Will you still approve of W

[Cam42]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jul 14 2005, 04:48 PM'][quote name='Cam42']While being pro-life is a huge part of my life, there are also other factors that I must take into account when dealing with the election of a President. We cannot be "one issue" people.[/quote]
Oh, [i]time out[/i]!!! :bugeyes: :bugeyes: :bugeyes:

Nobody gets to use this argument after every Democrat who ever visited this site was bashed over the head for using it during the election. If anyone here tries to use it in favor of Bush now, so help me God... I shall scream. Loudly.
[right][snapback]643489[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is one area where I will agree with Democrats, then. They have the right, as do we Republicans, of which I am staunchly a member to expect the President to govern the whole of the country with the judicial and legislative branches.

While this is most certainly the case, we can and should expect just laws to come from the executive and legislative branches, being upheld by the judicial branch. This includes the ultimate respect for all human life, from conception to natural death.

Bush has never ever held this to be the case. He has been very clear in supporting abortion in limited cases. He has been on record as doing so.

I will never bash a Democrat for wanting a President who will govern with the whole of the country in mind and the whole of the country's issues in the scope of his Presidency.

If a President were to say I am pro-life, I will do everything in my power to promote and support the pro-life movement, but I won't do anything to further the economy, the military, the betterment of the country at large....he would not get my vote. Likewise, if a candidate who said I will do every thing I can about the economy, the military, the betterment of the country at large, but am pro-choice, he would also not get my vote.

However, if a president says, I am not 100% pro-life, but I will limit abortion and said I will do every thing I can about the economy, the military, the betterment of the country at large, he could get my vote, if all the other issues lined up.

Geo. W. Bush's views come most closely in line with my own. He is not as pro-life as me, but he is willing to limit the destruction of life. That is better than Kerry. He is also better than Peroutka, because he is a proven leader on a national level, being a governor of one of the states of the Union.

[Nathan]

Cam42, I agree with you. Should we vote for a terribly unfit presidential candidate just because he takes a pro-life stance? I don't think so.

[Jaime]

There are some things that as Catholics are non negotiable.

A good and wise friend once told me that there is a difference between being an American Catholic and a Catholic American.

He was right.

We've had terribly unfit presidents and we've survived. Are you saying that you are willing to vote pro choice to keep the economy solvent? That's an American Catholic stance.

I don't recall reading anything in Catholic doctrine that says a word about homeland security or inflation as being non negotiable issues.

I voted for Peroutka. I have been openly mocked for my vote and I don't care one bit. I am an educated man but there are some things that don't need a tremendous amount of education. The Church says abortion is wrong. There are no lesser degrees.


So what should I be willing to give up to support that? What should I be willing to give up to stop the culture of death?

[Nathan]

Would you vote for a Hitler if he promised to ban abortion?

[Jaime]

Oh for the love of all that's holy..


You have to resort to Hitler to make a point?

Come on Nathan

Please give something better than a last resort.

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 16 2005, 12:49 PM']There are some things that as Catholics are non negotiable. 

A good and wise friend once told me that there is a difference between being an American Catholic and a Catholic American. 

He was right.

We've had terribly unfit presidents and we've survived.  Are you saying that you are willing to vote pro choice to keep the economy solvent? That's an American Catholic stance. 

I don't recall reading anything in Catholic doctrine that says a word about homeland security or inflation as being non negotiable issues. 

I voted for Peroutka.  I have been openly mocked for my vote and I don't care one bit.  I am an educated man but there are some things that don't need a tremendous amount of education.  The Church says abortion is wrong.  There are no lesser degrees. 
So what should I be willing to give up to support that? What should I be willing to give up to stop the culture of death?
[right][snapback]645411[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yep, your friend was wise.....no doubt about that!!!!!

However, here is what is taught about "non-negotiable" issues.

[quote name='Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics'][i]In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. [u]In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.[/u][/i]

A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, “an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality’.”(EV, 73; also CPL, n.4)

Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. [i]The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today, while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.[/i][/quote]

Gee sounds an awful lot like what I just said, doesn't it?

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 16 2005, 01:02 PM']Oh for the love of all that's holy..
You have to resort to Hitler to make a point?

Come on Nathan

Please give something better than a last resort.
[right][snapback]645422[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It wouldn't be a theological discussion unless Nazism or Hitler was brought up, Nathan just got it out of the way early.

[Jaime]

[quote]Cam42, I agree with you. Should we vote for a terribly unfit presidential candidate just because he takes a pro-life stance? I don't think so[/quote]


That seems to be what I was addressing

And what would you say the answer is? Should we vote for a terribly unfit candidtate just because he's pro life?

Edited July 16, 2005 by jaime

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jul 14 2005, 03:48 PM'][quote name='Cam42']While being pro-life is a huge part of my life, there are also other factors that I must take into account when dealing with the election of a President. We cannot be "one issue" people.[/quote]
Oh, [i]time out[/i]!!! :bugeyes: :bugeyes: :bugeyes:

Nobody gets to use this argument after every Democrat who ever visited this site was bashed over the head for using it during the election. If anyone here tries to use it in favor of Bush now, so help me God... I shall scream. Loudly.
[right][snapback]643489[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You're funny.

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 16 2005, 01:11 PM']That seems to be what I was addressing

And what would you say the answer is?  Should we vote for a terribly unfit candidtate just because he's pro life?
[right][snapback]645441[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, based upon my quote from above.....

[quote name='Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics']Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today, while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.[/quote]

That speaks directly to what you ask. Should we vote for an unfit candidate? No, it is better not to vote than to vote for someone who is unfit. However, if we are to vote, vote for the one who comes closest to embodying the non-negotiable moral values....in this particular case, W. did that moreso than any other candidate, including Peroutka.

[Jaime]

[quote]Should we vote for an unfit candidate? No, it is better not to vote than to vote for someone who is unfit. However, if we are to vote, vote for the one who comes closest to embodying the non-negotiable moral values....in this particular case, W. did that moreso than any other candidate, including Peroutka.[/quote]


Not if George W places a moderate on the bench! Not by a long shot! The only serious shot we have of changing abortion laws is by changing the direction of the bench.

George W would be closest if he appointed someone who was "mostly pro life" in that case he would more be the embodiment of Catholic non negotiables. But if he doesn't, and I mean this, people may have just as well voted for Kerry. It wouldn't be any different!

There are almost 70,000,000 Catholics in the US.

George Bush won the election with 62,000,000 votes

What would have happened if we as Catholics soley voted on the issue of pro life and truly voted for a pro life candidate?

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 16 2005, 11:18 PM']Not if George W places a moderate on the bench!  Not by a long shot!  The only serious shot we have of changing abortion laws is by changing the direction of the bench. 

George W would be closest if he appointed someone who was "mostly pro life"  in that case he would more be the embodiment of Catholic non negotiables.  But if he doesn't, and I mean this, people may have just as well voted for Kerry.  It wouldn't be any different!

There are almost 70,000,000 Catholics in the US.

George Bush won the election with 62,000,000 votes

What would have happened if we as Catholics soley voted on the issue of pro life and truly voted for a pro life candidate?
[right][snapback]646032[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And did 70,000,000 Catholics vote for Bush? I can name three (for sure, including you) who didn't. I am sure that there are more.

And he is still a better candidate than Kerry, because he at least is in favor of limiting abortion, something Kerry is not. What did I post earlier? You have not addressed that yet.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 10:23 PM']And did 70,000,000 Catholics vote for Bush?  I can name three (for sure, including you) who didn't.  I am sure that there are more.

And he is still a better candidate than Kerry,  because he at least is in favor of limiting abortion, something Kerry is not.  What did I post earlier?  You have not addressed that yet.
[right][snapback]646039[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No I'm saying if 70,000,000 Catholics voted for Peroutka, we'd have a Pro life president!!

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 16 2005, 11:26 PM']No I'm saying if 70,000,000 Catholics voted for Peroutka, we'd have a Pro life president!!
[right][snapback]646045[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And someone who would not be a good governor of the nation. Is that being a good citizen? Which is also part of being a good Catholic....at least according to the Voter's guide......and the USCCB.....and Fr. Frank Pavone.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 10:43 PM']And someone who would not be a good governor of the nation.  Is that being a good citizen?  Which is also part of being a good Catholic....at least according to the Voter's guide......and the USCCB.....and Fr. Frank Pavone.
[right][snapback]646071[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Abso flippin lutely!!

What am I willing to sacrifice to end the culture of death?
4 years of bad governing to ensure 1 (probably 2) pro life judges on the bench?

Emphatically yes!!

Our country can survive a bad presidential term. The next two Supreme court justices will be making decisions for the next 30 years!! We've survived horrible governing as close as Carter's administration and we've bounced back and not only survived but thrived!!