Catholic University prof: Voting for Romney will raise abortion rates
Even a professor at Catholic University of America, Stephen Schneck, has proposed the absolutely insane argument that voting for Obama is a good thing because there will be less abortion under him than Romney because Romney’s policies will cause more poverty and therefore more abortions.
And this man has a PhD.–and more to the point– is paid by a Catholic university???
C’mon.
~ Michael Voris, incredulous over the recent statements made by Democrats for Life board member and co-chair of Catholics for Obama, Stephen Schneck (pictured above right), via Church Militant TV, September 28
Jonathan Last of The Weekly Standard totally deconstructs Professor Schneck’s argument with actual data.
Oct.01, 2012 6:00 am |
The Church, Voting |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m starting to feel more and more like I was left out of a memo that stated the Catholic Church has changed their position on abortion.
Jesus please help us.
More appropriately named… ”Democrats For Democrats”.
In this case, PhD – Phreakin Dumb.
I know we’re supposed to pray for these idiots. I pray they lose their jobs.
We don’t need the intellectual numb teaching our children.
CINO Catholics in name only.How many abortions are truly done due to poverty with all the entitlements. Not many. they are done because we want sex without consequences. How many couples are waiting to adopt. Millions.
Honest question: is the number one reason for abortion Poverty? If you truly can’t afford to have a child in your life right now, adoption is a very logical path. The fact that it is seldom chosen is evidence that poverty is not the only motivator. It’s the pregnancy, not the baby per se, that women want to do away with, for reasons like shame, fear of punishment, hatred of the father (perhaps legitimate), and other emotional reasons. Which at once explains why no Obama (or Romney for that matter) program will decrease the number of abortions, and why women will continue to regret their abortions.
The Weekly Standard article is a must read. Such sloppy thinking from an educator is a bit alarming.
I don’t know who the other “Grace” is, but that’s a ridiculous statement and he/she is probably a troll. I do not understand why some Catholics are more devoted to a political party than the tenets of their own faith. It has driven me crazy from my earliest memories. Pope Benedict recently said that it would be more honest of these people to simply leave the Church just like it would have been more honest of Judas to leave the presence of Christ. But they can’t for some prideful reason and just look at the trouble they are causing, so reminis. of Judas. They won’t be happy until somebody is crucified. Ugh
Also, economic reasons rarely seem to be the reason women abort. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that most women abort because of lack of support if not outright hostility. That 1 in 3 statistic includes some pretty horrific stories of bullying and coercion. A government cannot love you like a person can. It cannot give you dignity like another person can, *especially* if it doesn’t even recognize the dignity of all human beings in its statutes.
Given the fast approaching debates, the timing of this thread is excellent because Obama (and Biden) has used a similar argument to Schneck. The article in the Weekly Standard is fantastic and very educational. I hope Romney and Ryan remember to question the assumptions and numbers in the arguments of Obama and Biden. If Obama or Biden raise this ‘Schneck” claim that Obamacare will reduce abortions Romney and Ryan should ask BO and Biden to support it with studies.
After reading The Weekly Standard article, it confirmed my first impression of Mr. Schneck – that he is a dishonest Catholic, and that it is most likely very appropriate to call him a CINO. In fact, he may be worse than a CINO since he is actively trying to deceive his fellow Catholics.
This “Schneck” argument is profoundly popular among Liberal and Democratic Catholics. This is the argument that they hang their support for the Democratic party on. If this argument can be effectively shown to be a fallacious argument, many Democratic Catholics will have one less very significant way of justifying their support for the Democratic party. The other major false argument promoted by the Democratic party that caputres the heart of many Catholics is that a centralized economy is more beneficial for the poor than a free market economy. These two arguments are the major arguments that allow Social Justice Catholics to vote for Democrats and allow certain Social Justice Catholics to dupe the uninformed Catholics into voting for Democrats. Democrats present these arguments/thoeries as if they are fact and no one questions them on it.
“I don’t know who the other “Grace” is”
My guess is the same person as “John” last week who also spam-botted several posts all in row which consisted of a single sentence with much vituperation and little substance.
I heard Mr. Schneck make this argument on EWTN. Raymond Arroyo looked aghast at the words he was hearing, and (if I recall correctly) immediately brought up the issue of cooperating with intrinsic evil.
Of course, there are a great many of us who can see that President Obama’s policies are leading us all into great economic chaos and depression and poverty (like Greece and Eastern Europe are suffering now) if we don’t establish some discipline and fiscal reforms. So even if Schneck’s analysis (that poverty is the main cause for desiring abortion) has some truth to it, it’s still an argument to vote against Obama.
Yes…but where has “Steve” gone? :(
One simple way to stop such persons as this PhDer is to have as a condition of employment or advertising in any Church or Church related school/business/bulletin/paper/magazine is that they will not promote anything against Church teaching.
In one parish that I belonged to, the doctor that was the medical director for the local Planned Parenthood had an ad in the Church bulletin. That stopped when I showed the Pastor PP’s annual report listing him with his position.
Send the links to the Weekly Standard story and Ezekiel 33 to the various email addresses for the staff of the President of this Catholic University http://president.cua.edu/staff/index.cfm. Send it also to these people: Names of the Board of Trustees http://president.cua.edu/staff/trustees.cfm
Allowing him to keep leading people astray in his job position would seem to partake in his sin. Would not want to go to hell and esp. for someone else’s sins in any fashion. See Ezekiel 33. Example: “(8) If I tell the wicked man that he shall surely die, and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked man from his way, he (the wicked man) shall die for his guilt, but I will hold you responsible for his death.
(9) But if you warn the wicked man, trying to turn him from his way, and he refuses to turn from his way, he shall die for his guilt, but you shall save yourself.”
how is it “against Catholic teaching” to advocate for something he believes will reduce the number of abortions? He may be right, or he may be wrong, but why the hate? It’s not like he’s saying “abortion is fine with me.”
One thing I’m consistently impressed by with academics is the sheer mental flexible prowess they exhibit to make “evidence” fit their fabricated, pre-conceived “conclusions.” Incredible!
Oh – come, let us do evil that good will result!!!
Think Jesus will quote Romans 3:8 to Schneck at Judgement?
Voris is right – there’s a solid case of insanity, for surely Schneck has read Romans 12:2.
Romans 2:1-8 might also be worth a read.
Hal, that is a good question. The reason Mr. Schneck’s advocacy is against Catholic teaching is because the Democratic party (along with the President) openly and intentionally supports abortion for any reason. As you have pointed out Mr. Schneck “may” be right; however, the problem is the fact that he “may” possibly be wrong. In other words, the problem with Schneck’s advocacy is that it is based on a theory, and not on a fact. Furthermore, Mr. Schneck’s theory/conjecture disregards the blatant written and spoken intent of the Democratic party to keep abortion for any reason legal. He cannot definitively know that electing Romney will increase abortions, especially since their are many studies, sutdies by the Guttmacher Institute no less, that indicate otherwise. If the Democratic party was against abortion on demand then it would be ok for Catholics to vote for Democrats and for Mr. Schneck to advocate for the Democratic party.
Tyler, let’s assume that’s true, that the Democratic party supports abortion “for any reason.” Let’s also assume that other Democratic policies (such as removing the fear of health care expenses) would actually reduce the number of women who want and get abortions.
What would the proper Catholic position be in that scenario?
What would the proper Catholic position be in that scenario?
The Catholic position is “No” to supporting intrinsic evil, even if a good would result. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. So is murder. So we cannot advocate that Hitler should have been killed in his mother’s womb or when he was a toddler, even if that means 11,000,000 lives would have been saved.
Removing fear of healthcare related expenses? Oh really, in a culture poised to accept euthenasia as a form of “treatment” because it’s cheaper than actual treatment? You really think that some suit at a desk is going to decide a woman should have her expensive baby rather than the cheaper abortion? Denied! What dreamworld are libs living in?! Wake up and join the rest of us on planet earth.
Making abortions easier to get while continuing with pregnancy-shaming-as-usual will not reduce abortions. Unless you live in Bizarro World.
By the way, obviously some of our abortion advocates don’t realize it but the Catechism of the Catholic Church is all published in one single volume. I bet you can even get it on Amazon. I have a copy on my bookshelf right now. You might try to give it a read. While you’re at it, you might want to get a copy of one of the many versions of “Theology of the Body.” It just might enlighten you. Bet you’re too chicken to read it, abortion advocates. Bawk bawk…
It comes to a point when you have to accept that these people probably don’t believe what they’re saying and just ask, So, what are you expecting in exchange for your soul? Money? Power? An ambassadorship? What is it?
PS Lrning, I came up with an alternate plan in the hypothetical Hitler scenario: get in your time machine and, instead of harming him, intercept him during his painting days and buy up his mediocre art, praise him, get him gallery shows, and praise him some more. That might just provide the life-diversion he would have needed. I would also take a side trip to kidnap his famous female filmmaker and get her to Hollywood by 1930.
If that didn’t work, I’d have to get Indiana Jones to open the Ark right in Hitler’s face, so it would melt.
Sorry. I need to cancel my membership with Netflix, don’t I? LOL.
Of course, there are a great many of us who can see that President Obama’s policies are leading us all into great economic chaos and depression and poverty (like Greece and Eastern Europe are suffering now) if we don’t establish some discipline and fiscal reforms
I agree. Every day the economic news get worse. I don’t know if Romney would be better, but I just don’t feel that based on his performance, Obama deserves reelection.
“how is it “against Catholic teaching” to advocate for something he believes will reduce the number of abortions? He may be right, or he may be wrong,”
No. He is wrong. There is something called the scientific method in which hypotheses are tested to see if they are true. This hypothesis has been tested on our entire population over almost 40 years and proven false. Abortions are decreased when they are illegal. They are decreased by about 95% from what we have as our current rate. Abortions increase when it is legal. This is just the fact of history.
Xalisae wrote:
Yes…but where has “Steve” gone?
…or Dan, for that matter? Or even Paladin? :) (The latter is furiously busy with new textbooks, new school year, etc., and deeply regrets his absence as of late!)
Hal wrote:
What would the proper Catholic position be in that scenario?
Pardon me for inserting my own answer (feel free to answer as you’d originally intended, Tyler), but: the Catholic condemnation of abortion is absolute, and it is not relative/situational, but objective (i.e. abortion is an intrinsic evil, incapable of being rendered non-evil by any possible circumstances). A politician who promotes abortion is one who promotes not simply a distasteful and/or socially imprudent idea, but a concrete and absolute evil; that changes matters, a bit.
The only possible way that anyone of good conscience (ref: Catholic teaching) can vote for such a candidate would be by satisfying the “principle of double-effect” (i.e. the conditions under which it is morally licit to tolerate an evil effect while promoting some other good), which has four non-negotiable requirements:
a) the evil effect must not be intended.
b) the intended effect must be morally good, or at least morally neutral (i.e. not evil).
c) the good effect cannot be caused by the evil effect.
d) the stakes of the situation must be sufficiently grave to justify toleration of the [unintended] evil effect.
The “let’s vote for Obama, since he might be more likely to alleviate poverty, which will lead unerringly toward reduced abortions” fails miserably on point (d), for at least two reasons: (1) the idea that Obama will usher in a “new age of prosperity” is… shall we say “unrealistically optimistic” (cf. the last 4 years, the downgrade of the U.S. rating, the unemployment rate, Keynesian economics, etc.), and (2) the idea that “poverty = abortion” is absurd on its face. (I also find it both arrogant and self-fulfilling for someone to mock the poor for ‘being stupid and uneducated enough to cling to guns and religion [the latter of which often–though not always, sadly–inhibits one from choosing to kill one’s child by abortion] and exerting great social pressure to stop acting as a Christian of conviction in the public arena… and then turn right around to say that “poverty will lead the poor to kill their children”. If poverty leads inexorably toward abortion (and if one believes abortion to be a bad thing), then I wonder how the billions of poor people of the prior ages managed to survive…
hippie, but the comparison isn’t between legal and illegal abortion. It is between Romney and Obama. Romney isn’t going to challenge the “settled law” of Roe v. Wade, he has promised that. So, under a situation where abortion is legal, under which President would there be fewer abortion between 2013 and 2017? Take a look
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/10/can-democrats-reduce-abortion.html
It’s not just him. Seems like most of my fellow Catholics are coming around:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/poll-obama-surges-ahead-among-catholic-voters/2012/09/26/8115e118-081a-11e2-9eea-333857f6a7bd_singlePage.html
I guess all the silly scare-mongering didn’t have much of an effect on the Catholic vote after all.
Preach it, X!
Seems like most of my fellow Catholics are coming around:
Uh, they are not coming around from any moral point of view. They haven’t even been there yet. Sadly many of the proabort Catholics like yourself will never come around to sound Catholic teaching. You have made yourself your own god and only answer to yourself.
Do you think Jesus will say to you, “Good job, dear joan. C’mon in to heaven. Your behaviors on Earth were right in line with the majority of Catholics.” LOL
Narrow path and all that.
Don’t feed the troll, y’all…
“Sadly many of the proabort Catholics like yourself will never come around to sound Catholic teaching.”
You should be happy. The “Real Catholics Club”, made up of the approximately 3% of the Catholic population that follows every single “teaching” down to the letter, will continue to be a very exclusive clique.
Muslims’ bizarre reactions to perceived slights around the world: Something We Must Be Ever-Expeditious About Redressing On Moments’ Notice
Domestic Catholics’ concern that their Constitutional liberties are being violated by the very government responsible for safeguarding them: These Benighted Pious Need Secular Technocrats To Inform Them Of Their Best Interests
I’ll be happy when I convert you, joan. That’s part of our Catholic teaching, too. (:
Joan, excommunicating yourself through your actions and words (by supporting the intrinsic and grave evil of abortion) is nothing to joke about; certainly nothing to be proud of or become pompous about. I have to wonder why you still claim any membership in the Catholic Church at all since you have such open disdain for the Truth of Her teachings. You are an apostate like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Kathleen Sebelius, Caroline Kennedy, etc. You are to be strongly opposed, yet pitied for your blind allegiance to death. You do not speak for the Church.
The new cheatsheet for responding to pro-life Obama backers:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/09/6271
The Catholic church is pro-choice
Obama only scores big among self identified Catholics who never go to church.
“those who attend Mass seldom or never favor him by a 61 to 32 percent margin.”
“Catholics who attend Mass at least weekly favor Mitt Romney … (51 to 42).”
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1009
Tyler, let’s assume that’s true, that the Democratic party supports abortion “for any reason.” Let’s also assume that other Democratic policies (such as removing the fear of health care expenses) would actually reduce the number of women who want and get abortions.
What would the proper Catholic position be in that scenario?
———–
Hal, a person doesn’t need to assume in order that the Democratic party supports abortion on demand. They do. They support the status quo on Roe and Bolton.
If implementing Obamacare would actually reduce the number of abortions the Democratic party would have to also change it is position on the legality of abortion before a Catholic could consider voting for the Democratic party. It is the Democratic party support for keeping abortion legal in cases of rape; incest; financial burden of the mother (parents); inconvenience to hte mother’s (or parent’s) education, social life, or career; eugenic purposes etc… that make it impossible for a Catholic to vote for Democrat.
I hope that clarifies why a Catholic can’t vote for a Democrat. It is not because Democrats have abortions, it is because they support and facilitate any and all abortions. As per the Democratic party platform, Democrats want abortion to be legal and safe (abortion is never safe for the preborn). They have even dropped the pretense of even wanting it to be rare.
“hippie, but the comparison isn’t between legal and illegal abortion. It is between Romney and Obama. Romney isn’t going to challenge the “settled law” of Roe v. Wade, he has promised that.”
What are you, clairvoyant?
Like snail boy Schneck?
Abortions have gone up since Obama took office in 2009. Is that because median incomes have fallen 8%? Because poverty has increased under Obama? Well?
Snail boy baldly asserts poverty will go up under Romney? Why? There is no basis for that statement.
The actual evidence is that poverty has gone up under Obama. Why does snail boy believe that Obama 2.0 will be different? Because of his tax increases on the middle class that go into effect in 2013?
http://www.atr.org/five-worst-obamacare-taxes-coming-a7217
The problem with snail boy Schneck is not him so much as the evil incompetents who hired him and have not yet fired him. Parents and the university governors are literally paying this stupid snail to poison their kids minds against them and what they believe.
What is coming next? Will the atheists hire nuns to teach their kids? This world makes no sense.
Paladin -
Good to see you – hope the school year is going well.
I like your post at 3:54 – but your two points in relation to option d – those are purely matters of perspective.
A left leaner will say that after economic reforms were put in place, the economy has not only come back from the brink of disaster, but added millions of jobs. It can easily be argued that a President doesn’t own the economy day one – that you have to get them several months. If we look at the number now compared to six months into his term, what you seem to say is a “fact” is really just an opinion. Also, you are a smart guy – you know the credit downgrade was a result of the failure of both parties to come to a long term debt agreement.
On your second point, it is hard to find a study that doesn’t say economic reasons are the leading factor, or one of the leading factors for abortion. How can you not say poverty leads to abortions? They are not a factor in EVERY abortion, but to simply discount the link seems to be ignoring the data out there.
Look – I can see the angst regarding this guy’s position – but you know I’ve argued this for a long time – if abortion laws aren’t going to change significantly, then social conditions changing have a greater importance.
And for those ready to attack – I acknowledge and am troubled by the fact that the Democratic party has gone from saying abortion should be legal but rare, to embracing it more fully. My hope is this changes after the elections when the language becomes less polarized – but I can only speculate on that.
Mr. Schneck may have one excuse for holding his position – he was influenced and fooled by this argument which actually pre-dates him. He is not the first expounder of this idea. Many people, elt alone Catholics, find it difficult to believe that sane people who are physically healthy would willfully kill their own child Most people naturally search for a reasonable explanation for this behavior. However, none is to be found – only this ludicrous “Schneck” argument. The sad truth is that most pro-choice people are now simply ignorant and emotionally immune to the trauma that is abortion. The motivating factor for the die-hard pro-choice advocates is their equally insane belief that abortion emancipates women. But how does killing another human being emancipate someone?
Tyler says: “I hope that clarifies why a Catholic can’t vote for a Democrat.”
This is untrue. The Catholic position is not tied to party lines. We have to consider the candidate and their record. A Catholic can in good conscience vote for a pro-life Democrat and cannot in good conscience vote for a pro-abortion Republican. (Assuming that one of the two candidates running for an office is pro-life and the other is pro-abortion. When both candidates are pro-life or both are pro-abortion, other factors are considered.)
Lrning, your statement is true to a point. However, a voter would have to be certain that the Democrat politician they are voting for is a true prolifer. The voter should also know the voting record of their desired politician if the said politician has been elected to a political office before. Furthermore, all American voters should understand that although the party whip in the US is less influential than in other countries party members are usually whipped (forced) to follow the party line. This means that if the Democratic party is whipped on a vote for an abortion bill the selected Democratic politician would have to be willing to vote against his/her own party – it happens but it is rare. Moreover, an US citizen voter would have to be very naive in order to believe that that the current President Obama and the current Democratic whip won’t whip the party on an abortion bill in order to squelch any prolife initiatives.
Lrning, in the end, any prolife person who supports a Democratic candidate would have to engage in some “Schneck” style acrobatic thinking/rationalization.
Tyler says: “Lrning, your statement is true to a point.”
No, my statement is true. I’m thankful my Church’s position urges us to focus on the candidate and their record, not the party line.
Lrning, your Church urges you to focus on the principles and laws that your Candidate supports,, which includes the party they affiliate themselves with. Each Democratic candidate implicitly supports the pro-abortion Democratic party platform unless they specifically pledge that they do not. Additionally, each Catholic has to look at the actions of the Candidate as wellas their voting record, and not their statements. No Catholic should support someone like O’Malley or Biden who say they personally oppose abortion, but then go on to facilitate pro-abortion laws. A Catholic needs to look at more then the voting record, they also need to examine what bills their candidate has proposed as well.
Lrning, a Catholic cannot simply ignore the Democratic party’s stated party platform goal of keeping abortion legal and safe in order to vote for the Democratic candidate running in their local race. A politician who does nothing to bring the legal abortion regime to an end is tacitly supporting the current regime’s continued existence. Lrning, if you can live with that on your soul, by all means vote for a Democrat, but don’t think you are helping to bring an end to abortion or that you have carried out your moral duty as a Catholic to protect and help the weakest among us.
Lrning, by the way you need to look at the laws that the candidates support because those laws will either permit or restrict evil human acts, acts which may determine whether a person goes to Heaven or Hell. (I am not advocating a Peligian point of view here, but this too complicated to discuss.)
I am currently represented by 3 Republicans that are NOT pro-life (2 federal, 1 state). You have extrapolated on Church teaching and come up with your rule of thumb, “a Catholic can’t vote for a Democrat”. Happily, as an orthodox Catholic with a well-formed conscience, I do not need to follow your rule of thumb. Pro-life Democrats exist and I would easily cast a vote for one versus a pro-abort Republican. Go me!
Lrning, when you find one let me know.
As a “rule of thumb” my point still stands. It would be foolish for a prolife person to vote for a Democrat when the Democratic party supports keeping the current abortion legal regime. The only situations where it would be permissable/ethical not to vote for a Republican is when that prolifer voter was in the odd circumstance where neither the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate is prolife or in a situation where the Democratic candidate is prolife and the Republican is not.
If the abortion issue is somehow made irrelevant by the pro-choice positions of the candidates in a local race, there are still plenty of other reasons not to vote for the Democratic candidate: the HHS Mandate, the fact that Obamacare will be implemented with an oversight board that doesn’t subscribe to Christian morality, the denial of religious liberty and conscience protection, their economic policies that support a big government that threatens to crush all religions, a foregin policy that leaves US allies to fend for themselves etc…
Aside from the economic reasons for desiring a small government, a smaller government is typically better for prolifers since bigger governments tend to be more secular and have more power to force their moral values on the public.
Lrning, when the Democrats force you (and everyone else) to pay for abortions through your taxes, please come back and tell me and everyone that you are still proud that you voted for a Democrat.
Tyler says: Lrning, when you find one let me know.
Dan Lipinski.
If you assume that Republican = pro-life, you are wrong. Voters, please don’t assume. Look into a candidate’s record and vote accordingly.
Lrning, what I don’t understand is why any one would run as a Democrat or stay with the Dems if they are prolife. Are they not aware what their party fights for? It makes no sense to me.
It would have been like staying with the nazis once you figured out what they are all about.
Greetings, EGV,
I like your post at 3:54 – but your two points in relation to option d – those are purely matters of perspective.
Forgive me for saying so (again), but: only a moral relativist could say that objective moral standards are “purely a matter of perspective”; that’s nonsense, I’m afraid.
A left leaner will say that after economic reforms were put in place, the economy has not only come back from the brink of disaster, but added millions of jobs.
A “left-leaner” might well say that. It would remain, then, for that “left-leaner” to prove/demonstrate his case with more than mere winds and words. Surely you know that such a claim is, by all sane standards, what logicians call “unfalsifiable”, and therefore useless as a logical defense (i.e. akin to claiming that an invisible tea-pot is maintaining the spiritual equilibrium of the Earth by keeping a geosynchronous orbit above Hoboken, NJ)? I could use the same sort of bunkum excuse to shove another fellow into the sewer, on the pretext that “had I not, he would never have gotten angry enough to speed home, to get ticketed by the constable, and to be delayed just long enough to avoid what would have been a fatal accident with a bicycle”?
It can easily be argued that a President doesn’t own the economy day one – that you have to get them several months.
…or years?
If we look at the number now compared to six months into his term, what you seem to say is a “fact” is really just an opinion.
Come, now. Obamacare, for example, is most certainly “owned” by Obama, yes? Or are you seriously going to claim that Obamacare is utterly irrelevant, and of negligible influence, in the country’s current deficit which precipitated the downgrades, etc.? Call it “justifiable, for the sake of helping the poor” (which would be called “changing the subject”, by the way), if you like; but do not claim that it is not inflating the national debt dramatically beyond previous levels. Obama “owns” both his “positive” (in the philosophical sense of being “active” about it) damages to the damaged economy, and his lack of doing anything of substance to cure it (instead of exacerbate it). Four years really is enough time to consider the results to be “Obama’s own” by now, friend.
Also, you are a smart guy – you know the credit downgrade was a result of the failure of both parties to come to a long term debt agreement.
Ah. So you imply that the introduction of a vast new entitlement (i.e. “Obamacare”, which leads the federal government to take over roughly one-sixth of the economy), and a series of “QE’s” and buyouts (in which the federal government used money it didn’t have to try to buy debt, take over auto companies, bail out failing businesses, etc.), all in the face of a first two years in which Obama and his fellow Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress (with a filibuster-proof majority, for at least some of that time), is of no consequence… as opposed to “GOP vs. Dem not agreeing on a course of action”? Such disagreements have been the stuff of politics since the dawn of time; but you’ll note that no such downgrade happened until the same disagreements happened during the “perfect storm” of Obamacare, bailouts, etc., which inflated the nation’s dept to $16 Trillion. Have some sense, man.
On your second point, it is hard to find a study that doesn’t say economic reasons are the leading factor, or one of the leading factors for abortion.
You missed my earlier point (which the studies also miss, given their starting assumptions): mere poverty does not induce a wave of child-murder on its own, or else we’d have seen child-blood-baths such as that of today in prior ages, whenever poverty became quite severe (over 1.5 million children slaughtered every year–Stalin was quite right when he said that “one death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic”, as per our country’s nonchalance about abortion). If abortion had never become acceptable in the minds of Americans, we would not see this holocaust now; we might see a high number of poverty-related (non-homicide) deaths, perhaps, but not mass-murders such as this. No… I’m afraid I have to deny your starting premise, after all.
How can you not say poverty leads to abortions? They are not a factor in EVERY abortion, but to simply discount the link seems to be ignoring the data out there.
You speak (as you’ve done in the past) as if we can treat humans as non-free creatures driven only by external stimuli… and that error creeps in often with those who don’t have an emotional detachment from statistics (and an awareness of their limits, both in accuracy and in application). What, should we eliminate (for example) all private property, on the pretext that its existence makes theft possible? I do not deny that some people may, through the pressures of poverty, make a desperate and insane choice to kill their children (born or unborn); I merely warn you against building any sort of foundational case on the idea… especially if you’re choosing the “financial reform, rather than legal prohibition” idea (which is–forgive me–a sophistry).
Look – I can see the angst regarding this guy’s position
I’m not sure you see the reasons for that angst quite clearly, however. The fellow in question is trying to redefine the very way that the Church views morality and truth; he seeks to embrace moral relativism while avoiding the explicit word-choices which would expose that fact plainly… but the damage would be the same. No sane, faithful and well-informed Catholic could possibly vote for Obama, given the manifold ways he sets himself against virtually everything the Church holds dear (and on foundational issues–not simply pittances).
– but you know I’ve argued this for a long time – if abortion laws aren’t going to change significantly, then social conditions changing have a greater importance.
And you seem to forget my (many and repeated) responses to you on that specific point, as quickly as I give them to you! For the umteenth time: you seem to be utterly blind to the fact that, even (granting for the sake of argument) in the face of GOP inactivity, the Democrats are anything BUT inactive in their PROMOTION of abortion! Here’s a small chart for you, if it helps:
(this supposes your [false] premise that the GOP is practically inactive on the abortion issue)
GOP in power: no pro-life advance, no pro-legal-abortion advance
DEM in power: no pro-life advance, wildly aggressive pro-legal-abortion advance
(N.B. This abstracts from the very real problems of having Dems–or GOP’s, for that matter–try to “save the poor by trying to spend money they don’t have”.)
Do you see the contrast? You keep using the “let’s work on the social/financial angle, since all other factors are equal” idea… when that claim is quite obviously false, and even ridiculously so.
And for those ready to attack – I acknowledge and am troubled by the fact that the Democratic party has gone from saying abortion should be legal but rare, to embracing it more fully.
Could this possibly move you to believe, at last, that “all other things are NOT equal”… and that you can no longer “self-medicate” your own mind with the sleepy/sweet idea that “nothing else but my pet political ideas matter, when all is said and done, anyway”?
My hope is this changes after the elections when the language becomes less polarized – but I can only speculate on that.
Given the polarising stance that Obama has taken throughout his entire term, I do think such a “hope for change” is as illusory as the original promise of “hope and change” was.
Hi Hal,
I’ve wanted to ask you a question about your family, specifically your ‘role’/responsibility for its future. It may seem as though I am hijacking this thread, but I’m not. Much too often political platforms seem ‘overly opportunistic’ [Rep viewing Dem], or, certain platforms seem ‘too-fixed’ [Dem viewing Rep]. In this case, the abortion-phenomenon may not be as it appears to any of us.
I have wondered about ‘magnets’ at http://www.cheniere.org and wondered. Tom Beardon thinks of magnetic energy as something that comes into being each moment, and extinguishes just as quickly. Classically the magnetic power to adhere is a fixed thing. Nothing is farther from reality.
Perhaps life itself has this same very-fast element(life) tied to a very much slower structure(body).
At any rate, do you feel obliged to conform your voting-wishes in such a way as to assure your daughters a good future. Are you not stealing their prospects and fiscal solvency, by enlarging their debt? How will you explain that you are not their hero, but a parasite that sucks the life from their families?
Paladin – this is really very simple – let’s spare the 50,000 words here.
You said:
“d) the stakes of the situation must be sufficiently grave to justify toleration of the [unintended] evil effect.
The “let’s vote for Obama, since he might be more likely to alleviate poverty, which will lead unerringly toward reduced abortions” fails miserably on point (d), for at least two reasons: (1) the idea that Obama will usher in a “new age of prosperity” is… shall we say “unrealistically optimistic” (cf. the last 4 years, the downgrade of the U.S. rating, the unemployment rate, Keynesian economics, etc.), and (2) the idea that “poverty = abortion” is absurd on its face.”
The two reasons you state – are they facts, or are they opinions?
Paladin -
One other quick note – when I said – “those are matters of perspective” – I was speaking ONLY about your two reasons for discounting ‘d’.
Just listened to Schneck on EWTN. At one point he said, “If we can get the compassionate Democrats back into the party. . . ”
Uh, the compassionate Democrats have left the party, he even admits it himself. Common sense should tell him who he is left with. He has way too much pride.
Lrning, in the future be more forthcoming with your denomination. Additionally, I have never told people not to look at a candidates voting record – in fact, I have said the exact opposite. Nonetheless, I have come to the conclusion that the differences between the two parties, on a purely theoretical level, are quite different, and that the platform put out by the Democrats is unsupportable by a Roman Catholic. With respect to the upcoming vote to decide who should hold the Office of the President the choice is quite clear – no Catholic can vote for Obama – on this I hope you can agree?!?
Tyler says: “Lrning, in the future be more forthcoming with your denomination.”
What the? I’m sure I’ve mentioned numerous times on this blog that I’m Catholic. And my second post in this thread was answering a question about the Catholic position. Are you saying you didn’t know I was Catholic?
“I have come to the conclusion that the differences between the two parties, on a purely theoretical level, are quite different, and that the platform put out by the Democrats is unsupportable by a Roman Catholic.”
Good for you, Tyler. And I embrace the Church’s wisdom, fully understand the non-negotiables, and vote accordingly.
“With respect to the upcoming vote to decide who should hold the Office of the President the choice is quite clear – no Catholic can vote for Obama – on this I hope you can agree?!?”
Agreed.
Praxedes says: Lrning, what I don’t understand is why any one would run as a Democrat or stay with the Dems if they are prolife. Are they not aware what their party fights for? It makes no sense to me.
I don’t get it either. I don’t think the Democrats could be any clearer that they don’t want pro-lifers in their party. But I’m grateful that they are there. Pro-lifers are needed everywhere if we are ever to get rid of abortion.
But I’m grateful that they are there. Pro-lifers are needed everywhere if we are ever to get rid of abortion.
With all due respect, Lrning, I disagree. I don’t think those who opposed killing the Jews should have joined the nazis and supported them staying in power. Staying with the Dems to stop abortion is like starting a war to promote peace.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think because politics has become so partisan, we need pro-lifers in both parties. I’m also grateful that Oskar Schindler, a member of the Nazi party, was able to save the lives of 1100 Jews.
I am grateful for Oskar Schindler as well. His life was at risk if he left the nazi party. Are you implying that the lives of Democrats are at risk if they change party affiliations?
Not their physical lives, but certainly their political lives. If every pro-life Democrat in office is replaced by a pro-abortion Democrat, I don’t think that’s a win for the unborn. Of course, my opinion may be biased by the fact that I live in Illinois. It’s possibly the most Democratic state, and many of the Republicans that do win aren’t pro-life.
Lrning, what about the Democratic parties desire to take away religious freedom and the first amendment? Democrats appear willing to ignore fundamental human rights, which many people believe have been enshrined in the US Constitution. Pro-choice Republicans do make getting prolife legislation passed more difficult. Sometimes these pro-choice Republicans say they are pro-choice due to media pressure and the desire to be elected in more Democratic States. It is shame. However, the issue isn’t whether prolife Democrat politicians leave the Democrat party – in that respect you are right, a prolife politician is better than non-prolife politician – but the issue is with the prolife Democractic voters switching sides. If all the Democratic prolife voters voted for prolife Republican politicians and weren’t duped by people like Schneck (who feel helpless to change the status quo on abortion) to vote for any Democrat (which is what Schneck is advocating) than there would be a better chance for more prolife legislation to be enacted. Lrning, you should be equally (or perhaps even more) offended by Mr. Schneck’s promotion of the Democratic party as the default prolife party. Mr. Schneck advocated voting for any Democratic party candidate regardless of their position on abortion because in his opinion Obamacare will reduce the number of abortions. Lrning, you should watch the ETWN interview of Mr. Schneck. It may change your mind about continuing to suppoer Mr. Schneck and the Democratic party.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF1_jlFtE0I&feature=plcp
Lrning you might appreciate this video by Bishop Paprocki.
http://vimeo.com/49790332
With the above said about religious freedom, i need to clarify something I said earlier. i need to do this out of respect for the morality of people like xalisae and others like her. Originally i said the following:
“Aside from the economic reasons for desiring a small government, a smaller government is typically better for prolifers since bigger governments tend to be more secular and have more power to force their moral values on the public.”
I should have wrote:
“Aside from the economic reasons for desiring a small government, a smaller government is typically better for prolifers since bigger governments tend to be more anti-religion (less tolerant) and have more power to force their supposedly amoral or neutral values on the public. ”
“It may change your mind about continuing to suppoer Mr. Schneck and the Democratic party.”
I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that I support Schneck and the Dems. I think if you read back on what I’ve posted on this article you will find your assumption is incorrect. I simply called you out on the fact that the Catholic Church does not teach that a Catholic “can’t vote for a Democrat”.
Lrning, you have not called me on anything, You have distorted what I have said and most importantly you have qualified what it means to be a Democrat. Your definition of a Democrat is someone who doesn’t subscribe to the policies stated in the Democratic party platform! Perhaps this distortion/qualification has become so common place you didn’t even realize that you were doing it!
It is this qualification of what it means to be a Democrat that needs to be justified and corrected, and not my comments. The willingness of people to go along with this qualification of what it means to be a Democrat misleads voters.
If you go back and read my comments you will note there is none of my comments need to be challenged. Thanks for your assistance Lrning but it was not required.
Lrning, you were talking about DINOs and I was talking about Democrats.
Also, one question, are you a man or a woman?
Tyler, perhaps you could try reading what I actually write and stop extrapolating to your ridiculous conclusions.
* I haven’t distorted a thing that you’ve said
* I haven’t provided a definition of a Democrat.
* I haven’t qualified what it means to be a Democrat. I allow candidates to claim their own party affiliation and judge by their record what they support.
* Your comment “a Catholic can’t vote for a Democrat” is not an accurate statement regarding the Catholic position and that is what I challenged.
If you want to base your votes on party affiliation instead of a candidate’s actual record, that’s your own business. I’m not about to do the same. Like I said, I’m currently represented by 3 Republicans that are not pro-life. The fact that the party platform is pro-life means squat when the legislator chooses not to vote that way.
* I haven’t distorted a thing that you’ve said
Yes, you have. You stated that I have told people not to examine a candidate’s voting record. That is a distortion.
* I haven’t provided a definition of a Democrat.
True – you defined a DINO.
* I haven’t qualified what it means to be a Democrat. I allow candidates to claim their own party affiliation and judge by their record what they support.
Yes – you have – you defined a Democrat for Life. The “for Life” part is the qualification.
* Your comment “a Catholic can’t vote for a Democrat” is not an accurate statement regarding the Catholic position and that is what I challenged.
My statement is entirely accurate. I have accepted that a Democrat is defined by their affiliation and acceptance of what the Democratic Party believes. That is a fair thing to do. I am not saying that voters should stick their head in the sand, and not look at the candidates in front of them.
Lrning: If you want to base your votes on party affiliation instead of a candidate’s actual record, that’s your own business.
Distortion… I never said that. I advised people to consider the candidates party affiliation as well as to examine their record.
Lrning: I’m not about to do the same. Like I said, I’m currently represented by 3 Republicans that are not pro-life.
Good, or should I say too bad, for you.
Lrning: The fact that the party platform is pro-life means squat when the legislator chooses not to vote that way.
Yes it does. I am talking about the reverse problem: Democratic politicians who actually support their party platform. You’ll have to admit that is not good for the prolife movement.
Let the Holy Spirit guide Mitt Romney’s responses tonight. And that both candidates be honest and fair in representing each other’s position.
God bless America.
Lrning, if I said something on another thread that was wrong and offended you, please let me know so I may apologize for it.
Tyler, I have no idea what you’re talking about anymore. We’re addressing posts to each other but clearly no communication is taking place. I’m done.
Lrning, if you are up for it I would actually like to discuss the actual policies of each party with you!!!
Don’t groan now…
Tyler, in your world do pro-life Democrats exist?
Apologies for the delay; apparently my web e-mail “died” suddenly, which left me scrambling to set up this new one (and which wiped out my subscriptions–I was wondering why I’d heard nothing for two days!).
Anyway… EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
Paladin – this is really very simple – let’s spare the 50,000 words here.
(*sigh*) You really do have a short attention-span, don’t you?
You said: “d) the stakes of the situation must be sufficiently grave to justify toleration of the [unintended] evil effect. The “let’s vote for Obama, since he might be more likely to alleviate poverty, which will lead unerringly toward reduced abortions” fails miserably on point (d), for at least two reasons: (1) the idea that Obama will usher in a “new age of prosperity” is… shall we say “unrealistically optimistic” (cf. the last 4 years, the downgrade of the U.S. rating, the unemployment rate, Keynesian economics, etc.), and (2) the idea that “poverty = abortion” is absurd on its face.”
The two reasons you state – are they facts, or are they opinions?
You may (if you are careless) call the first point an “opinion”, if you wish… though, were it a GOP president, I have little doubt that you would call such a claim against that GOP president a “plain political/economic fact”. If you know of any way that doubling/trebling/increasing inordinately the national debt–i.e. spending money we do not have, and cannot possibly get–in order to “increase prosperity” might possibly work, I’m all ears. You might as well say that expectations of the ruin of a house, in the midst of a four-alarm house fire, is a “mere matter of opinion”, simply because the probability of non-ruin is not exactly zero; I really do think you’re holding me to a standard which you could never satisfy, yourself. But… as you like.
The second point is, I’m afraid, a raw fact. Abortion is not a function of poverty (as the thousands of years of poverty without wide-spread abortions or infanticide, and the vast poverty in our world today in numerous countries which do not embrace abortion–I think especially of Africa, where some countries didn’t even have a word for it in their languages, and who literally giggled in disbelief when the concept was explained to them–show quite plainly). Abortion is a function of a mind-set which erodes the sanctity of life in favour of selfish ends, to the extent that murder (especially when presented in a sanitised manner, as the abortion movement does) is seen to be preferable to suffering of any kind. Your view, in particular (i.e. neglect any legal prohibition, but hope that economic prosperity might fix things), is doomed to failure, since economic prosperity leads no-one to selflessness, in and of itself. Those who wish to have more pleasure, power, and provisions will still wish it, even when poverty is gone.
Case in point: how widespread is the phenomenon of women killing their born children because of “poverty”? Surely the apparent benefits to that murder would be the same as that of abortion (i.e. one less mouth to feed, etc.)?
Summary: once abortion has become entrenched as a “woman’s legal right”, a “morally permissible choice”, a “mere medical procedure to remove a non-person blob of tissue”, etc., then yes… poverty, in addition to threats from family, fear of community negativity, fear of losing worldly goods or opportunities, fear of losing sex appeal/opportunities, etc., can all add pressure on someone to kill an unborn child. But to base your entire point (as you certainly do) on the idea that “I’m free to ignore all aspects of the issue beyond promoting financial prosperity” is silly to the point of insanity. One might as well suggest that state-sponsored brothels will eliminate the pandemic of rape, since the poor cannot afford prostitutes on their own (and since our cruel and judgmental society places such a stigma on it, which makes it “forbidden fruit”)!
Now, then: fair is fair. I’ve addressed your points; would you be so kind as to address mine?
1) Is the Democrat claim of “we’ve saved millions of jobs that would otherwise have been lost, and brought things back from disaster” falsifiable (i.e. logically relevant), or is it not? You apparently (unless you’ve surrendered your status as a “left-leaner”) think it’s true, and I’m curious as to how you (or anyone) could possibly know that.
2) Was the *topic* of the “failure (of both sides) to come to a long-term agreement” the debt crisis (largely precipitated, and definitely inflamed, by Obamacare, QE’s, bailouts, and other wild deficit spending), or was it not? You seem to insinuate that “mere political differences” (apart from the topic at hand, and how it came to be, and how Obama and Democrat colleagues contributed to it) led to the USA downgrade… which is rather disingenuous, I think.
3) Do you finally understand that Democrat aggression regarding abortion is at least as relevant a factor as is alleged “GOP apathy” (i.e. even if the GOP is asleep at the switch, Democrats certainly aren’t)? Since your whole case for “voting Dem while claiming to be pro-life” rests on the idea that “neither side will do anything substantial on that main point”, I think it’s relevant if that (thesis) idea is utterly false… don’t you? I’ve seen nothing to suggest that you’ve so much as READ that point, much less acknowledged it, much less believe it.
EGV wrote:
Paladin – One other quick note – when I said – “those are matters of perspective” – I was speaking ONLY about your two reasons for discounting ‘d’.
All right. But I’d still caution against that sort of blanket statement, especially since you said (in the original quote) that the reasons were “PURELY” matters of perspective (which is an utterly relativistic thing to say). I realise that you use the language differently than do I, but… words do mean things, and you do have a habit of being quite sweeping, generalising, and minimalistic when describing things (especially opposing points of view).
Also: when I use my (*ahem*) “50,000 words”, I cover more topics than one… and more topics than you address in your counter-point. You see that, yes?
Lrning, due to all of the anti-life policies that the Democratic party supports the term “pro-life Democrats” is almost oxymoronic and an impossibility.
How can prolife person support a party that supports death panels? And the tax funding of abortion? Or should we qualify that too so that now we have a “pro-life, anti-Obamacare, anti-tax funded abortions, Democrat”? At some point the qualifying adjectives out number and contradict the noun. These people and politicians might as well call themselves Independents since they don’t really subscribe to the Democratic party.
Tyler says: “These people and politicians might as well call themselves Independents since they don’t really subscribe to the Democratic party.”
You’re making me laugh Tyler because you are the one “qualifying” who is a Democrat and who isn’t. I’ve never seen DINO or RINO indicated on a ballot.
http://lipinski.house.gov/
I believe that actions (votes) speak louder than words (party platform). When a legislator tells me who they are and what they support with actions (votes), I tend to believe them. And I’m grateful that Democrats like Dan Lipinski really do exist.
Doesn’t the fact that Mr. Lipinski was the one lone Democrat who didn’t vote for Obamacare tell you that the Democratic party has become the party of death.
Lipinski has more in common with Republicans than Democrats. He should consider switching parties in my opinion. We just need to tweak his position on tax reform and jobs issues.
Lrning, maybe we need to also adjust his positions a little on education, energy and civil rights….
Lrning, on a more serious note, why would Lipinski allow himself to be associated with the Democratic party? His prolife position gives the Democratic party an aspect of credibility and integrity it does not truly possess.
“… the Democratic party has become the party of death”
Duh. This is something I’ve never denied. And 34 Dems voted against it:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml
And 5 Dems voted to repeal it.
“He should consider switching parties in my opinion.”
I’ve heard that 30% of Democrats are pro-life. I hope that number increases to 50, 60, 70, 100% not decreases to 0. I pray the U.S. will one day be a pro-life nation. We don’t need to become a one-party nation too.
Hey, Lrning, I’ve enjoyed reading your comments in this thread. Just wanted to say that. :)
Thanks, Alexandra.
I’ve heard that 30% of Democrats are pro-life. I hope that number increases to 50, 60, 70, 100% not decreases to 0.
Lrning, Lipinski was the Illinois Democrat to oppose the Health Care bill.
Prolifers have tried to make the Democratic party support the prolife position – they have failed, It is time to try something new.
Wanting a prolife nation and making it happen are two different things.
Lipinski needs to understand that supporting policies that facilitate the free market is moral and that a limited government has virtures. Too many Democrats blindly believe that the free market system is evil and that a big government is the only solution to most social problems.
Hi Alexandra, it nice to see you are enjoying the comments by Lrning, but for some reason I am not surprised – Democrats are very susceptible to “group think” errors.
By the way, you would be hard pressed to know Mr. Lipinski was prolife unless you looked at his voting record. His website is eerily silent on the topic. I am not sure if that helps the prolife movement or harms it.
As an example, here is his ‘About me” section from his website:
Congressman Dan Lipinski – Third District, Illinois
Congressman Dan Lipinski is a proud native of Illinois’ Third Congressional District, which includes large parts of south and southwest Chicago, as well as several suburban communities in west and southwest Cook County. All of these neighborhoods and the families who call them home make the Third District one of the most diverse and vibrant areas in the entire country.
Congressman Lipinski has fought tirelessly for the residents of the district, as well as all Americans, by leading the way in improving our nation’s schools, making the healthcare system more accessible and transparent, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, protecting American workers, improving our nation’s transportation and infrastructure, and ensuring our families’ safety and security.
The Congressman is a member of two House Committees: Transportation and Infrastructure and Science and Technology. The most-senior Chicago-area member of the Transportation Committee, Congressman Lipinski serves on the Subcommittee on Aviation and the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. In the Committee on Science and Technology, he is Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education and sits on the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.
Prior to his election to the House of Representatives, Congressman Lipinski taught Political Science at the University of Tennessee and at the University of Notre Dame. He served on the staff of former Minority Leader Richard Gephardt and on the staffs of four Illinois Congressmen. He also served on the staffs of the House Administration Committee and the House Democratic Policy Committee and worked for the U.S. Department of Labor and the Illinois General Assembly’s Commission on Intergovernmental Cooperation.
Congressman Lipinski earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Northwestern University, a Master’s Degree in Engineering-Economic Systems from Stanford University, and a PhD in Political Science from Duke University.
Congressman Lipinski and his wife, Judy, currently reside in Western Springs, IL.
I want everyone, the US, and the world to be prolife – so for that reason I think parties that support abortion shouldn’t exist. Wishing that a party did not exist is not the same as wishing your own child did not exist!
Alexandra, you just don’t like it when people disagree with your politics.
“Alexandra, you just don’t like it when people disagree with your politics.”
Look who’s talking.
JDC, but I don’t pretend otherwise. I want my politics to refelct my values, my prioritized values.
A party that supports the killing of babies doesn’t deserve to be supported, and the people who are silly (or pick your adjective) enough to support such a party are no better than the party itself IMO…. These people need to take off their rose-colored sunglasses and examine the Democratic party under the bright light of the Son (spelling is intentional).
Finally, this thread is supposed to about Schneck and his attempt to deceive voters into believing that the Democratic Party is the more pro-life party. This thread is not supposed to be about my political views.
JDC, if the Democratic party can’t even get the morality of life issues correct what makes you think they are right on any other issue?
Tyler says: “Hi Alexandra, it nice to see you are enjoying the comments by Lrning, but for some reason I am not surprised – Democrats are very susceptible to “group think” errors.”
Hahahahahaha! I don’t know about Alexandra, but I’m not a Democrat.
Seriously though, you’ve gone off the Catholic reservation if you think there is only one right (moral) way to handle “tax reform”, “jobs issues”, “education”, “energy”, etc.
You truly think we have a better chance of making the Democratic Party disappear than turning more Democrats pro-life?!?
“This thread is not supposed to be about my political views.”
Agreed.
Hahahahahaha! I don’t know about Alexandra, but I’m not a Democrat.
You have already said this – and I am glad that you are not.
Seriously though, you’ve gone off the Catholic reservation if you think there is only one right (moral) way to handle “tax reform”, “jobs issues”, “education”, “energy”, etc.
Lrning, please stop attributing ideas to me that I have not said. There are many issues that are left to prudential judgement – like the budget as another example- just ask Paul Ryan. However, these areas of prudential judgment are morally and spiritually less important than life issues where people can choose intrinsic evils – but you know this already. If a political party support killing Canadians, I would have to oppose them. In fact, no matter how good there positions were on education, jobs, etc… I could not even align myself with them, even if I am able to qualify their name by saying that I am (pick your party name) for Canadians… it is just absurd. Would any of us support party if it supported slavery? Would any of us be willing to be associated with such a party? We have agreed that abortion is an intrinsic evil…how does/can a Catholic associate oneself with evil?
The question is whether we can make the Democratic party disappear or cease to be, but whether it should continue to be when it publicly promotes and supports killing the preborn. My answer to the question is that any party, no matter what its name is, doesn’t deserve to be.
Tyler says: “Lrning, please stop attributing ideas to me that I have not said. “
Sorry. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by ” We just need to tweak his position on tax reform and jobs issues.” and “we need to also adjust his positions a little on education, energy…”. It sounded to me like you were saying there was a right position on those issues and a wrong position.
“how does/can a Catholic associate oneself with evil?”
My opinion is that pro-life Democrats are attempting to combat evil. May God bless their efforts.
Lrning, in other words, it is right for you, a voter, to support a politician like Lipinski – who supports life; however, it is wrong for Lipinski to associate himself with the Democratic party.
The question isn’t whether we can make the Democratic party disappear or cease to be, but whether it should continue to be when it publicly promotes and supports the killing of the preborn. My answer to the question is that any party that supports abortion, no matter what its name is, doesn’t deserve to be.
No one, which includes Lipinski and non-Catholics, should support or associate with a party that promotes and supports abortion. You don’t convert them by joining them!!!
The Democrat party is no better than the KKK.
No one would dare to say that they are a good member of the KKK, that they are part of the group ”Klansmen for equality among the races.” Not too many people would believe them, but some would (insert yellow sad face).
I disagree. If Lipinski has been called to fight the evil of abortion from within the Democratic party, may God bless his efforts.
I’m currently doing a study of the Gospel of Matthew (written by Scott Hahn) and have been exposed to a fascinating concept regarding the spread of holiness. Divine revelation shows a move from a “quarantine” from sin view of holiness (Old Covenant and the ritual cleanliness commands) to a New Covenant view which commands that we go out and “infect” others with holiness and the love of God. May pro-life Democrats infect the Democratic Party with God’s love of life.
Hi Alexandra, it nice to see you are enjoying the comments by Lrning, but for some reason I am not surprised – Democrats are very susceptible to “group think” errors.
Alexandra, you just don’t like it when people disagree with your politics.
Tyler, what are you talking about? You know nothing about my politics. For pity’s sake.
I’m currently doing a study of the Gospel of Matthew (written by Scott Hahn) and have been exposed to a fascinating concept regarding the spread of holiness. Divine revelation shows a move from a “quarantine” from sin view of holiness (Old Covenant and the ritual cleanliness commands) to a New Covenant view which commands that we go out and “infect” others with holiness and the love of God. May pro-life Democrats infect the Democratic Party with God’s love of life.
This is an interesting point. I don’t disagree. However, I think the idea probably refers to not quarantining people, individuals, rather than that what is appropriate to do about political parties or groups because political parties don’t have a spiritual life. I may be wrong but I suspect that is the case, perhaps you can let me know.
If Lipinski has been called to fight the evil of abortion from within the Democratic party, may God bless his efforts.
If that is his calling, which is reasonable to conclude, that is quite the calling – talk about being thrown to the lions!!! I will pray for Lipinski that he may have success.
BTW, it is reasonable to conclude that Lipinski has been called to join the Democratic party because it is not reasonable that a Catholic would choose to associate with the Party of Death purely from an act of human free will.
Furthermore, if Schneck has a calling like Lipinski, Schneck should walk in greater humility, realizing the full potential of the evil he has associated himself with, and should not try to deceive fellow Catholics that the Democratic party is the prolife party. Schneck is doing something different from trying to convert the Democrats from the inside. Schneck is trying to say the Democrats are the more prolife party. Schneck is doing for the Democrats what you accused me of doing for the GOP.
Continueed from above
Schneck is doing for the Democrats what you accused me of doing for the GOP, except that the Democratic party is truly the Party of Death. Schneck (and Lipinski) should start another progressive party that is prolife and not pro-abortion. I would not have the same moral and spiritual concerns with a new progressive prolife party.
“Schneck is doing for the Democrats what you accused me of doing for the GOP.”
I didn’t accuse you of doing anything for the GOP. I cautioned you and others to not assume someone is pro-life because they are a Republican.
“political parties don’t have a spiritual life”
When I refer to a political party, I’m referring to the individuals that make up that party. To me, the party doesn’t exist as a separate entity from the individuals that belong to it.
“in other words, it is right for you, a voter, to support a politician like Lipinski – who supports life”
I see we’ve come full circle, because this was exactly my point when I said that your statement “a Catholic can’t vote for a Democrat” was inaccurate. As you see, it can be right for a Catholic to vote for a Democrat.
” Schneck (and Lipinski) should start another progressive party that is prolife and not pro-abortion. I would not have the same moral and spiritual concerns with a new progressive prolife party. “
Tyler, a pro-lifer from a pro-life country could accuse you of the same. Why do you support the U.S., which is clearly a country that supports the Culture of Death, by remaining a part of it? You should move to a pro-life country. Or start your own pro-life country. Do you see my point? You have hope that the U.S. will someday be a nation that values life and so you stay and try to help make it so. Jesus told us that we are not defiled by that which comes from outside, but by that which comes from within. A pro-life individual should have no fear of being defiled by his party’s platform, when clearly that individual has shown through actions (votes) that they do not support the evil of abortion. It is not intrinsically evil to be a Democrat, just as it is not intrinsically evil to be American.
I didn’t accuse you of doing anything for the GOP. I cautioned you and others to not assume someone is pro-life because they are a Republican
Thanks for the caution but I never did assume that all Republicans were prolife. But I did acknowledge is the party that has a platform that is prolife and is not full of intrinsic evils like the Democratic party platform.
Tyler, a pro-lifer from a pro-life country could accuse you of the same. Why do you support theTyler, a pro-lifer from a pro-life country could accuse you of the same. Why do you support the U.S., which is clearly a country that supports the Culture of Death, by remaining a part of it? U.S., which is clearly a country that supports the Culture of Death, by remaining a part of it? You should move to a pro-life country.
Ther are a few problems with your analogy. First, the analogy would be more accurate if you stated that I should want the pro-abortion to be banished from the country – if that was your analogy I would agree. Second, there are more obstacles to changing citizenships than there is to switching political parties so even if the analogy is accepted on face value it is not quite the same – one does not have to give up their home, or abandon their loved ones, in order to switch political parties. Third, the Republicans, at least theoretically per their platform, are trying to make the US a prolife country.
Jesus told us that we are not defiled by that which comes from outside, but by that which comes from within. A pro-life individual should have no fear of being defiled by his party’s platform, when clearly that individual has shown through actions (votes) that they do not support the evil of abortion.
Correct. I have never said that the person, Lipinski is defiled by associating with the Democratic party. I said that the Democratic party is given a false sheen and cover by Lipinski!!!! He is helping to make a wolf appear like a sheep.
It is not intrinsically evil to be a Democrat, just as it is not intrinsically evil to be American.
Again, I never said that it is intrinsically evil to be a Democrat. Like you, I said the Democratic party support policies that are intrinsically evil. That is a big difference. Therefore, due to the policies it supports, the Democratic party is intrinsically evil, for all intents and purposes. As Catholic we are not to associate with evil, we are to avoid it and overcome it with the Grace of God. Lrning, you seem to making this more complicated than it needs to be.
“in other words, it is right for you, a voter, to support a politician like Lipinski – who supports life”
I see we’ve come full circle, because this was exactly my point when I said that your statement “a Catholic can’t vote for a Democrat” was inaccurate. As you see, it can be right for a Catholic to vote for a Democrat.
—
Nice try Lrning, but Lipinski is not a Democrat, he is Democrat for Life, a qualified Democrat – there is a big difference and you know it. My statement is still accurate. to state it more obviously, a prolifer cannot vote for a Democrat. unless he/she has qualified their position on life issues.
I missed Michigan Pat’s post at October 1, 2012 at 8:39 am. That says it all.
When I refer to a political party, I’m referring to the individuals that make up that party. To me, the party doesn’t exist as a separate entity from the individuals that belong to it.
Now you are double talking, because a few posts back you said that Lipinski was not a Democrat, but a Democrat for Life. The Democratic party does exist separately from its party members, in its documents. If the Democratic party does exist outside the members why are individuals identifying themselves as Democrats. The Democratic party is not a mystical body.
Tyler says: “Lipinski is not a Democrat, he is Democrat for Life, a qualified Democrat – there is a big difference and you know it. “
Tyler says: “Now you are double talking, because a few posts back you said that Lipinski was not a Democrat, but a Democrat for Life.”
Holy cow. We are not speaking the same language. I am well and truly done here.
correction
Ther are a few problems with your analogy. First, the analogy would be more accurate if you stated that I should want the pro-abortion laws to be banished from the country – if that was your analogy I would agree. Second, there are more obstacles to changing citizenships than there are to switching political parties so even if the analogy is accepted on face value it is not quite the same – one does not have to give up their home, or abandon their loved ones, in order to switch political parties. Third, the Republicans, at least theoretically per their platform, are trying to make the US a prolife country.
Please don’t distort my comments before ending your input into the conversation. Please end your conversation with some dignity and decency. I think I have done a fair job showing you the differences are between the Democratic political party and the candidates that support it.
Jesus told us that we are not defiled by that which comes from outside, but by that which comes from within. A pro-life individual should have no fear of being defiled by his party’s platform, when clearly that individual has shown through actions (votes) that they do not support the evil of abortion.
Correct. I have never said that the person, Lipinski, is defiled by associating with the Democratic party. I said that the Democratic party is given a false sheen and cover by Lipinski!!!! He is helping to make a wolf appear like a sheep.
Lrning, a couple of other things you, Lipinski and Schneck need to hear: 1) a person doesn’t have to be a Democrat in order to do social justice; and 2) a person can’t do anything, including changing the Democratci party from the inside, without the blessing, assistance and Grace of God. If the Democratic party changes and becomes prolife it will be due to God and not the result of two PHDs. The Democratic party has embraced evil due to the folly of men and women, but it will only be restored by the Grace of God.
Lrning, I have been watching Lipinski videos – and he does seem like a working (in the good sense) politician – he is not partisan like Nancy Pelosi et al. He appears to be a person that tries not to let labels confine his political positions – which is noble. However, (you had to know this was coming) it is out of step with the reality and is not congruent with the extent of his party’s moral depravity – this kind of bipartisanship from a Democrat would be appropriate prior to the party adopting the pro-abortion position. As soon as he realized the Democrats were pro-abortion he should’ve tried to make his bipartisanship work out of the GOP, and not the Democrats.
I too watched Prof. Schneck on EWTN with Raymond Arroyo. He is a magnificently slick debater, bobbing and weaving, yielding here to gain there, like an eel. Has it not occurred to anyone that such a sharp mind might know as well as we do (or perhaps better) that legalizing abortion will inevitably increase the abortion rate? Isn’t he aware of the studies that show that most aborting women choose abortion for reasons other than economic or financial ones? Isn’t he aware that after the instantaneous nationwide legalization of abortion in this country (Roe v Wade) the abortion rate increased more than tenfold within a few years? A man like him must know that President Obama’s position is not that of one who does not like abortion but realizes it must be legal in order to keep the abortion rate low! No, he knows that if that were so, Obama would have said so. Instead everything our president has done and said on the issue shows him to be an avid, almost insatiable promoter of abortion.
If I’m correct, then what is motivating Prof. Schneck? What makes him willing to pretend ignorance of Obama’s record and of all the other evidence available? Is re-electing the President so important that he must try to make us believe the equivalent of “snow is black”?