[QUOTE=rjak134;736707]The thing that is very sad is that the Democratic party is committed, with fierce tenacity, to the legalized slaughter of millions of babies.[/quote]

I did not expect such a statement from you of all people Rjak.  To make such a false claim the Democrats what to slaughter babies is just so absurd I had to do a double take that it was you posting this.  Democrats support the right for people to make their own choice, not to support or encourage what they do.  Many Americans do not hold the same religious views as you and I do, and it would be unjust as a nation for us to force our views upon them.  I do not support abortions, nor would I encourage anyone to have an abortion.  But to make it illegal will not make it go way, just go underground.  That is what happened before Roe v. Wade, and it would happen again in the unlikely event it be repealed.   What needs to change is the mindset of the public, to bring it to a point that people no longer want to have abortions because we can all agree that it is wrong.  WE have to do that!  Passing a law will not fix the problem, but simply make it worse.  You have your views, and you are entitled to them.  But to paint he Democratic party as wanting to kill babies.... As I said, I did not expect such a crass statement from you.  I will assume it was the emotions that are evoked from this subject to make you say such.


p.s.  I just want to add the politicians have to make political decisions, which may or may not mirror their moral convictions.  However when they are in their office they must make their decision based what the politics dictate for the good of all as a nation, not on their own moral views.  Suppose a person becomes a politician who is from a group that sees multiple wives as morally acceptable.  Now in that persons office they may have to go against their moral convictions if it is for the good of the nation, because that is what is required of that office.  Such a person may have go against their moral conviction for the common good.  The same is true regarding abortions.  A politician who makes a political decision to support the law does not automatically support abortions.  Their moral convictions can be against abortion, even though the law states otherwise.

[QUOTE=rjak134;736707]I do not consider myself a single-issue voter - I fully realize that there are many issues of importance in every election.

As long as the Democratic party stands with such vigor in defense of abortion, I just can't see myself voting Democratic, unless it's a seat where abortion would be a non-issue, the Republican is also anti-life, or the Democratic candidate is that rarest of all birds, the pro-life Democratic politician.[/QUOTE]

So in effect, you really ARE a single-issue voter. Just admit it to yourself. ;)

[QUOTE=malanga;737138]What needs to change is the mindset of the public, to bring it to a point that people no longer want to have abortions because we can all agree that it is wrong.  WE have to do that!  Passing a law will not fix the problem, but simply make it worse.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree. Although we ought to make it so people don't WANT to have abortions at all because the infrastructure for taking care of an unwanted pregnancy and child are in place. I'm as pro-choice as they come (no one is going to tell me I have to suffer through a 9 month pregnancy just because of THEIR religious convictions, sorry, that's not how the country works) but no one is pro-abortion. Lifers like to say we are, but it's really not the case. Pro-choice people don't LIKE abortions - some even feel that the fetus really is a child - but they are realistic in looking around at the support structure for unwanted pregnancies and at this point can concede that things need to be a lot better before women stop turning to abortions as solutions.

If we lived in a society where teenage pregnancy wasn't a scandal or a morally bad thing, teenagers wouldn't need to get abortions. If we lived in a society where being a mother and working outside the home was easier, married couples with 3-4 kids already wouldn't need abortions. If we lived in a society that supported children with birth defects or other maladies better, those women wouldn't need abortions either. But to make the whole thing illegal simplifies a vastly complex issue that can't be solved with just one overarching action.

[QUOTE=BrookeC;696183]Can a person not betray their Catholic faith and support the democratic candidate for president at the same time?  I am currently not a Catholic yet but I am about to start RCIA classes soon.  I just wondered does being a Catholic mean that I must vote republican from now on or can I disagree with some stances that the democratic candidate has, mainly his view of abortion, and still support him?  I am struggling with this issue.[/QUOTE]

The Church does not side with a political organization.  The Church does stand on its moral stance on abortion as well as other issues.  Like any voter, you need to educate your conscience on the Church's moral and social teachings and then on what any candidate regardless of political affiliation stands in constrast to our values which we believe teach us about the common good.

To line oneself more up with a political party is dangerous, I believe, for parties change.  At one time, the democrates really stood for the majority of the social issues of the Catholic Church and most Catholics were Democrates.  In fact many democrates still affliate themselves with Catholicism.

There are plenty of people in the Catholic Church who tend to vote Republican they believe that electing a President who will further tear down any walls that protect the unborn denies the very foundation of values for all the other issues that while important, are never more important to the value of each and every human life.  Many of these Catholics try to vote democrate when there is a pro life democrate to vote for on a minor election and would vote democrate if the party changed to having pro life leanings.

Others of us, tend to try to search for a third party candidate to support and lean toward Republicanism when it comes down to it.  For me, as I've gotten more involved into listening the parties speak, I honestly don't even see the democratic party as leading to social justice anymore.  Its just big government trying to solve the problems like a parent spoiling their children because they're afraid of their child failing.  This I believe handicaps the nation rather than helps it.  Its giving a person a fish rather than teaching them how to fish.  But decades earilier, had I been alive, I would have leaned toward being a democrate.

The Church can't tell you who to vote for, but she does teach consistant values and you have to ask yourself can you in good conscience vote for a particular candidate or not?  No one can answer that question but you.

In a way I see where Rjak is coming from.  He didn't pull any punches.  Abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.  It is an important issue.  Within two years of Roe vs. Wade the number of births in the US went down by a half a million.  The justices that supported this decision were complicit in murder.  Malanga you speak of a polictical decision vs. a moral decision.  The line about being personally opposed but committed to following an unjust law shows a lack of moral courage to me.  It seems to me that a lot of Catholic politicians are pro-choice just for their own self-interest.  Some even take money from the abortion industry such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL.  So  I listen to what Rjak is saying here because it is a sad truth.  You made good points too Malanga and I agree with much of what you said also.  Angpuppy, as always, you have good insight. 

Peace - Mareczku

[QUOTE=malanga;740177]Yes, but the Church does give us some guidelines to use.  For example it would be legitimate in the eyes of the Church to vote for someone who is pro life, as long as that is not the reason you are voting for that person.

I think you meant to say someone who is pro choice.  It is completely reasonable to vote for someone because they are pro life.  It is unreasonable to vote for someone because they are pro choice, as abortion is objectively immoral and not in question, while other issues are subjectively immoral and are open to debate.  For instance, just war theory is open to debate and the theory itself is a very subjective one.   The just war theory comes into place because of the question about defending the innocent.  It is very questionable whether the war we are in fits the qualifications of the just war theory.  In fact, some question whether with modern military technology, any modern war would fall under this category.  But this issue is under debate.  Abortion is not.  It is the same as infanticide and nothing justifies it. 

It can be fair to become convinced that both candidates will pose the same threat to the lives of the unborn, and either not cause a positive change or cause a both equally negative change toward removing restrictions against abortion.  Or perhaps there is a case of more serious threats.  For instance, say you've got someone wanting to advocate for genocide of all Native Americans and yet is anti-abortion.  Obviously, this would not be a good pick, and yes I know that's a really extreeme example.

Or perhaps there is a person who feels that abortion is imbeded so deeply in the culture, that tactics against abortion should not be primarily political at this time.  They may even consider the politics to be damaging to the pro life agenda.  This again would give a legimate political viewpoint.

But overall the issue cannot be ignored.  We can't decide that defending the unborn or any other group whose lives are being threatened by unjust laws in our country can just be ignored or considered just one of many equally important issues or less important than other issues.  Because the value of each and every human life is the foundation of all all our values.  We have to vote for the common good, not merely what would be good for ourselves.  Its the reason why we should care for the poor in our country.  Why we should care about the lives of the innocent involved in wars whether we've decided that war is us harming them or us protecting them.  It the basis for all the Church's social teachings.

If supporting a candidate that claims to be pro life is the most important issue to you, then follow your conscience.  However some of us look deeper and examine the entire package, not just one issue.

I became interested in politics because of the pro life issues.  At that time, I didn't have much of an expanded ideas on other issues and thus was more of a single issue vote.  Prior to that I was young and just sort of fell into the opinions of whoever was spewing opinions at me.  It took me awhile to actually settle on my opinions on other issues, to understand the politics as people would argue with me over and over about why I should have this stand or that stand, but overall I've come to the conclusion that I believe in small government, strong state governments, school choice (came with that opinion before I heard any politician advocating it), anti-death penalty, and do not believe the war we are in is a just war.  I've gone back and forth on whether or not leaving or finishing the job is the right path and utimitely whenever either side speaks, I find them both convincing and just shrug.  So I have certainly moved away against being a single issue voter, and I don't think picking the issue and sticking with it is bad.  Overall, the foundation of my conscience is that the value of each and every human on the planet needs to be upheld.  Knowing how to uphold that value is what can be questionable.  How do I apply my values to politics?

But as for abortion, say Obama was pro life and McCain was pro choice, I would dump the other less important issues I care about and vote Obama on the one issue till society became sane.  Because in all honesty, school choice is a nice thing to shoot for, and both sides have views on how to fix the economy so while I side with one, I can't really predict the future, nor do I think that continuing downhill is the end of the world.  Its not like the President has the magical ability to just do everything he proposes and to have all his adventures succeed.  Its a subjective and chanceful judgment we make based on our own limited knowledges and experiences.

When a candidate is claiming to be pro choice, they are making a political decision, as I explained in an earlier post.  Their political convictions are not necessarily their moral convictions.  We need to start understanding this distinction.[/QUOTE]

When a politician sends a country to war, that is both a moral and a political decision.  When a corrupt politician enlists the military to cause genocide, that is both a moral and political issue.  Morality and politics merge together when politics delves into the area of the value and dignity of the human person.  Thus when a politician says "I'm pro choice" it doesn't matter that he's "personally opposed" to abortion anymore.  He's not having to make the decision in his own life.  The moral decision in his hand isn't whether he is going to kill his own child.  The moral decision in politicians hands is whether they will sign legislation that will cause the deaths of the nation's children.

There is a mixture of politicians.  There are politicians who claim to be pro life and who don't do much to overturn Roe Vs Wade, but do work for parental notification laws, restrictions or things like the born alive act or the ban on partial birth abortion.  There are other politicians who either claim to be pro life or pro choice but pretty much just keep the laws where they are and fight only to prevent change either way.  They're a little morally neutral.  The dangerous politicians you have to look out for are the ones who want to increase access to abortion, put judges in the courts that would prevent the court decision from ever being overturned, or worse yet advocating that we put abortion rights in the constitution to further cement the law into our country.

We are Catholics!  We believe in redemptive suffering, in "offering it up."  Let's not confuse our human fears of suffering with Catholic social teaching.  We're not called to end poverty and suffering in the world.  That task is humanly impossible anyway.  We are rather called to love the poor and suffering in the world, to acknowledge their dignity, to not objectify them or deminish the value of their lives by using them to pursue our own happiness.  This may mean having programs that assist the poor economically, but without love, without acknowledging the true reason why this is important, our efforts mean nothing.  We cannot decide that abortion is a necessary evil because a child causes an economic strain and may keep someone else in poverty.  You have to see all the people and love them all.  That's the moral challenge.  You see what you think is a solution and realize the path is a lie.