Is Voting for a pro-Choice politician ok if you don't vote for them because of the pro choice stance they have?

[Socrates]

23 hours ago, Peace said:

 Would you vote for Ted Cruz if his record were exactly the same, yet he worshipped at a Mosque? I suppose that if Ted Cruz were an athiest that would not matter in the least either?

The question was not "would you rally around someone solely or cheifly based on the church he attends". The question was whether or not you consider a person's Catholic faith as a factor when deciding who to vote for.

As I recall you were the one who some time ago gave me a lecture about the importance of a politician's character. But I suppose that a beief in the Christian God tells you nothing about the person's character?

You seem to say, essentially, that "a person's faith is irrelevant to his or her qualifications as a candidate." Should it come as a surprise then that someone such as myself thinks you put your politics before your religion? A person's faith to me is one of the most relevant, if not the most relevant, things that I look for in a candidate. The deeper a person's faith, the more likely that faith is to play itself out in the way that he leads and carries out the duties of his office. We want those duties to be carried out according to Catholic principles (even if it means giving illegal aliens an avenue towards citizenship).

I've seen no indication that Cruz is, or would become, hostile to Catholics or the Catholic Faith in his political life, nor are his policies contrary to Catholic morality.

I'll let God judge the depth of politicians' faith - I'll judge their words and actions.

 

23 hours ago, Peace said:

blah, blah . . . I have accused you of putting your politics ahead of your faith many times before.  . . 

Yes, you have repeatedly made that asinine accusation - so perhaps it's time to cut it out.  Not following your particular brand of politics does not equate to "putting politics ahead of faith."  Of course, such senseless ad hominen attacks against one's faith or character are typical of persons unable or unwilling to debate actual issues, or make substantial arguments.

I've never advocated anything on here contrary to Catholic Faith.  And, you're twisting my position (I was actually arguing that ideally helping the poor would be all through voluntary charity rather than government coercion, though I see no point in rehashing that whole debate again.)

And before you start wagging your finger and going all holier-than-thou on me again, you might want to read up on the sins of slander and rash judgment and then make a sincere examination of conscience.

 

On 1/27/2016, 10:20:37, Peace said:

LOL. Not a mortal sin. Just extremely stupid, self-serving, and indicative that he does not have the character that one desires in a president.

Ted Cruz has been willing to actually stand up and fight for the principals he was elected to stand up for, unlike most of his GOP Senate peers, and that's a large part of why I support him.  

Your boy Rubio can't be bothered to even show up to vote against funding PP, he's actively broken his campaign promises to his constituents, and his campaign attacks on Cruz were dishonest and sleazy - none of which is indicative of superior character.  No, he's not the worst guy running, but he's no great Catholic saint either - he's just another politician.  And choosing not to support him doesn't make me a some traitor to the Faith.

But this is becoming circular - I don't think anybody's changing anybody's mind.

[Peace]

6 hours ago, Oremus Pro Invicem said:

How is it impossible? Norma McCorvey would highly disagree with you. She has dedicated her life to overturning the Supreme Courts decision.  You may know her.  She is Roe from Roe v. Wade. 

Yes, any members of congress who arent working toward overturning Roe v. Wade are cowards for not pursuing it. 

A bill cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

11 hours ago, Peace said:

A bill cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision.

True, however it can render a Supreme Court decision/interpretation obsolete. A Human Life consitutional ammendment. 

Edited January 29, 2016 by Oremus Pro Invicem

[KnightofChrist]

19 hours ago, Peace said:

Well in that case why don't all of the Senators get together and pass a bill to overturn Roe v. Wade? Why let the mere fact that it is impossible get in the way? All of the members of Congress are cowards for not pursuing it.

A person does have to mindlessly follow every inane action of Ted Cruz to care about the issue. Rubio has cast plenty of pro-life votes. I don't blame him for wasting his time by chasing unicorns.

Please feel to name the 13 non-Republican Senators who would vote for it.

Politicians like Rubio play games. They always promise next time we'll fight, next time we'll vote when it counts, just vote for us and we promise next time will be different. But then next time comes and they have yet another set of lame excuses of why they cannot or will not fight. Rubio has chosen to join the part of the Republican Party that lies and makes promises they don't keep.

Democrats don't really have this cowardly problem, they don't care they fight for what they believe in tooth and nail win or lose. Politicians like Rubio say we should defund PP but when it comes to actually taking a step in that direction they don't even bother to show up and have some lame weak excuse as to why they broke their word.

Also, I don't support Cruz, I'm not even sure if I'll support anyone. I could be wrong but I think the election will likely come down between Trump and Sanders. That's going to be a wild ride.

[bardegaulois]

20 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Politicians like Rubio play games. They always promise next time we'll fight, next time we'll vote when it counts, just vote for us and we promise next time will be different. But then next time comes and they have yet another set of lame excuses of why they cannot or will not fight. Rubio has chosen to join the part of the Republican Party that lies and makes promises they don't keep.

Democrats don't really have this cowardly problem, they don't care they fight for what they believe in tooth and nail win or lose. Politicians like Rubio say we should defund PP but when it comes to actually taking a step in that direction they don't even bother to show up and have some lame weak excuse as to why they broke their word.

Also, I don't support Cruz, I'm not even sure if I'll support anyone. I could be wrong but I think the election will likely come down between Trump and Sanders. That's going to be a wild ride.

Republicans won't do anything that would limit abortion on the federal level because it, along with a few other issues targeting specific demographics (Israel, Cuba, etc.), is the goose that lays the golden egg every election season. Thus, any politician for a prominent office will never do anything about it but will rant a blue streak in an election year, hoping his rhetoric will supplant his record in the voters' minds. So long as there is a problem, people will turn up to the polling stations. If they resolve the problem, they might not. This is likely what is at the root of politicians' duplicity on this issue.

That said, though, the leading abortion battleground has become less the federal government, and more the statehouses, with so many states over the past decade having so severely limited access to abortion that it has become practically non-existent in their states. I find it interest that so many tend to rant and rave about a remote government in Washington, but completely ignore that government much closer to them that generally has much more relevance to their lives and communities. Case in point, all my students (community college) know who the president is; fewer than half can name their state governor.

[StMichael]

19 hours ago, Peace said:

A bill cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision.

That is simply and factually untrue.

Congress makes the laws. The President executes the laws. The Supreme Court cannot change the law.

Currently there is a movement calling for a Constitutional Convention of the States. This is allowed under Article V of the Constitution. If 2/3 of these states wanted to add an amendment that banned abortion and it was ratified by 3/4 of the states. There is nothing the supreme court can do. Same for Congress or the President.

The Supreme Court has seized power not granted it as it did with Roe V. Wade, Gay marriage and even Obamacare and has granted rights (the government cannot grant rights to any group or interest).

As for the politicians, what can they do? The house of representatives hold the purse strings and they can cut off funding for abortion, but cannot ban it. Unless they add an amendment and the States ratify it.

 

[Freedom]

On January 28, 2016 8:40:10 AM, Benedictus said:

Until you realize that there are other things to consider, equally as important. Hardly anybody votes on the basis of one issue in isolation. Candidates aren't that cookie cutter. They also, at least usually, care little for the examination of conscience leaflet or your Archbishop.

I will never vote for a Liberal or liberal favors EVER.  I'm not a Cafeteria Catholic, I'm righteous, I very well know right from wrong and I'm against anything that is wrong...period.  If it says in my examination of conscience booklet, that knowingly voting for someone who is pro choice, is a mortal sin, I will not do a grave matter simply by casting in my vote [rolls eyes].  Majority of conservatives are pro life, with some exceptions, but the Catholic Church makes exceptions as well.  

Those who vote for a candidate who is pro choice, better run off to confession.  Also committing a transgression knowing full well you can go to confession is also another transgression.  Voters beware, yo.

On January 28, 2016 10:28:14 AM, dairygirl4u2c said:

the pope said you CAN vote for a prochoice person if there's a proportionate reason. the pope trumps your pamphlet and your local religous figures. i hope you are just being overally general with your wording and already are aware of this. 

Link please.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Freedom

[Benedictus]

14 hours ago, Freedom said:

I will never vote for a Liberal or liberal favors EVER.  I'm not a Cafeteria Catholic, I'm righteous, I very well know right from wrong and I'm against anything that is wrong...period.  If it says in my examination of conscience booklet, that knowingly voting for someone who is pro choice, is a mortal sin, I will not do a grave matter simply by casting in my vote [rolls eyes].  Majority of conservatives are pro life, with some exceptions, but the Catholic Church makes exceptions as well.  

Those who vote for a candidate who is pro choice, better run off to confession.  Also committing a transgression knowing full well you can go to confession is also another transgression.  Voters beware, yo.

Link please.

[dairygirl4u2c]

On 1/30/2016, 7:27:43, Freedom said:

I will never vote for a Liberal or liberal favors EVER.  I'm not a Cafeteria Catholic, I'm righteous, I very well know right from wrong and I'm against anything that is wrong...period.  If it says in my examination of conscience booklet, that knowingly voting for someone who is pro choice, is a mortal sin, I will not do a grave matter simply by casting in my vote [rolls eyes].  Majority of conservatives are pro life, with some exceptions, but the Catholic Church makes exceptions as well.  

Those who vote for a candidate who is pro choice, better run off to confession.  Also committing a transgression knowing full well you can go to confession is also another transgression.  Voters beware, yo.

Link please.

" When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons "

http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

[dominicansoul]

When ever you vote in a way that will definitely place a pro-abortion candidate into power, whereas Planned Parenthood will continue to butcher babies at the expense of all taxpayers and sell their body parts without limits, and where the candidate you helped put into power gets to veto any laws and legislation prohibiting and limiting abortion,  you have sinned.  May all the unborn baby souls stand in judgment of you at the Seat of God and escort your pitiful, cold, dead soul into the depths of hell with Satan and his angels for all eternity...

[BG45]

Ah Cruz...the man who wants to bomb ISIS until he finds out if sand glows in the dark.  His words, not mine. 

[Nihil Obstat]

13 minutes ago, BG45 said:

Ah Cruz...the man who wants to bomb ISIS until he finds out if sand glows in the dark.  His words, not mine. 

Bombing ISIS is an excellent idea if one can avoid also bombing innocents.

[BG45]

1 minute ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Bombing ISIS is an excellent idea if one can avoid also bombing innocents.

That's the problem though; current rules of engagement the US government operates its bombings by drone under, established under  Obama means that if any boy is old enough to pick up a weapon and gets killed, he's a "militant".  

[Nihil Obstat]

3 minutes ago, BG45 said:

That's the problem though; current rules of engagement the US government operates its bombings by drone under, established under  Obama means that if any boy is old enough to pick up a weapon and gets killed, he's a "militant".  

Right, which is an issue. But "bombing ISIS", in and of itself, is not problematic. What is problematic is the various and sundry circumstances surrounding the object.

[BG45]

1 minute ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Right, which is an issue. But "bombing ISIS", in and of itself, is not problematic. What is problematic is the various and sundry circumstances surrounding the object.

Fair points. But agreed, bombing ISIS isn't problematic in and of itself, assuming a lack of civilian collateral damage.  (It may even be the one thing both the pro-life and pro-choice candidates may agree on!)  Just think, only about 9 more months of this before the voters give birth to a bouncing President-elect.