Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[ishii]

Originally Posted by CMatt25

"Courts must have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases and other instances of heinous crime"

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Crime.htm#4

"Death penalty is an effective deterrent
Within proper federal jurisdiction, the Republican Congress has enacted legislation for an effective deterrent death penalty"

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Rep...arty_Crime.htm

CCC 2267 "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

Here the Church teaching is a death penalty only in rare cases when it is the only way to defend lives against the aggressor.

Yet Republicans have previously spoken in their platforms about a death penalty being needed for a deterrent and as an option in capital murder and other crimes.

Hardly does that sound in only very rare if not practically non- existent cases.

Peace

GOP platform: "courts must have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases, etc."

CCC 2267: "The Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty"

Now contrast the Catholic Church and the Democrat party on abortion rights:

"Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose"
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Dem...y_Abortion.htm

CC 2270: "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life."

So I ask you Cmatt, which platform is more in opposition to Catholic moral teaching on the sanctity of life - the GOP or the Democrat party?

Ishii

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

You are preaching to a choir, Kimmie. Those who would vote Republican shall do so regardless of Democratic arguments, and vice-versa. I expect no one to have a sudden epiphany and change sides.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by ishii

Monte, you're an optimist to think that the pro-abortion rights Democrat catholics will read the above and actually have a change of heart as to whether the GOP has an effect on abortion in this country. They are set in their minds.

Ishii

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Now I remember why I walked away from CAF for almost 2 years. There really isn't any discussion going on here, just a bunch of people thumping their chests and declaring how right they are.

[Monte RCMS]

Originally Posted by ishii

Monte, you're an optimist to think that the pro-abortion rights Democrat catholics will read the above and actually have a change of heart as to whether the GOP has an effect on abortion in this country. They are set in their minds.

Ishii

I know.

But, here it is.

They can deny it all day and all night, but here it is.

Maybe arguing never convinces anyone, but I am figuring that there are a lot of lurkers out there who have NO IDEA one way or the other.

I was sort of a "cafeteria Catholic lurker" for many years.

And one day, I was traveling on business and happened to be in a city where an old friend from decades ago lived ... he is an evangelical Protestant ... has a classroom building that he added on to his house to conduct Bible study ... serious Christian ... anyway we got together for a reunion and he brought me a gift ... a half-dozen books ... including some C.S. Lewis and a bunch of others and HE got me from being a Sunday Catholic to having at least a clue as to what is going on.

So, maybe some other lurker will see the list on post 822 and maybe a little light will click on.

Here is the link to the actual original source, by the way:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/electi...nsequences.htm

Very reputable group. Run by a very reputable priest.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/intro/introbrochure.html

[Monte RCMS]

Like I said, I was a "lurker" for many years.

Then I got "involved".

And then some pastor from another parish called and asked me to address his parish council.

So I showed up.

And basically what I said was "I was a lurker for years, and now here I am giving a talk."

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by Semper Zelare

Doesn't holding heretical positions make you a heretic? Which incurs latentiae setentiae?

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

Am I not correct?

No, it does not. Here is the definition of heresy.

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/h...m_apostasy.htm

Also, we read:

1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or a precept committed by the person is seriously imputable to that person by reason of malice or culpability.

We lay people have not authority to declare heresy and must be careful when we accuse others of latae sententia excommunication. It is one thing to have an abortion or perform abortion. It is quite a different matter to vote for someone who in turn votes for a judge who in turn votes to make it legal for this sin to occur. It is not right, but neither does it incur excommunication. It might even be mortally sinful if the intent is to spread abortion, but I do not think that applies to anyone.

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by CMatt25

"Courts must have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases and other instances of heinous crime"

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Crime.htm#4

"Death penalty is an effective deterrent
Within proper federal jurisdiction, the Republican Congress has enacted legislation for an effective deterrent death penalty"

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Rep...arty_Crime.htm

CCC 2267 "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

Here the Church teaching is a death penalty only in rare cases when it is the only way to defend lives against the aggressor.

Yet Republicans have previously spoken in their platforms about a death penalty being needed for a deterrent and as an option in capital murder and other crimes.

Hardly does that sound in only very rare if not practically non- existent cases.

Peace

I think the point is made, sort of. In this case the Republican position is not completely consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church. However, neither is it contradictory. Catholic moral teaching can still exist within the framework of this party plank. Thus, it is nothing like the Democratic pro-abortion plank.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by ChemicalBean

How about FEAR? Fear of economic insecurity - of providing for oneself, one's children (born or unborn), one's parents, encompassing education, health care, living income and job security, retirement, public safety services. Fear of social stigma - despite cultural advances in the acceptance of public pregnancy, it still invites looks, questions, and complications to be a pregnant student or business professional, and if you are in a position dependent on your looks, size, or athleticism (model, actress, cheerleader, airline stewardess, even many wait staff and retail sales), forget about keeping your job.

I think many pro-life conservatives want to eliminate abortion through legislation and and restricted access - basically, trying to reduce supply. Many pro-life progressives believe in eliminating abortion through eliminating its causes (fear and perceived necessity) - basically, trying to reduce demand. We need to work on both simultaneously.

If we reduce abortion supply without reducing demand, the cost of that choice goes up. I'm not just talking about the price of procuring an abortion (which would increase, either because the abortionist can charge more for rarity or because the procurer must travel farther or jump through more hoops to do so). Costs to the individual go up in terms of personal safety (think back-alley), and costs to society increase as we have more children growing up in families and communities insufficient for their needs. Then those emerging adults are less able to contribute to a growing economy and more likely to perpetuate a cycle of under-educated, under-employed, dependent parenthood.

If, however, we improve the economic security of individuals, families, and communities in sustainable ways (education, preventative health care, public safety, living-wage job creation, environmental protection, greener energy and community infrastructure, etc), we create a society that is less toxic to parenthood. Couple that with increased societal messages that a fetus really is a complete human life that deserves protection, and abortion demand will dwindle. If a pregnant woman is looked upon not as a whore to be shamed but a heroine to be championed, she will have little reason to kill her child.

Fear? The government is supposed to free us from all of life's fears? Does anyone really think government can deliver that?

We are born to die, and every last one of us will. Some will die peacefully, and some will die horribly, and there is no way out of that fear. We rightly fear crossing a busy street when we see someone speeding toward us. Will he stop?

Do we not fear for our children; that they will be accosted by some malefactor; that they will develop complexes, diseases, addictions or simply fail to succeed in life? The wholesale throwing of money at "education" tells us one of the metrics of our fears.

And does anyone really think middle class welfare will end fear? Ever talk to a bureaucrat about his career; how it might get sidetracked, how he might not ever achieve the GS level to which he aspires, how he has some higherup who simply doesn't think he cuts it, and makes that clear?

And do you not think the most protected union man in the country doesn't fear his company's potential move to China? Do you really think this government has the ability, or even the willingness, to make that fear go away?

When we go to the doctor and our blood count is "off" what it ought to be, what do we fear? Do we fear the insurance company or the myriad of conditions, some deadly, that might turn up in the next round of tests? Do we not fear the mysterious, deep pain that awakes us at 3:00 a.m.?

Human life is fraught with fear, and it's fear that motivates most of us to do those things that are useful, sometimes even heroic.

Those who greatly fear being left behind because of their looks, their marital status or whatever, might greatly reduce the basis for fear by being useful. The more useful one is to others, the less one has a basis for the more ordinary kinds of fear. And, of course, one who trusts in God's Providence, fears least of all.

And, one might hazard to say that we will never build a society in which there is nothing to fear. We left that aspiration behind long ago and, after all, God placed an angel with a sword of flame at the gates of Eden lest we think somehow that, by our efforts we'll manage to return.

[jfmarm81]

[quote=pnewton;7928611]I actually ignored the question because I do not vote for pro-abortion Democrats. Therefore I do not understand the logic of the question.

Also, can you tell me when America operated with more than two significant parties? i.e. an election when the 3rd party actually had a chance to win? Examples please.



There was a time a 3rd party candidate had a chance to win.....1912. Not to be a pain, as it is not exactly a recent election, but the question was asked and I am a history nerd....

[Rence]

Originally Posted by MillTownCath

I'm proud that the administration took on health care reform, and all though Republicans turned out to be quite a huge hurdle, we were able to get something passed.

Can't be denied base on pre-existing conditions now. Also, allowing children to remain covered by their parents' insurance until the age of 26

I'm happy about the unemployment benefits being extended. Although they did not cause this economic recession, the middle and lower classes are the ones being punished for it.

I'm happy that Obama has fought the Tea Party in their unholy war on the poor and needy.

Signed the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, which provides health care to 11 million kids -- 4 million of whom were previously uninsured

Signed New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty)

I'm hopeful about the DREAM Act Legislation.


Met with the Pope!

Well, I'm glad you tried, you have to know that no matter how many things you point out that you like that Obama did, someone is going to whine about it. The guy can't even chew gum in public without being criticized for it. What good will his silly little contrabutions (that mean so much to some, and so little to others) do for a tough crowd?

[estesbob]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

I don't see how anyone can argue with you on this, but I'm sure you will stir the pot and the party line will be reiterated over and over. good luck, and God bless.

It easy to refute because it presents the false premise that their is a correlation between the number of abortions and the amount of money spent on welfare programs. There is mo such correlation-in fact when comparing the rate of abortions between countries the primary determining factor is the amount of restrictions placed on it. The more restrictions, the fewer abortions regardless of the level of social spending.

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by Rence

Well, I'm glad you tried, you have to know that no matter how many things you point out that you like that Obama did, someone is going to whine about it. The guy can't even chew gum in public without being criticized for it. What good will his silly little contrabutions (that mean so much to some, and so little to others) do for a tough crowd?

The fact that 26 states are challenging the constitutionality of the so called "Health Insurance Reform" law means that it isn't some "silly little contribution".

[irishpatrick]

Originally Posted by addictedkoala

I do not vote for pro-choice politicians as a general rule because of this teaching from the bishops, and I agree that those who do vote for them when other options are available have to examine their justification extraordinarily seriously because, as you indicate, the issues they have with the pro-life candidate must outweigh tens of millions of murdered children. However at the same time it would be incorrect to state that objectively speaking it is always non-negotiable to vote for someone pro-choice, as rare as possible justification exists. This is what the Bishops of our country have said.

The BIshops have not said that the five non-negotiables are wrong...they did not even comment on those five. The point is, in real life, those five non-negotiables are effectively accurate--there are very rare exceptions, yet for the genuine vast majority of cases they hold true and accurate.

Since we agree that there is indeed only extreme (and very, very rare) situations in which voting for a pro-choice candidate is acceptable due to proportionate reasons, that into itself means that for all practical purposes one cannot vote for pro-choice candidates because the very rare conditions do not exist.

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by irishpatrick

The BIshops have not said that the five non-negotiables are wrong...they did not even comment on those five. The point is, in real life, those five non-negotiables are effectively accurate--there are very rare exceptions, yet for the genuine vast majority of cases they hold true and accurate.

Since we agree that there is indeed only extreme (and very, very rare) situations in which voting for a pro-choice candidate is acceptable due to proportionate reasons, that into itself means that for all practical purposes one cannot vote for pro-choice candidates because the very rare conditions do not exist.

I guess making sure that food stamps is a guaranteed right is more important than the right to be born.

[Rence]

Originally Posted by ChemicalBean

How about FEAR? Fear of economic insecurity - of providing for oneself, one's children (born or unborn), one's parents, encompassing education, health care, living income and job security, retirement, public safety services.

All more important to 45% of respondents of this poll

Originally Posted by ChemicalBean

Fear of social stigma - despite cultural advances in the acceptance of public pregnancy, it still invites looks, questions, and complications to be a pregnant student or business professional, and if you are in a position dependent on your looks, size, or athleticism (model, actress, cheerleader, airline stewardess, even many wait staff and retail sales), forget about keeping your job.

Exactly when did it become 'noble' to be pregnant out of wedlock? When did that change? I don't think it did. They're still looked down upon and astracized. But 'pro-lifers' tell us girls who have their illegitimate babies are heros. What happened to those girls who were sent into 'hiding' and secretly gave up their kids for adoption and returned home from 'vacation' as if nothing was any different? I don't think much has changed....they're still looked down upon.

Originally Posted by ChemicalBean

If we reduce abortion supply without reducing demand, the cost of that choice goes up. I'm not just talking about the price of procuring an abortion (which would increase, either because the abortionist can charge more for rarity or because the procurer must travel farther or jump through more hoops to do so). Costs to the individual go up in terms of personal safety (think back-alley), and costs to society increase as we have more children growing up in families and communities insufficient for their needs. Then those emerging adults are less able to contribute to a growing economy and more likely to perpetuate a cycle of under-educated, under-employed, dependent parenthood.

I hear a lot of 'pro-life' people claiming that making abortion illegal will somehow force people to stop having sex unless they are ready to have children. The horse is already out of the barn folks...people have been having their cake and eating it too. They're not going to give that up so easily just because strict religious folks want them to, and we can't force them to do so. The rate of abortion is high because people want abortion. It's not going to go away. Badgering people to vote for your favorite candidate is not going to work in real life because the common people have real problems that they are trying to work on by their vote. Abortion is a real problem, but it is affected by supply and demand. We are not forced to have them. People are not being lined up and marched into abortion clinics. They're going to them because they want them. But people *are* being relieved by certain laws and they are burdened by others. This is real to them. What the kid next door does, does not directly affect them.

Originally Posted by ChemicalBean

If, however, we improve the economic security of individuals, families, and communities in sustainable ways (education, preventative health care, public safety, living-wage job creation, environmental protection, greener energy and community infrastructure, etc), we create a society that is less toxic to parenthood. Couple that with increased societal messages that a fetus really is a complete human life that deserves protection, and abortion demand will dwindle. If a pregnant woman is looked upon not as a whore to be shamed but a heroine to be championed, she will have little reason to kill her child.

Abortion won't go away until women either don't want to have them, or think they have to have them. As long as they do, they will have them, one way or another. I'm not going to vote for a candidate just because the only thing they have going for them is the fact that they're 'pro-life'. They better do better than that. You want the 45% of the respondents to this poll to change their vote? Then find someone better to run who will both take care of the common person and the problems that directly affect them, as well as working towards eliminating abortion.