Catholics don’t stop being Catholic at the voting booth.

benedictaoo said:

But that's not my area of serious confusion. Why are they even for it if they are the ones who stand up for the little guy, the poor, the down trodden?

They even stand up for a violent criminals right to life, so why not the unborn? I just don't get it. Seems to me the mean ole, uncaring, selfish, greedy, rich republicans would be for that one. It's just seems out of character for them to be for this.

Click to expand...

You're right, it is out of character. The Democratic Party is usually the party that stands up for the value and dignity of life and tries to protect both. Most pro-choice Democrats don't see a fetus as a human, and think they are standing up for the dignity and rights of women to have control over their bodies. I think the pro-choice folks see this one incorrectly, and that's why I am hoping that pro-life Democrats grow in influence -- and I think they have been growing in influence, but there's a long way to go.

As a pro-life Democrat, I was happy to have had the opportunity to vote for a fellow pro-life Democrat in 2006, and my hope is that I'll have that opportunity a lot more often. In the meantime, I'll have to vote for pro-choice Democrats when they are the only Democrats in the race, simply because I agree with them on almost every issue except abortion (there are a couple other more minor disagreements I have with my party, but that's the main one).

Fish

Most pro-choice Democrats don't see a fetus as a human, and think they are standing up for the dignity and rights of women to have control over their bodies.

Click to expand...

But that's not a dignity nor a right for a women to be allowed under the law to murder her child. And a women does have control over her body, no one makes her have relations that leads to pregnancy and in the case of rape, she was victimized, she never at any moment lost legal control over her body. So because someone violated her, we have to give her the right to violate the rights of a innocent the party. It's all just makes no sense at all.

It truly is an illogical argument.

I think the pro-choice folks see this one incorrectly, and that's why I am hoping that pro-life Democrats grow in influence -- and I think they have been growing in influence, but there's a long way to go.

Click to expand...

Y'all have to open your mouths and fight harder, not continue to vote for them till they do dump this law.

Most pro-choice Democrats don't see a fetus as a human, and think they are standing up for the dignity and rights of women to have control over their bodies.

Click to expand...

But that's not a dignity nor a right for a women to be allowed under the law to murder her child. And a women does have control over her body, no one makes her have relations that leads to pregnancy and in the case of rape, she was victimized, she never at any moment lost legal control over her body. So because someone violated her, we have to give her the right to violate the rights of a innocent the party. It's all just makes no sense at all.

It truly is an illogical argument.

I think the pro-choice folks see this one incorrectly, and that's why I am hoping that pro-life Democrats grow in influence -- and I think they have been growing in influence, but there's a long way to go.

Click to expand...

Y'all have to open your mouths and fight harder, not continue to vote for them till they do dump this law.

Fish

Most pro-choice Democrats don't see a fetus as a human, and think they are standing up for the dignity and rights of women to have control over their bodies.

Click to expand...

But that's not a dignity nor a right for a women to be allowed under the law to murder her child. And a women does have control over her body, no one makes her have relations that leads to pregnancy and in the case of rape, she was victimized, she never at any moment lost legal control over her body. So because someone violated her, we have to give her the right to violate the rights of a innocent the party. It's all just makes no sense at all.

It truly is an illogical argument.

I think the pro-choice folks see this one incorrectly, and that's why I am hoping that pro-life Democrats grow in influence -- and I think they have been growing in influence, but there's a long way to go.

Click to expand...

Y'all have to open your mouths and fight harder, not continue to vote for them till they do dump this law.

benedictaoo said:

But that's not a dignity nor a right for a women to be allowed under the law to murder her child. And a women does have control over her body, no one makes her have relations that leads to pregnancy and in the case of rape, she was victimized, she never at any moment lost legal control over her body. So because someone violated her, we have to give her the right to violate the rights of a innocent the party. It's all just makes no sense at all.

Click to expand...

Once again, it's worth pointing out that most folks who are pro-choice don't think a fetus is a child or a party that can be innocent or guilty. They don't consider it a human life. I disagree with them, but that's where they're coming from. If you consider a fetus just like an organ or a random lump of flesh, then it actually does make sense that people would have the right to get rid of it (like an appendix or tonsils) instead of being forced to retain it. It's a difference of perception as to whether a fetus is a human life, not as to whether a human life should be protected.

You're putting me in a tough position because I'm not pro-choice and don't like to make that side's arguments for them, but I don't think it's fair to cast them as people who like to gleefully allow women kill people. That's not the way they perceive their position.

Y'all have to open your mouths and fight harder, not continue to vote for them till they do dump this law.

Click to expand...

Who else am I going to vote for? I can't in good conscience vote for a Republican as that party stands for basically working over the poor and the middle class to help the rich. And, in some cases, that is a matter of life or death -- when people starve or die of exposure or die of treatable health conditions they can't get treatment for. If we can't all agree that the people who all agree are people (those born) ought to have the right to life, how could we ever reach agreement on folks where people question whether they're even people? The foundation for ending abortion is to establish that people who we all agree are people have a right to life -- which means universal health care, more available food stamps, protecting Social Security, and so on and so forth. The foundation for establishing that human life in the womb has dignity means establishing that human life outside the womb has dignity -- and that means doing our best to minimize or eliminate racism and poverty, and to protect freedom of speech, religion, privacy (no warrantless wiretaps), due process (no jailing people indefinitely without charging them in civilian courts), and the rule of law (start obeying the constitution -- the Bush adminstration has violated probably half the Bill of Rights).

benedictaoo said:

I totally agree Shannon. BTW how are you? Well I hope. I've praying for you and yours.

The problem with that is, as it stands at least, is a vote for an independent who ever he/she may be is a vote for the one you don't want, IMO.

My vote for McCain will be more a vote against the non pro abortion but RvW believing Obama. (How's that for a contradiction, I'm not for abortion, but I'm for RvW...

Anyway, remember the daddy Bush and Peruo? (sp?) He got in there just to screw up Bush because he was a business revival and those were votes that would have gone to the daddy Bush. That's how Clinton got in and if we all remember correctly, we have the lovely partial birth abortion because of Clinton and now we have to do a "born alive" protection because of that. So.

We really have to do all we can to keep the pro abortion... excuse me, non pro abortion but RvW believing politicians out because the abortions laws are going to expand once again as they did under Clinton.

But that's not my area of serious confusion. Why are they even for it if they are the ones who stand up for the little guy, the poor, the down trodden?

They even stand up for a violent criminals right to life, so why not the unborn? I just don't get it. Seems to me the mean ole, uncaring, selfish, greedy, rich republicans would be for that one. It's just seems out of character for them to be for this.

Click to expand...

It might mean a four year sacrifice--but if enough people voted together as a block- you can bet there'd be some better candidates four years from now. I am sick of voting for the least awful person to put in the White House. I just won't do it anymore--I don't think I can live with myself. I voted for Bush- simply because I thought he'd stack the Court favorably and because he at least had the guts to inititally to refuse to back embryonic stem cell research. After the War began, I could not vote for him again- I believed that strongly that we were intentionally misled and felt creeped out that he seemed to be enjoyng himself in the days surrounding 9/11 and when talking about the impending war. So I voted Constitution Party.

We need a revolution out of two party politics---and if enough people still vote, but refuse to vote Reublican or Democrat--I see that as a first step.

LOL! Diatribe over.

BTW we're all well- finishing up week 2 of school, which has left me exhausted, but we've been having fun with neat stuff for school. All of the kiddos' activites for the year are starting and so there's lots of running around. I hope things are looking better for you all, now that the gas prices are slowly starting to rereat a little. YOu guys have been in my prayers.

Once again, it's worth pointing out that most folks who are pro-choice don't think a fetus is a child or a party that can be innocent or guilty. They don't consider it a human life.

Click to expand...

Well this ain't 1970 anymore, with the technology and 3 and 4D ultrasounds, you'd be dumb to argue abortion doesn't stop a beating heart.

If you are a Catholic or non Catholic Christian, ppl being wrong about this thus this outrage became a law... is no reason to leave the faith that tells us that this is an immoral sinful thing at the boot's door.

I disagree with them, but that's where they're coming from. If you consider a fetus just like an organ or a random lump of flesh, then it actually does make sense that people would have the right to get rid of it (like an appendix or tonsils) instead of being forced to retain it. It's a difference of perception as to whether a fetus is a human life, not as to whether a human life should be protected.

Click to expand...

If you (general you, not you, you) think a baby is not a human person when it's in the womb then you are just plain dumb, Fish. It's not a legitimate nor valid argument to make and the Demo's with all their smarts and compassion about them, should not entertain such a silly dumb opinion that is wrong. It makes them really look foolish.

The fact that they do is why we all should be questioning their character and sense of good judgement because it goes against the constitution. You just can not in good conscious vote for anyone who believes in this evil as a law or American right, who thinks a baby is not a human person. That's absurd.

The fact that they entertain these ppl, and many librals believe as they do, is appalling. And when they want to save the spotted owl over a human life, then that must give you a reason to pause.

You're putting me in a tough position because I'm not pro-choice and don't like to make that side's arguments for them, but I don't think it's fair to cast them as people who like to gleefully allow women kill people. That's not the way they perceive their position.

Click to expand...

I don't think that i have casted them in that light. This is just another way to deflect from the questions one should ask themselves if this is who they are putting in office... why are they for this? Especially if it is such a agonizing decision for a woman to make? Seems to me all the more reason to not get behind it. Especially in light of all the psychologically messed up women we have out there who had this done over a 30 year span and now thanks to Clinton we have to deal with infacide. That's what RvW opened the door to and that is why radical liberals such as Bams can not be put in office.

It's sad that they care more about the ding dongs who thinks it's not a human being or that the right of a women to do it over what this does to a women itself. Again which brings us back full circle, if they are the caring ones, why do they not care about women?

Who else am I going to vote for? I can't in good conscience vote for a Republican as that party stands for basically working over the poor and the middle class to help the rich. And, in some cases, that is a matter of life or death -- when people starve or die of exposure or die of treatable health conditions they can't get treatment for. If we can't all agree that the people who all agree are people (those born) ought to have the right to life, how could we ever reach agreement on folks where people question whether they're even people? The foundation for ending abortion is to establish that people who we all agree are people have a right to life -- which means universal health care, more available food stamps, protecting Social Security, and so on and so forth. The foundation for establishing that human life in the womb has dignity means establishing that human life outside the womb has dignity -- and that means doing our best to minimize or eliminate racism and poverty, and to protect freedom of speech, religion, privacy (no warrantless wiretaps), due process (no jailing people indefinitely without charging them in civilian courts), and the rule of law (start obeying the constitution -- the Bush adminstration has violated probably half the Bill of Rights).

Click to expand...

But all that is debatable-- which side is better for the poor and the economy over the other but abortion really isn't. You say the liberals are better for these issues and others will say the conservatives are, all that really is subjectivity because they have different approaches and ideas. But abortion is objectively evil and wrong and we can say with certainty this party has it all wrong. Just as we can say communism is dead wrong, we can say abortion is. So why does this party support something that is so objectively wrong?

Your reason for still voting for them is akin to voting for a party who believes in communist rule, something you know for a fact is objectively wrong and evil but you over look that because of all the other issues that you feel they have a better answer for.

Politics will always let you down. No one will ever have it all right and do what is truly best and they are all just a bunch of no good crooks anyway. They all get rich off of us and public office is the den of iniquity if you ask me. So the one issue we do know is right and just that we can get behind, we as Christians have an obligation to do so.

ShannonMcCatholic said:

It might mean a four year sacrifice--but if enough people voted together as a block- you can bet there'd be some better candidates four years from now. I am sick of voting for the least awful person to put in the White House. I just won't do it anymore--I don't think I can live with myself. I voted for Bush- simply because I thought he'd stack the Court favorably and because he at least had the guts to inititally to refuse to back embryonic stem cell research. After the War began, I could not vote for him again- I believed that strongly that we were intentionally misled and felt creeped out that he seemed to be enjoyng himself in the days surrounding 9/11 and when talking about the impending war. So I voted Constitution Party.

We need a revolution out of two party politics---and if enough people still vote, but refuse to vote Reublican or Democrat--I see that as a first step.

LOL! Diatribe over.

Click to expand...

I'm with ya.

ShannonMcCatholic said:

It might mean a four year sacrifice--but if enough people voted together as a block- you can bet there'd be some better candidates four years from now. I am sick of voting for the least awful person to put in the White House. I just won't do it anymore--I don't think I can live with myself. I voted for Bush- simply because I thought he'd stack the Court favorably and because he at least had the guts to inititally to refuse to back embryonic stem cell research. After the War began, I could not vote for him again- I believed that strongly that we were intentionally misled and felt creeped out that he seemed to be enjoyng himself in the days surrounding 9/11 and when talking about the impending war. So I voted Constitution Party.

We need a revolution out of two party politics---and if enough people still vote, but refuse to vote Reublican or Democrat--I see that as a first step.

LOL! Diatribe over.

BTW we're all well- finishing up week 2 of school, which has left me exhausted, but we've been having fun with neat stuff for school. All of the kiddos' activites for the year are starting and so there's lots of running around. I hope things are looking better for you all, now that the gas prices are slowly starting to rereat a little. YOu guys have been in my prayers.

Click to expand...

I totally agree, we need to do something to change the way things are.

And we are all doing good. Gas prices still are high. I'm still living in the days when it was 98 cents. I won't be happy until they are back to that.

All my kiddo's are in school now so my days are free! Feels weird since it's been 6 years now since I haven't had a baby at home during the day. I keep thinking the baby is still in the house and I have to go and check on him but he's not a baby anymore, he's a big boy. And we got a new baby, a baby dog. He keeps me company now.

benedictaoo said:

Well this ain't 1970 anymore, with the technology and 3 and 4D ultrasounds, you'd be dumb to argue abortion doesn't stop a beating heart.

Click to expand...

Actually when abortions are done early enough in a pregnancy, they don't stop a beating heart. Technicalities aside, though, I still think there is something or someone who should be protected there. It's incredibly sad when a child's own mother decides to terminate a pregnancy. In other circumstances, these mothers would be protectively putting their hands over their stomachs and feeling for kicks or talking about what to name their babies.

You just can not in good conscious vote for anyone who believes in this evil as a law or American right, who thinks a baby is not a human person.

Click to expand...

That statement puts you at odds with what the Pope said a few years ago acting in his then-capacity as the head of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. I think I have to side with the Pope on this one. I think that should be a safe position for me to take on a Catholic forum.

Especially if it is such a agonizing decision for a woman to make? Seems to me all the more reason to not get behind it.

Click to expand...

That's a good point. Even if I did accept that women should be able to choose whether or not to abort a child (which I don't), there is a question as to whether many of them are psychologically competent to make a permanently life-altering decision like that so quickly after receiving such important and often traumatic news. One thing I'd like to see legislatively is to get a mandatory waiting period put in place between a woman's first consultation with a clinic that can perform abortions and the procedure itself taking place. I think that would save lives and save many women from making decisions they could later regret. That's something we could get done in this country, I think.

But all that is debatable-- which side is better for the poor and the economy over the other but abortion really isn't.

Click to expand...

I don't believe which side is better for the poor is genuinely debatable. There is not one iota of doubt in my mind on that subject. And I consider withholding necessary medical care and food and shelter from people who would otherwise die just as evil as abortion. In fact, it may even be more evil than abortion, because no one questions that the poor are human beings, so we know what is going on in letting the poor die under these conditions is at best purposeful indifferentism to their suffering and death and at worst people who actually want folks to die for alleged character deficiencies. At least with abortion, there is some doubt in folks mind as to whether the victims are people. Knowing their people and still be alright with their deaths, as in the case of this lack of support for the poor, is in my view an added evil.

ShannonMcCatholic said:

Catholics can be Catholic at the voting booth by voting for someone other than either of the two boobs running for the main parties. They can vote for someone who has the desire to protect and serve the weakest and voiceless among us (unborn, homeless, poor, the imprisoned) as well as desiring to take steps to strengthen the dollar as well as being truly good stewards with the earth and her resources as well as thinking that owever it's done- that American heathcare needs to be available and affordable to all.

I wish Catholics would just collectively refuse to stand for two party politics any more, and quit settling for the lesser of two evils. There's not much Catholic-ness in that.

Click to expand...

So who you all voting for?

WordofGod said:

So who you all voting for?

Click to expand...

I was thinking about writing in Miss Shelby....


At this point I honestly don't know--but I will vote, and I will not vote for a Democrat or a Republican- I won't vote Libertarian (because of life issues)- I won't vote Green Party.

LOL! Does it count as voting for moral purposes if you vote "None of the above".

ShannonMcCatholic said:

I was thinking about writing in Miss Shelby....


At this point I honestly don't know--but I will vote, and I will not vote for a Democrat or a Republican- I won't vote Libertarian (because of life issues)- I won't vote Green Party.

LOL! Does it count as voting for moral purposes if you vote "None of the above".

Click to expand...

I would think so simply because the people that are voting for immoral purposes would get their canadate elected.

ShannonMcCatholic said:

I was thinking about writing in Miss Shelby....


At this point I honestly don't know--but I will vote, and I will not vote for a Democrat or a Republican- I won't vote Libertarian (because of life issues)- I won't vote Green Party.

LOL! Does it count as voting for moral purposes if you vote "None of the above".

Click to expand...

Anything that discourages citizens from voicing their opinions, or voting their conscience, is a threat to free speech, and a threat to democracy.

When parties outlive their relevancy, it is up to the people to create new alliances, and new parties to take their place. We may have been stuck with the Democrats and Republicans for most of this century, but changes in dominant parties have happened before, and will probably happen again.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7267363

ALthough Tad---you could vote for my mythical Perfect Party. I'd tell that you could write me in, but I'm not old enough to be President (as an aside- how in the heck in this age of -isms has that rule been allowed to stand???)

ShannonMcCatholic said:

ALthough Tad---you could vote for my mythical Perfect Party. I'd tell that you could write me in, but I'm not old enough to be President (as an aside- how in the heck in this age of -isms has that rule been allowed to stand???)

Click to expand...

I think if we did have a mythical PP candidate who was truly pro-life they wouldn't be electable. To really be a voice for life would be political suicide.

As to the age thing, it's people like you who make me realize how little I've accomplished in life.

The thing that would kill me, is that I think there needs to be some wicked serious prison reforms, to repsect that though prisoners that they are human beings and worthy of dignity and respect. Nobody in AMerica wants to vote for someone who doesn't want harsh prison sentences. And I think the whole remand thing is contrary to the Constitution- if people are truly considered innocent until proven guilty, we oughtn't be able to hold them in prison until trial. Couple that with the right to a speedy trial---and blech...I think it's just all kinds of human rights violations.

LOL! You know tad, if you apply yourself- you too could get to 12,000+ posts -in each of two separate accounts on an internet forum...it's never to late to accomplish great feats.

Fish said:

That statement puts you at odds with what the Pope said a few years ago acting in his then-capacity as the head of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. I think I have to side with the Pope on this one. I think that should be a safe position for me to take on a Catholic forum.

Click to expand...

Ah, no, it don't. We are not free to vote for such an extremist pro... excuse me, non pro abortion but "Roe Vrs Wade believing" candidate. I have no idea what pope statement you are referring to. The pope would never in a trillion years vote for Obama if he was a US citizen. I can say that with great confidence.

That's a good point. Even if I did accept that women should be able to choose whether or not to abort a child (which I don't), there is a question as to whether many of them are psychologically competent to make a permanently life-altering decision like that so quickly after receiving such important and often traumatic news. One thing I'd like to see legislatively is to get a mandatory waiting period put in place between a woman's first consultation with a clinic that can perform abortions and the procedure itself taking place. I think that would save lives and save many women from making decisions they could later regret. That's something we could get done in this country, I think.

Click to expand...

Well Bams, the Clinton's and the other demo's can always truly stand for women's true, real rights that actually help them and not make them murders and ditch this false notion that committing murder is dignifying to women. I keep wondering why they just don't.

They can take that trillion spending increase they plan to do and put it on real women's programs but they don't, so. But they sure as heck will defend the inmate that killed a child, his right to life and they sure as heck jump through hoops for the environmentalist wackos. It's insane. They stand up for those who kill children and babies be it via abortion, botched abortion or defending a child killers right to not be put to death.

I don't believe which side is better for the poor is genuinely debatable. There is not one iota of doubt in my mind on that subject. And I consider withholding necessary medical care and food and shelter from people who would otherwise die just as evil as abortion. In fact, it may even be more evil than abortion, because no one questions that the poor are human beings, so we know what is going on in letting the poor die under these conditions is at best purposeful indifferentism to their suffering and death and at worst people who actually want folks to die for alleged character deficiencies. At least with abortion, there is some doubt in folks mind as to whether the victims are people. Knowing their people and still be alright with their deaths, as in the case of this lack of support for the poor, is in my view an added evil.

Click to expand...

Fish, in all seriousness, that's not an accurate portrayal. A person can walk into an any emergency room and get waited on if it's serious, when the person is stable, they will get shipped to a government subsidized hospital. Care is never with held. I do not know where you get that from.

If you get shoot in the head and are a drug dealer, you get brought to the best trauma unit in your area. Have you ever heard of drive by shooting victims get turned down because they had no health care? I never heard that. the state/feds pick up the bill.

Sure if you have no insurance you will get billed and put into collection after a while if you don't pay and then the Gov writes it off for the hospital so the hospital gets paid.

Of course that's a sucky way to get health care but medial attention is never withheld when you go to the ER if it's truly an emergency. If it's a Gov funded hospital, you get seen even if it's a cold.

My BIL died in 2006. He never had insurance and when they hospital finally figured out he had cancer from head to toe he was given care in ICU and then put in hospice and we were never billed for any of it. The Doc told us to our face not to worry about him not having insurance it was taken care of.

I think you have created a false notion here.

Sphinx777 said:

Anything that discourages citizens from voicing their opinions, or voting their conscience, is a threat to free speech, and a threat to democracy.

Click to expand...

Are you saying, then, that Archbishop Burke is a threat to democracy?