Would you vote for Hillary Clinton if she ran for president???

[Philip_P]

Also at issue, though, is the question of who commits an action and, consequently, who is responsible. A politician who supports keeping abortion legal is guilty of, at the most, tolerating a grave evil. However, this is not the same as actively procuring an abortion, and a very long way from mandating abortion (as for instance China does). Ultimately, though, it is the indivuals who decide on and perform the abortion who are most culpable.

On the other hand, there are direct actions for which the state is culpable. The decision to go to war, for instance, is an active decision by the state. If (and please note the conditional here) that war is unjust, then the state, is directly culpable for an immoral act. I don’t want to get into an argument over whether Iraq was just or not, I’m trying to illustrate a principle.

A legislator who voted for this hypothetically unjust war would also be directly culpable (as Congress ultimately authorizes the use of force, taking into account the legal rigamarole of the war powers act etc), and certainly the president, as commander in chief, is morally responsible. To a lesser extent, those who vote for representatives who support that war would also be responsible, as in a democracy, ultimately we are the state.

Yes, abortion is a great tragedy and should be ended, but it is a big leap to argue from toleration of its legality to direct culpability for promoting and cooperating in it. The debate should be over how best to end abortion, not how to make it illegal.

 

[dmelosi]

Most cupable? Directly cupable? Very adept at twisting terms. Unjust war? Even if it was unjust, abortion is the greater evil by millions of lives. Look at Catholics as a whole. 50%+ voted pro choice. Is that Most cupable or directly cupable or somewhere in between?
Philip P:

Also at issue, though, is the question of who commits an action and, consequently, who is responsible. A politician who supports keeping abortion legal is guilty of, at the most, tolerating a grave evil. However, this is not the same as actively procuring an abortion, and a very long way from mandating abortion (as for instance China does). Ultimately, though, it is the indivuals who decide on and perform the abortion who are most culpable.

On the other hand, there are direct actions for which the state is culpable. The decision to go to war, for instance, is an active decision by the state. If (and please note the conditional here) that war is unjust, then the state, is directly culpable for an immoral act. I don’t want to get into an argument over whether Iraq was just or not, I’m trying to illustrate a principle.

A legislator who voted for this hypothetically unjust war would also be directly culpable (as Congress ultimately authorizes the use of force, taking into account the legal rigamarole of the war powers act etc), and certainly the president, as commander in chief, is morally responsible. To a lesser extent, those who vote for representatives who support that war would also be responsible, as in a democracy, ultimately we are the state.

Yes, abortion is a great tragedy and should be ended, but it is a big leap to argue from toleration of its legality to direct culpability for promoting and cooperating in it. The debate should be over how best to end abortion, not how to make it illegal.

 

[Philip_P]

dmelosi:

Most cupable? Directly cupable? Very adept at twisting terms.

Perhaps I was inexact in my language; for that I apologize. I’m still interested in exploring this idea of voting pro-life, though. What do we make of the fact that when those politicians who most vocally and visibly claim the mantle of pro-life (by virtue being against legal abortion) are in power, abortion rates increase, while when those who are labelled pro-choice are in power, the rate of abortions declines? (I can provide some citations if necessary). By supporting candidates who are ideologically pro-life, but who fail to deliver on their promises, are we not valuing principle over lives? In other words, if a candidate supported keeping abortion legal, but supported programs that would likely cause significant decreases in abortion, wouldn’t we be remiss in our moral obligation if we voted against this candidate because of his stance on the legality of abortion?

Perhaps this is really a larger question, though. Is focusing on making abortion illegal really the best way to end it? If Roe v. Wade were overturned, for instance, it would send abortion law back to the states (incidentally where I think it belongs), it would not make it universally illegal. Are not putting millions of lives at risk by focusing on whether or not candidates support Roe v. Wade rather than on focusing on who can deliver a lower rate of abortions?

 

[stbruno]

*Go to the library and check out the book, UNLIMITED ACCESS by FBI agent assigned during the early Clinton years, Gary Aldrich. You wouldn’t vote for any Clinton or Gore for that matter if you read it. *

 

[dmelosi]

Philip P:

Perhaps I was inexact in my language; for that I apologize. I’m still interested in exploring this idea of voting pro-life, though. What do we make of the fact that when those politicians who most vocally and visibly claim the mantle of pro-life (by virtue being against legal abortion) are in power, abortion rates increase, while when those who are labelled pro-choice are in power, the rate of abortions declines? (I can provide some citations if necessary). By supporting candidates who are ideologically pro-life, but who fail to deliver on their promises, are we not valuing principle over lives? In other words, if a candidate supported keeping abortion legal, but supported programs that would likely cause significant decreases in abortion, wouldn’t we be remiss in our moral obligation if we voted against this candidate because of his stance on the legality of abortion?

Perhaps this is really a larger question, though. Is focusing on making abortion illegal really the best way to end it? If Roe v. Wade were overturned, for instance, it would send abortion law back to the states (incidentally where I think it belongs), it would not make it universally illegal. Are not putting millions of lives at risk by focusing on whether or not candidates support Roe v. Wade rather than on focusing on who can deliver a lower rate of abortions?

As I was unable to find where abortion rates have increased, I would appreciate some sources to look into.
What you are saying is that it might be better to put people in charge who agree and promote pro choice and make the claim that they would do a better job of reducing abortions than those who support pro life. Simply put, that is like putting the wolf in charge of the henhouse. I highly suspect your motives in this forum.

I believe that we are starting to turn the corner in educating people on what abortion really is. The pro choice people have done a good job of dehumanizing the fact that it is a life being killed. Once people get their heads out of the sand and face this fact, the trend will change. It is our job to educate first and foremost our fellow Catholics because this is where the greatest potential for impact lies. Over 50% voted pro choice in the last election.

Philip P, no matter how you try to sugar coat it, how we get to reducing abortions is to have people who are pro life lead that charge. Certainly not as you suggest, have pro choice people lead it.

 

[HagiaSophia]

dmelosi:

As I was unable to find where abortion rates have increased, I would appreciate some sources to look into.

Try this: nrlc.org/rko/index.html

From an old thread called: Abortion Stats Skewed in the Politics Forum

DATA SHOW CLAIMS OF INCREASED ABORTIONS UNDER BUSH DON’T HOLD UP
by Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., Director of Education & Research and Laura Hussey, M.P.M., Special Research Assistant, National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund

A piece by a California seminary professor is appearing on the internet and an in several newspapers claiming that abortions have increased under the Bush administration. While trotting out what appear to be detailed statistics from several states, the professor has one basic problem: his numbers don’t hold up.

Glenn Stassen, the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, says that while national statistics from 1990 to 2000 show abortion declining, figures from 11 out of 16 states show abortion increasing since Bush took office. This is both mistaken and misleading.

Stassen looks at national figures showing the annual number of abortions dropping from about 1.6 million in 1990 to just over 1.3 million in 2000 to argue that there was a steady decline of 1.7% a year before Bush took office. There was a 17.4% decline over the decade, but Stassen’s claim is misleading. The decline was strongest in the first half of the decade, which began with George H.W. Bush in office, but slowed during Bill Clinton’s term, and even reversed itself one year. In Clinton’s last year in office, the decline was not 1.7%, but just 0.1%.

There have been no national figures published beyond 2000. Setting aside for the moment the question of whether the sixteen states Stassen uses to support his claim of a reversed national trend are representative of the country as a whole, Stassen’s case falls apart when one attempts to confirm the data he has reported.

Stassen lists South Dakota and Wisconsin as two places where abortions increased from 2001 to 2002. Figures from those state health departments show abortions decreased in both states during that time frame.

Stassen lists Illinois as another state where abortions increased from 2001 to 2002. State records do confirm a slight increase for 2002, but then a drop of 10% for 2003, indicating that 2002 was probably just an aberration in a long term downward trend.

With those three states shifting from the increase to the decrease column, Stassen’s claim that abortions have increased in 11 out of 16 states now turns into a 8 to 8 tie, with as many states decreasing as increasing. Hardly anything definitive…While some states where Stassen said abortions increased also saw increases in their unemployment rates over those same years, there are also plenty of counter-examples. Illinois’s abortions dropped substantially between 2002 and 2003, in spite of its unemployment rate being stuck at 6.7%, among the worst in the nation. Ohio’s unemployment rate rose considerably relative to most other states, but abortions there declined. If the economic determinism Stassen assumes was valid, those state results would be reversed…"

"Stassen presents himself as someone sympathetic to the pro-life cause who was shocked and saddened to find out that our pro-life president’s policies were not having the pro-life effects he anticipated. That persona is misleading.

Though he identifies himself as “consistently pro-life,” Stassen fails to mention that he was one of the original signatories of “A Call to Concern,” a 1977 document that expressed support for the Roe v. Wade decision and affirmed that “abortion in some instances may be the most loving act possible.”

 

[Philip_P]

dmelosi:

What you are saying is that it might be better to put people in charge who agree and promote pro choice and make the claim that they would do a better job of reducing abortions than those who support pro life. Simply put, that is like putting the wolf in charge of the henhouse. I highly suspect your motives in this forum.

What are my motives? I suppose that’s a fair question. I’m frustrated with the national deadlock on abortion, and worried about the pro-life retreat into a narrow sector of the political spectrum. There are Catholics on the political right and left, which is good and necessary. If we are to be the salt of the earth, as in today’s Gospel, we have to be in the mix, not marginalized to a special-interest constituency of a single party. What I’d like is a way forward that delivers results. If a candidate claims that he or she is pro-life, then pushes through anti-abortion legislation that he or she knows will be struck down by the courts, while simultaneously supporting the death penalty and a belligerent foreign policy, there’s a problem. If a candidate claims to be pro-life because he or she supports policies to aid the vulnerable and disadvantaged, but refuses to support any and all anti-abortion legislation, there’s a problem. There is no pro-life party, and trying to argue that there is serves no purpose except that of the parties, who can slice up the electorate, pay lip service to whichever issue they think will most swing their targeted voters, and escape accountability when nothing changes.

I’d like to see the pro-life community push our representatives (be they on the left or right) to deliver on their rhetoric. What happens when Roe v. Wade is finally overturned, but we have not worked to create an environment that supports women in crisis pregnancies? These women will go to states where abortion is still legal – is fighting a state by state battle really what we want? John Kerry says he’s personally opposed to abortion. George Bush says he supports a culture of life. Great, I’m happy for them, but I don’t really care what they, or any future candidates, say. Show me the fruits.

During the 1980’s, abortions began to decline, with rates declining the fastest in the 90’s. You can view this data at http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/trends.pdf (Alan Guttmacher institute. Their data comes from the CDC. I am still trying to hunt down a data source for the last five years, and will post when I have it.). Any discussion about how to reduce abortion should examine the historical data for clues as to what might work in the future. Let’s get beyond labels and ideology and ask the hard questions. What might be some of the unintended consequences of a law under discussion? What are some of the pressures women face that lead them to consider abortion, and what can we do to alleviate those? This is a discussion which I seldom see, but without which I doubt there can be much hope for creating a culture of life.

Hope this clears up where I’m coming from, and what I’m hoping to learn in these forums.

(PS – my link to the AGI is not an endorsement of their policies. If linking here really makes someone uncomfortable, I can dig a little deeper for the original CDC data sources).

 

[NM2]

Jeremy:

I voted lesser of two evils, although I think that would be VERY unlikely.

Ditto, except I would say “VERY, VERY, VERY unlikely.”

 

[Mom_of_5]

Hillary stands for everything that I DON’T!!! However, where there is life there is hope and perhaps as she ages she will find the courage to investigate other paths than the one she seems to follow. I see a strained, tired woman when I see her on TV. Prayer can move mountains, and maybe even Hillary.

Mom of 5

 

[NM2]

Jeremy:

I voted lesser of two evils, although I think that would be VERY unlikely.

Ditto, except I would say “VERY, VERY, VERY unlikely.” For example, if her opponent was the equivalent of Hitler or Stalin and actually had a chance of winning if too many people voted third party.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Huh? The drugs were not intended for use in or even discussed in connection with abortion. Why would you even think so?

I don’t think so. My point is the Hillary wants better drugs for children only if they survive her promotion of their death as another viable socially-acceptable solution to society’s problems.

 

[goofyjim]

My apologies if it has already been stated (I never read all the previous posts-just dive right in to the discussion-bad habit) but we very well have a woman president shortly. I can’t say why cause I have not discussed it with my spiritual director and do not desire to be considered in any way a prophet. Enough said, I think you know what I mean.

 

[Jenlyn]

Overwhelming no. We definitely have feelings about this because over 150 picked the one that started with “Hell would have freeze over.”

Peace,
Jen

 

[MaryMagdalenaL]

I will never understand why mid America so dislikes Senator Clinton. She is a courageous and genuous individual. She advocates for the poor and the middle class. The lady is gracious.

I remember when Princess Diana died and I wrote to Senator Clinton, when she was the first lady. I asked her to please go to represent us, at the Princess’ funeral. Senator Clinton took the time out of her day to write back to me. She did not have one of her secretaries do it. And yes, she did go to England, despite Republican opposition. Why? Because it was the proper, decent and Christian thing to do.

Senator Clinton fought for healthcare for all. However, it was shot down by the Republican congress and not allowed to really ever become a realistic bill. Her plan was solid. Expense would not come from those of us whom already do most of the living, paying and sweating in this country to support the privileged few. And even if I was asked to give my last dime to help another, that is what Christ would have me do. I really do not understand from where all this hatred and negativity against this woman comes. It is certainly not backed by Christ.
Godspeed,
MaryMagdalenaL

 

[CatholicforBush]

Brad:

How about because she is pro-homosexual marriage, pro-human cloning, pro-euthanasia, against Christian judical nominees, hasn’t done a thing for New York state, has no political experience prior to her senate career, has a litany of unexplained firings, deaths, and probable lies in her past, supports radical femminists, and wouldn’t even support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act for women that want their babies?

Not a chance because of all the things that Brad is stating

 

[Brad]

I will never understand why mid America so dislikes Senator Clinton. She is a courageous and genuous individual. She advocates for the poor and the middle class. The lady is gracious.

I remember when Princess Diana died and I wrote to Senator Clinton, when she was the first lady. I asked her to please go to represent us, at the Princess’ funeral. Senator Clinton took the time out of her day to write back to me. She did not have one of her secretaries do it. And yes, she did go to England, despite Republican opposition. Why? Because it was the proper, decent and Christian thing to do.

Senator Clinton fought for healthcare for all. However, it was shot down by the Republican congress and not allowed to really ever become a realistic bill. Her plan was solid. Expense would not come from those of us whom already do most of the living, paying and sweating in this country to support the privileged few. And even if I was asked to give my last dime to help another, that is what Christ would have me do. I really do not understand from where all this hatred and negativity against this woman comes. It is certainly not backed by Christ.
Godspeed,
MaryMagdalenaL

Christ never called for the government to take your money and use it as it sees fit. In fact, this is contrary to Catholic teaching. If you would like to use every last penny for the poor then you are free to do so - this is called tything - a worthy and necessary endeavor implored by God. You can always increase your percentage tythe just as anyone else can. Christ never said to force someone, against their will, to give to the poor.

I’ve gotten written responses from Clinton as well. When I asked her to support the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act”, she wrote me a letter telling me she did not support it and that I shouldn’t either. Now, I ask - if a woman wants her baby and she is abused and loses the baby, without the Act, the abuser faces no consequences for a loss of life - how is Clinton lifting up or benefitting such women?

If she wants to be generous, she has more than enough of her own money to dip into without handing out everyone else’s hard-earned money - some of which she uses to support the killing of the unborn.

 

[fix]

I will never understand why mid America so dislikes Senator Clinton. She is a courageous and genuous individual. She advocates for the poor and the middle class. The lady is gracious.

I remember when Princess Diana died and I wrote to Senator Clinton, when she was the first lady. I asked her to please go to represent us, at the Princess’ funeral. Senator Clinton took the time out of her day to write back to me. She did not have one of her secretaries do it. And yes, she did go to England, despite Republican opposition. Why? Because it was the proper, decent and Christian thing to do.

Senator Clinton fought for healthcare for all. However, it was shot down by the Republican congress and not allowed to really ever become a realistic bill. Her plan was solid. Expense would not come from those of us whom already do most of the living, paying and sweating in this country to support the privileged few. And even if I was asked to give my last dime to help another, that is what Christ would have me do. I really do not understand from where all this hatred and negativity against this woman comes. It is certainly not backed by Christ.
Godspeed,
MaryMagdalenaL

What hatred are you referring to?

 

[Magster]

Laurel:

If she were pro-life I sure would, and this year is the first time I voted Rep., but I had to choose the last option because it was the only one that came close to my feelings. The only reason I cannot vote Democratic anymore is the abortion issue.

Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, they will not admit that abortion remains a CRUCIAL issue for many, many people, along with the rest of their liberal agenda. I predict the party’s demise unless the leaders own up to their problems.

It makes me uneasy, but I fear Hillary probably has someone monitoring things like these forums so she can determine how best to manipulate people who don’t buy into the liberal left agenda that flies in the face of God’s plan. She is very crafty and manipulative.

I pray both for Hillary’s conversion, as well as for fortitude for the voters who want to see an end to abortion and the rest of the agenda that is contrary to God’s plan.

 

[tomem]

Being military your state of voting can vary from one election to another. When we moved to NY I changed my state of residence just so I could vote against her.

Why did she have to move to NY to get into politics? Was she afraid that her own state wouldn’t listen/trust her? She promised the people of NYC that she would live there - I guess if you count 50 miles north of the City living there, I guess she did fulfill her promise.

She and hubbie Bill left Arkansas for 2 reasons: 1) There were too many skeletons laying around and 2) No one in Ark would vote for either one of them again for anything. Bill carried the state both times he ran for President because the people wanted him out of state.
BTW, I voted not if Hell were freezing over.

 

[Pax2u]

Lance:

I would vote for Osama bin Laden before I would vote for Hillary. At least he is against abortion and gay marriage.

Lance, you are too funny. I didn’t think I could chuckle at a sentence with Osama’s name in it.