For all the Dem Bashers!

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Azriel' date='Feb 23 2006, 09:19 PM']Dems for Life, baby.  Dems for Life!!!
[right][snapback]896018[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Please explain to me how "Democrats for life" can justfy being in the democrat party which doesn't even recognize "Democrats for life" as a real democrat group... but sure enough, Planned Parenthood is at the top of the list.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[avemaria40]

You can still agree w/them economically,enviornmentally, about public education and against the death penalty. you don't have to agree w/them about abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, embryonic stemcell research and human cloning, and if more prolife ppl are in the Democratic party, Dems can support candidates of their party and be able to vote someone who is prolife.

[Azriel]

There is such a thing as working for change within an organization. They can justify it by that fact alone.

There are pro-life Democrats. There are pro-choice Republicans. We should cheer anyone who is pro-life, and works towards it.

[Socrates]

But any "pro-life Democrats" rallying for Kerry and similar pols deserve to be shot!

[Azriel]

Shooting may be just a bit harsh. How about slapped with a fish, and made to sit and listen to Yanni?

[Jaime]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 23 2006, 08:26 PM']Please explain to me how "Democrats for life" can justfy being in the democrat party which doesn't even recognize "Democrats for life" as a real democrat group... but sure enough, Planned Parenthood is at the top of the list.

God Bless,
ironmonk
[right][snapback]896028[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


It was the South Dakota chapter that got pro life democrats in office. And it was a registered prolife democrat that sponsored the bill


That seems to justify the organization in my book! For not a "real organization" they're making a significant contribution.

Edited February 24, 2006 by jaime

[Socrates]

[quote name='Azriel' date='Feb 23 2006, 07:32 PM']Shooting may be just a bit harsh.  How about slapped with a fish, and made to sit and listen to Yanni?
[right][snapback]896039[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Perhaps a reasonable compromise . . .

But seriously, I've seen far too many people on here claiming to be "pro-life" rather vocally support John Kerry.
As long as such people are elected, the Democratic Party will not be pro-life.

[Sojourner]

It's much easier to criticize from the outside than to work for reform from the inside.

[Azriel]

Now that is one of the truest statements I've seen in a long while.

[avemaria40]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 23 2006, 09:35 PM']Perhaps a reasonable compromise . . . 

But seriously, I've seen far too many people on here claiming to be "pro-life" rather vocally support John Kerry.
As long as such people are elected, the Democratic Party will not be pro-life.
[right][snapback]896044[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I'm leaning towards Dem and I'm prolife and I did not support Kerry, I actually like President Bush and would trust him with our country a lot more than I would trust Kerry with.

[Socrates]

[quote name='avemaria40' date='Feb 23 2006, 07:44 PM']I'm leaning towards Dem and I'm prolife and I did not support Kerry, I actually like President Bush and would trust him with our country a lot more than I would trust Kerry with.
[right][snapback]896062[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I wasn't referring to you.

[avemaria40]

OK, never mind then

[Sojourner]

I've never voiced support for Kerry.

Or Bush, for that matter.

[Era Might]

I can see a faithful, pro-life, orthodox Catholic voting for John Kerry, as the application of the Church's doctrine is not evident and clear, and we cannot dictate who people vote for, for obvious reasons. (That said, I wouldn't in general think that someone who votes for Kerry does so because of a calculated, nuanced application of Church doctrine. I think most people just do so because they agree with him. I would like to be wrong on that.)

I could not vote for him, which is why I voted for Bush. But it wouldn't be a sign of apostasy if someone did.

But I'm not a fan of active "support" in general. Even if they did vote for Kerry, I would strongly advise against publicly "supporting" him, for a variety of reasons. Same thing with Bush. I didn't "support" him, although I did vote for him.

Edited February 24, 2006 by Era Might

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 23 2006, 07:48 PM']I've never voiced support for Kerry.

Or Bush, for that matter.
[right][snapback]896069[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I wans't talking about you either, though there are a number on here who did support Kerry. I don't feel I should write a list of names, but those whom I'm talking about will know who they are.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 23 2006, 07:48 PM']I can see a faithful, pro-life, orthodox Catholic voting for John Kerry, as the application of the Church's doctrine is not evident and clear[right][snapback]896070[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Church has plainly taught that a Catholic cannot in good conscience support a politician who supports abortion.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 23 2006, 08:54 PM']The Church has plainly taught that a Catholic cannot in good conscience support a politician who supports abortion.
[right][snapback]896078[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This would be a good time to mention that this bill is truly prolife as opposed to Bush's views on abortion.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 23 2006, 09:54 PM']The Church has plainly taught that a Catholic cannot in good conscience support a politician who supports abortion.
[right][snapback]896078[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So are you saying I sinned when I voted for Bush?

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote] I can see a faithful, pro-life, orthodox Catholic voting for John Kerry, as the application of the Church's doctrine is not evident and clear, and we cannot dictate who people vote for, for obvious reasons. [/quote]

Could you please explain this? I've always been under the impression that voting for pro-choice candidates if there is a more viable candidate was a mortal sin. What about the non-negotiables that Catholics are instructed to oppose, i.e. abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage... etc?

I thought that the pope had stated in Evangelium Vitae the grave responsibility of opposing such campaigns.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Feb 23 2006, 10:00 PM']Could you please explain this? I've always been under the impression that voting for pro-choice candidates if there is a more viable candidate was a mortal sin. What about the non-negotiables that Catholics are instructed to oppose, i.e. abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage... etc?

I thought that the pope had stated in Evangelium Vitae the grave responsibility of opposing such campaigns.
[right][snapback]896087[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Both John Kerry and George Bush were pro-choice, although one was more vehemently and extensively pro-choice.

Because we are always dealing with imperfect candidates, the Church says we must vote for the candidate who will do the most for the common good.

Now, abortion is a pre-eminent consideration. HOWEVER, a voter could legitimately discern that, while there is a candidate with milder pro-choice views, he will not realistically be able to do anything of significance in his term to make an impact with those views. Hence, that dimension of consideration (abortion) would be neutralized, and the candidates would have to be evaluated on other considerations. When abortion is neutralized in such a case, it could be legitimately said that the other candidate will have a concrete means to carry out work for the common good (eg, ecomonic matters, war, etc).

Now, whether this is actually the case in a political election is up for debate. I'm just saying that not all Catholics will come out with the same application of moral principles in the situation they find themselves in. We must respect eachother's conscience in applying theory to the business of politics, but trying our best to advance our own opinion.