 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
kimdyuma
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 795 |
| First Name: | Kim | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle Anglican, Episcopal /Catholic-04/07/07 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 6th, 2007 03:01 pm |
|
| How does a Catholic vote his or her conscious if all the candidates from both sides end up pro choice? Last edited on Thu Dec 6th, 2007 03:59 pm by kimdyuma
____________________
Adopt from your local Humane Society- Please spay or neuter your pets
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 734 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 6th, 2007 03:05 pm |
|
| You can hold your nose and vote for the least worst one or not vote or write in somebody.
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1561 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 6th, 2007 05:23 pm |
|
If they are truly pro-abort (not just the "some exceptions" type, as even both President Bushes were), I would maintain that a Catholic could not vote for them. It would be helping to enable the sin. So you could vote third party or not vote at all, in protest.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 722 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 6th, 2007 05:29 pm |
|
I would take into consideration that there very well could be as many as 4 Supreme Court justices replaced in the next 2 Pres. terms. Which candidate would be the more likely to nominate justices who will adjudicate and not legislate? That will be extremely important!
It would be awful not to have a pro-life choice, but it could happen....
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5186 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 6th, 2007 09:32 pm |
|
kimdyuma wrote: How does a Catholic vote his or her conscious if all the candidates from both sides end up pro choice?
I think we need to look to the overall policy they espouse regarding abortion. For example, a candidate who says he does not favor overturning Roe v. Wade but would appoint judges who are strict constructionists, work to increase abstinence education, and would deny federal funding for abortion would be preferable to a candidate who would appoint liberal judges who would legislate from the bench, fund condom distribution in schools, and make abortion freely available for all Medicaid recipients.
Given the choice, I would probably vote for Guliani over Clinton, because even though he says he is pro-choice, his policies would kill fewer unborn children than hers. On the other hand, he abandoned his wife and moved in with his mistress, informed his wife he was seeking a divorce at a press conference, and did many other things I find abhorrent in his personal life. And while he claims to be a Catholic, he certainly does not follow his faith. At least Romney and Huckabee are less hypocritical regarding their faiths …and so is Clinton.
I think we need to look beyond labels and make choices based on actual positions and overall record. Chances are by the time the primary voting hits Louisiana the nominations will already be decided. I may very well end up having to hold my nose when I vote next fall.
We shall see.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 220 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 7th, 2007 05:54 am |
|
Dave Armstrong wrote: If they are truly pro-abort (not just the "some exceptions" type, as even both President Bushes were), I would maintain that a Catholic could not vote for them. It would be helping to enable the sin. So you could vote third party or not vote at all, in protest.
I would argue that not voting at all (and possibly voting for a third party who had no chance) would be a sin of omission. As Catholics we are called to promote the common good and while sometimes the choices we are faced with are detestable, a failure to choose the "goodest" is a failure to "do good"
Regards Dave
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1561 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 7th, 2007 02:33 pm |
|
It depends if, by voting for someone who is pro-abort, we actually participate in the enabling process of abortion. We cannot do so. Loopholes can be imagined, I suppose, that would justify such a vote. It's not absolutely cut-and-dry. But legal abortion is here in the first place because Christians were asleep and sexually compromised (like much of the rest of society) and allowed it to come in.
I would have to see what choices were presented before making my argument with more specificity. It is allowed in some circumstances to vote for the lesser of two evils.
I, as a Catholic, oppose abortions under any circumstance, and both Presidents Bush allowed for rape and incest. A child conceived during rape or incest is no more to blame or less worthy to be allowed to live than any other child. It still feels the same pain, being ripped from limb to limb or sucked into a vacuum cleaner or burned alive (saline solution).
So all pro-lifers who were consistent in that way had to overlook those ethical inconsistencies, but it was clear they had to be selected over the opposition. Consequently, we have more pro-life Supreme Court Justices, and have overturned the ghastly practice of partial-birth infanticide.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Current time is 12:56 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
