERFUL I just don’t think it is done enough in other Churchs to make an impact on society. PEACE!!!

What else do you suggest?

At the March for Life, the media takes a handful of pro-abortion demonstrators, gives them much of the airtime, and falsely multiplies them into hundeds of protestors.

 

[elt1956]

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.

Why not?

“Personhood” – despite the self-serving pleadings of the pro-choice crowd – is not defined in the Constitution. Prior to Roe vs Wade there was no definition of “personhood” that distinguished between a “person” and a mere human being.

Or the court could simply say there in no such thing as a human being who is not a person, and the 14th Amendment requirement that all persons have the right to life stands.

Hey again. Don’t know if this has been straightend out, but did you know that when the decision for persons to have the right to life, pursuit of happiness etc. Blacks were considered to be only 4/5s of an individual and weere not on the same level of humanity and rights as Whites? Peace.

 

[zab]

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

you must be mistaking me for someone else in regards to social issues.

 

[elt1956]

What else do you suggest?

At the March for Life, the media takes a handful of pro-abortion demonstrators, gives them much of the airtime, and falsely multiplies them into hundeds of protestors.

I don’t know Vern. I have heard that the squeeky hinge gets the oil. What can we do to make our modes of justice more visible? Let’s put our heads together. And you are right, the media does have its own slant on everything it deems most popular. It’s all about selling paper and news. . Peace.

 

[rlg94086]

Why not?

“Personhood” – despite the self-serving pleadings of the pro-choice crowd – is not defined in the Constitution. Prior to Roe vs Wade there was no definition of “personhood” that distinguished between a “person” and a mere human being.

Or the court could simply say there in no such thing as a human being who is not a person, and the 14th Amendment requirement that all persons have the right to life stands.

“Could” and reality are often at odds. If you look at the way personhood is defined indirectly in case law, you will see that the chances of the court coming to the conclusion that an unborn human = human = person, is slim-to-none.

The 14th Amendment was the amendment that helped the Roe side win. To think that the justices would buy an argument using the 14th Amendment to overturn it is highly unlikely.

Regarding “personhood,” I think the problem, as discussed in another thread regarding a Montana proposal, is that it doesn’t make sense to just define the unborn as “persons” To do so would extend rights to the unborn that are kind of ridiculous. A simple Amendment enumerating the rights of an unborn human would be much more prudent.

 

[zab]

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.

Why do you think that this candidate should not have a chance to be heard and then let the American people decide?

 

[elt1956]

“Could” and reality are often at odds. If you look at the way personhood is defined indirectly in case law, you will see that the chances of the court coming to the conclusion that an unborn human = human = person, is slim-to-none.

The 14th Amendment was the amendment that helped the Roe side win. To think that the justices would buy an argument using the 14th Amendment to overturn it is highly unlikely.

Regarding “personhood,” I think the problem, as discussed in another thread regarding a Montana proposal, is that it doesn’t make sense to just define the unborn as “persons” To do so would extend rights to the unborn that are kind of ridiculous. A simple Amendment enumerating the rights of an unborn human would be much more prudent.

Hello. Am swimming in the dark here, but haven’t there been convictions of people being indicted, if not convicted, of being guilty of two murders, the mother and her Un-born child? How do our laws reconcile that? Thanks. Peace.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hey again. Don’t know if this has been straightend out, but did you know that when the decision for persons to have the right to life, pursuit of happiness etc. Blacks were considered to be only 4/5s of an individual and weere not on the same level of humanity and rights as Whites? Peace.

No, that’s not true. It had nothing to do with “personhood.”

Here is what the Constitution says:

Article 1
Section 2
Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

As you see, the question was since taxes and representatives are apportioned to states based on population, whether or not to count slaves, indians and so on. The compromise was, indentured servants were counted, indians were not, and slaves were counted as 3/5s of a person.

 

[rlg94086]

Why do you think that this candidate should not have a chance to be heard and then let the American people decide?

Who says he doesn’t have a chance to be heard?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Why do you think that this candidate should not have a chance to be heard and then let the American people decide?

He has been heard – but not nominated.

 

[elt1956]

No, that’s not true. It had nothing to do with “personhood.”

Here is what the Constitution says:

As you see, the question was since taxes and representatives are apportioned to states based on population, whether or not to count slaves, indians and so on. The compromise was, indentured servants were counted, indians were not, and slaves were counted as 3/5s of a person.

Okay, you adjusted my brain on that one. Thanks. Peace.

 

[rlg94086]

Hello. Am swimming in the dark here, but haven’t there been convictions of people being indicted, if not convicted, of being guilty of two murders, the mother and her Un-born child? How do our laws reconcile that? Thanks. Peace.

I see those as happy exceptions that may help to lead to a change in laws. However, those rulings do not mean that the unborn child is defined as a person in the Constitution. It just means that their life was seen to have value equivalent to a human victim in those cases. Again, I am happy those cases have not been overturned in higher courts.

BTW…since Roe v Wade mentions the states rights in protecting the unborn, particularly after the first trimester, these cases would be in-line with the Roe ruling.

 

[elt1956]

I see those as happy exceptions that may help to lead to a change in laws. However, those rulings do not mean that the unborn child is defined as a person in the Constitution. It just means that their life was seen to have value equivalent to a human victim in those cases. Again, I am happy those cases have not been overturned in higher courts.

BTW…since Roe v Wade mentions the states rights in protecting the unborn, particularly after the first trimester, these cases would be in-line with the Roe ruling.

Thanks. It was just when I heard about those cases I would go HUH? Haven’t read Roe vs. Wade, but who decided that after the first tri-mester an zygote became human?? Interesting, when without faith and morality, no one knows. Peace.

 

[zab]

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.

I think that is so very wrong of you to imply that people who support a candidate that best represents the views of the Catholic Church would be responsible for the loss of an election. He cares about the direction that this country is headed. He is not in this race for himself. Because he thinks more of his country than of himself, I trust that whatever decision he makes, it is for the good of this country. At this point, we do not know what the final choices will be. But I will support him as long as he continues to run. How can it be wrong to support the candidate that best reflects the views of the Catholic Church?

 

[rlg94086]

Thanks. It was just when I heard about those cases I would go HUH? Haven’t read Roe vs. Wade, but who decided that after the first tri-mester an zygote became human?? Interesting, when without faith and morality, no one knows. Peace.

I found an interesting article on that! Justice Blackmun decided.
swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/roe/woodward.html

By all accounts Blackmun tried hard to find a clear legal argument to justify drawing the line. He searched through the common law, the precedents, medical books and the positions of various medical organizations – looking for guidance. There were no clear legal or scientific guideposts, so he drafted his opinion more on the basis of logic, medical knowledge, perceived social necessity and the assembled convictions of his colleagues.

In one internal memorandum dated Nov. 21, 1972, two months before the decision was issued, Blackmun told the other justices that the task of drafting the opinion “has proved for me to be both difficult and elusive . . . .” Particularly difficult was the problem of balancing the rights of the woman and **the competing government interest in protecting health and preserving the potential life of an unborn child during the later months of pregnancy. **
Blackmun said in his memo to the other justices that he had determined to set the cutoff at the first trimester, or first 13 weeks of pregnancy. "This is arbitrary," he said, starkly acknowledging his problem. “But perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability (of the fetus), is equally arbitrary.”

I highlighted two things - first the fact that the courts believed that the government had interest in “protecting health and preserving the potential life of an unborn child.” Unfortunately, the courts apparently changed their viewpoint on this over time.

The second is the sad fact that the SCOTUS could make an “arbitrary” decision on when abortion should be allowed/prohibited.

 

[rlg94086]

I think that is so very wrong of you to imply that people who support a candidate that best represents the views of the Catholic Church would be responsible for the loss of an election. He cares about the direction that this country is headed. He is not in this race for himself. Because he thinks more of his country than of himself, I trust that whatever decision he makes, it is for the good of this country. At this point, we do not know what the final choices will be. But I will support him as long as he continues to run. How can it be wrong to support the candidate that best reflects the views of the Catholic Church?

It’s simple math, and based on historical results. I voted for Perot. I’m very aware that I helped elect Bill Clinton. I won’t make the same mistake again, and I will do what I can to convince my fellow Catholics to avoid the same.

 

[zab]

He has been heard – but not nominated.

How has he been heard? By refusing to allow him to participate in debates? By keeping his name off suggested lists of candidates? By the media ignoring his candidacy? No, he has not had fair treatment. That is why many do not know that he is a candidate.