Prolife V. Prochoice

[dairygirl4u2c]

i tend to think the catholic church contradicted itself on the teaching of 'no salvation outside the catholic church'. and there's lots of smaller issues ive listed before that id think they contradicted on (sometimes i make the objection and realize i was mistaken, though, or just misunderstood it). we could rehash those threads at some point, but it seems that's another thread or time than here.

-
the personal issues i have are complicated in nature.

-

i have 'gut' feelings that go either way per hte catholic church. im someone always curious how other folks within their religion have gut reactions to their religion, and how similar or not it is to the catholic reactions. part of me wants to say that the catholics have a more 'gut' reaction that more definitely reflects the truth of the matter, part of me says everyone got their gut reactions. i dont know how to utilize my gut reaction other than to align to what seems to be the best intellectual response.

i could be bias having grown up within the catholic church

Edited October 21, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[MichaelFilo]

Well, I've done my hijacking, although I feel like any sense of contradiction you may have should be validated by at least some other group. IE, to ascertain it is not a fault in your reasoning, you should be reasonably capable to find others with the same position. Of course, that does not make your belief true, but it is a good way to know the issues you have are not just your own. I don't know your issues, although I would love to have you put them up for debate, individually if possible.


Anyways, in terms of the topic at hand, I suppose the real issue is position and ability to influence end results. For instance, I don't care if my sheriff supports or opposes abortion. I would argue that there is a different moral decision one makes in regards to a federal congressman and the president. The president has real individual power to affect abortions (Mexico city policy and judge appointments, for example.) In that regard, a president who is pro-choice has direct consequences that lead to death (IF AND ONLY IF HE INTENDS TO ENACT PRO-CHOICE POLICY.) A congressman has less of an effect on that decision. Rather, a congressman would have more relative effect on war, social welfare programs, definition of marriage and the like. A pro-life senator is more important than a pro-life representative (because of his ability to accept or reject judges.) So, there is a myriad of issues, taken within context, that matter.

Again, your sheriff's pro-life stance doesn't matter very much. Your president's does.

[havok579257]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1287671095' post='2181270']
don't all candidate have something intrinsically evil that they support?

do you think your position on the matter is the - clear- teaching of the catholic church? (I know Fio would disagree)

----

also, im giving way too much benefit to catholcis who say ya can't ever vote for someone who is prochoice. obvious intrisinc evils must beat prudential judgment, but that's only, id argue, when there's an effective chance the intrinsic evil voting would make a difference. if not, as hte popes say the issue is about 'proportionate" justifications.
i argue all this in my link on hte issue, in that other thread.

havok's tone seems to suggest 'it's not that hard' and other things he's said, that he's taking the positions based on his need for a clear answer, not as a respect for truth so much. i could and probably am reading too much into his psychology. i'm sure his approach is more reasoned, too, but, i'm just not seeing it yet.
[/quote]


don't all candidates have something intrinsically evil they support? uh, only if you live in fantasy land. there are many candidates who don't support intrisically evil things, they are just third party candidiates. politics is not just democrat vs republican, you do know that right?

its not that hard to find a candidate who is pro life and does not support intrinsically evil things. what is so hard about this?

[MichaelFilo]

Where is the Catholic morals party in the US, so I may vote for it?

[havok579257]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287674234' post='2181293']
Where is the Catholic morals party in the US, so I may vote for it?
[/quote]


research "ALL" the candidates who run for office, not just the republicans and democrates.

[MichaelFilo]

I do. Not one holds up to the high esteem of Catholic morality. Then we are left with a decision.

Now I can run and hold up those standards, it is not impossible. Simply, that there are no candidates for that office with Catholic morals, so I must employ reason and discernment.

[havok579257]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287674812' post='2181300']
I do. Not one holds up to the high esteem of Catholic morality. Then we are left with a decision.

Now I can run and hold up those standards, it is not impossible. Simply, that there are no candidates for that office with Catholic morals, so I must employ reason and discernment.
[/quote]


so there was not a single, not one single candidate who represents moral views?

lets just say that is true, for sake of arguement. then write somoene in.

[MichaelFilo]

All the moral views of the Catholic Church? Why, tell me about those in your locale.

[dairygirl4u2c]

per getting others to have a say in the matter. it's ironic, the issues i have against the catholic church, and started forming them, per academic and intellectual arguments. after i started realizing what my position was, i started seeing others who have similar views, who are more reputable. infallibiilty? look at what the orthodox argue. and cardinal newman sympathized with. 'no savation contradictions'? look at what tradictionalists argue, along with other points they have per contradiction.
given contradictions are my biggest beef, i suppose i could get independent people to analyze the situation with me. i do know traditionalists are known for overreaching in their beefs against the catholic church. there are of course, tons of people who'd independantly affirm what i say, but i'll admit i dont go out cornering people to the 'all the ins and outs' of the arguments here.

Edited October 22, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

no reputable person says the catholic church clearly says you cannot ever vote for a prochoice candidate. the popes clearly say you can when a proportionate justification exists. we can debate what that means, but it doesn't mean what havok says it means only. we see fio with a standard, and others with a standard.
i suppose one could say 'only if the candidate says something like bomb the middle east into a fire ball which is worse than abortion' but that's yet another standard. and getting way to shaky given the popes have been as vague as they have.
they would have been more clear if it was something as ludicris as what havok says.
it doesn't have to be what i say, sure, ie proportionate reasons. but it's got to be more than that.

Edited October 22, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

a person could always write themselves in, or soemthing? of course, that's taking havok's arguments to their necessary ridiculous conclusions.
im pretty sure the catholic church would have said 'you can never vote for soemone who supports an intrinsic evil' if that's what they meant. or 'unless there's no one else' or 'unless there's effectively no one else' etc.
that they say something like 'proportionate reasons' leaves it pretty open. maybe it doesn't have to be as open as what i'm sayin, but it's got to make more sense than the nonsense that havok puts out there. there are no inabilities to understand the issues here, except for his inability.

Edited October 22, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

and if we don't take havok's nonsense about there always being a candidate, then we get into the fact that most main line and even basic third party candidates support an intrinsic evil of some kind.
in a sense, one might argue-- how far out does a person have to go 'third party' or 'write in' etc? but if we leave the standard at a point that actually makes sense-- unlike havok's-- we'd be at a point where they all probably support something intrinsically evil. (and then you have to start taking into consideration all kinds of things that too much complicate his overly simplistic- at the expense of truth- world view)

Edited October 22, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[havok579257]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1287714672' post='2181504']
and if we don't take havok's nonsense about there always being a candidate, then we get into the fact that most main line and even basic third party candidates support an intrinsic evil of some kind.
in a sense, one might argue-- how far out does a person have to go 'third party' or 'write in' etc? but if we leave the standard at a point that actually makes sense-- unlike havok's-- we'd be at a point where they all probably support something intrinsically evil. (and then you have to start taking into consideration all kinds of things that too much complicate his overly simplistic- at the expense of truth- world view)
[/quote]


i honestly do not understand the majority of your posts. i read them and they are like a jumbled mess to me. so i really cant respond to anything since i can not understand it.

[havok579257]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287678671' post='2181335']
All the moral views of the Catholic Church? Why, tell me about those in your locale.
[/quote]


jerry moran has not voted for anything intrinsically evil. he has voted against abortion and the such, he has voted against gay marriage, he has voted against embryonic stem cell use and research.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"So, there is a myriad of issues, taken within context, that matter."

sheriff v. president is a big spectrum. but this seems reasonable.

[Winchester]

Someone has a magic wand that will stop genocide?

Can a mod edit the polls to indicate that there is some kind of magic or time travel involved in this?

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[AudreyGrace]

you kept repeating "A/B is pro choice... and is perfect in all else."
That's not possible. If they were perfect in all else, they'd be Catholic, and they'd be a perfect Catholic. Catholics can't be pro-choice. Those who are, are not perfect Catholics, and clearly have some greater issues. Also, if they were perfect, they would eliminate the need for abortions in the first place. They'd make sure women knew their worth and they would have respect for life. So your questions were pretty...well... not thought out that much.

[dairygirl4u2c]

can a person be not catholic but otherwise perfect? yes. then my question is valid.
for you to imply that they must then be a catholic when that's never been stated is baseless, then. it's a strawman to tear down the points that you created only be implying that they must be catholic.
in fact, following your reasoning, if they are prochoice then we should imply that they are not catholic to begin with, but perfect in all else, which means they are not catholic, but perfect in all else.
just assume they are not catholic but otherwise are perfect in all else.
i don't know, anyways.

Edited March 31, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[thessalonian]

Genocide out africa will stop? A rather ridiculous item Bono put out your poll. How isn't nothing going get stopped. There would have be a percentage on dat Andy nothing would be low as well.