Voting

[megamattman1]

[quote]The Senate will (mostly) approve someone with pro life views as long as they are not a member of the Christian Right (which is some cases is neither Christian nor right not all and esp not on PM but in Byron I know it is) or some radical firnge group. [/quote]

That is a good point too I thought I'd add. It is somewhat unrealistic to think that if so many people have the pro-life personally attitude like kerry that Congress will do anything, if not for political reasons, then for the idea that Congress represents society.

I am not sure why Bush does not have an abortion lithmus test for court justices. Considering that I'd like to think he's more than just talk and considering that he said he won't take the initiative to stop abortion, maybe he knows it's a lost cause until the people change. If it's not for these reasons then it could be that he is really only pro-life personally like Kerry and only justifies calling himself pro-life.

But even though he doesn't have the attitude worth voting for, Kerry has the attitude worth not voting for since he has a lithmus test for pro-choice judges. I know it might not be progression, but it surely isn't regression.

I guess I still might vote for Kerry though considering that I may very well be deluding myself since I doubt we'll actually regress anywhere worse than we are regarding abortion...

And if this is the case, the rest of the prolife movement (social justice for the poor etc) is being neglected. But even if Republicans are not for social justice, it's hard to believe that politians would let someone who tried their best to die on the way side, so maybe abortion should be given the benefit of the doubt even if it's likely a lost cause since there's always tomarrow.

But all this too needs to be studied more so that I don't just play off the stereotypes.

[Iacobus]

I do agree that the pro life movement outside of abortion in the repbulican party is generaly limited. Social justice is kind of lacking. But the rest of the post has me kind of lost. But it was my post you quoted so I am kind of happy someone agreed with me (maybe).

[megamattman1]

The point of my post was should we vote for the possibility of them doing something for abortion over certain other issues when the other issues are certain but not the end of the world if they are not good, or not. Because if we are not stopping abortion when we have the chance, that is the end of the world. Big question if.

Edited April 1, 2004 by megamattman1

[jrndveritatis]

[quote]Because if we are not stopping abortion when we have the chance, that is the end of the world. Big question if. [/quote]

megamattman,

good point on that the possibility of stopping abortion means that abortion is more important in voting than the other issues.

Here is another thing I think is pretty good to think about when voting.

[quote]YOUR ROLE AS A CATHOLIC VOTER


Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges (cf. CCC 2240). It is not just civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. "Service of the common good require[s] citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community" (CCC 2239). This means citizens should participate in the political process at the ballot box.

But voting cannot be arbitrary. "A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals" (CPL 4).

Some things always are wrong, and no one may vote in favor of them, directly or indirectly. Citizens vote in favor of these evils if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them. Thus, Catholics should not vote for anyone who intends to push programs or laws that are intrinsically evil.



THE FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES


These five issues are called non-negotiable because they concern actions that are always morally wrong and must never be promoted by the law. It is a serious sin to endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any of the five non-negotiables.

1. Abortion

The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.

The child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins.

2. Euthanasia

Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No one has a right to take his own life (suicide), and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.

In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).

3. Fetal Stem Cell Research

Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b).

Recent scientific advances show that any medical cure that might arise from experimentation on fetal stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there no longer is a medical argument in favor of using fetal stem cells.

4. Human Cloning

"Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through 'twin fission,' cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL I:6).

Human cloning also ends up being a form of homicide because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.

5. Homosexual "Marriage"

True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other form of "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).
[/quote]

This is from the Catholic Answers [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp"]Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics[/url].

[jrndveritatis]

I guess the point I was trying to make with the non-negotiable issues is the fact that on other issues Catholics can legitimately disagree.

That is why some believe that the Democrats are the party which most supports social justice, while others (such as me) believe that the Republicans more effectively aid the poor in line with classical Catholic responses.

But the point is that I am not trying to debate this with you on this thread. Rather I am just saying that we can disagree and still be good Catholics.

Abortion, like megamattman said, is a non-negotiable issue for Catholics.

In fact, Vatican documents make it clear that the issue of abortion should override all social justice concerns in the voting booth, because neither side on the social justice issue is morally wrong.