Social conservatives, what's the end game? (Page 5)

He didn't devise it. He has no real choice, he must obey Christ's direction by paying taxes to a corrupt system of government (render unto Caesar) and he has the obligation not to support the killing of innocents when he has the choice to do so by not voting for candidates who support abortion.

His point all along is that the catholics who claim to be catholics and vote for pro-abortion candidates or the politicians who claim to be catholic and vote in-favor of abortion are not catholics in good standing and should not be saying they are catholic. 

Joe Biden claiming he's a good catholic and that he differs on this issue is the "incredibly convenient distinction."

This article is very interesting.  Americans are pro-life 50-41% and yet they voted exactly opposite of that in this election. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottatlas/2012/11/02/the-republicans-war-on-women-is-a-fiction-of-the-liberal-media-elite/

Interestingly, 46 percent of women say they are "Pro-Life" while 44% say they are "Pro-Choice".  Pretty even there.

I can generally agree with that concept. 

Why though can we not have certain areas that are allowed to remain religious? 

Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural in the Lincoln Memorial reads as much like a sermon as any speech you hear on Sunday at a church.  Should we get up there and chisel that off? 

Our money says we trust in God.  Not "A god", "God".  But it's not right for some small town in Wilbarger County Texas to have a plaque on the front lawn of the courthouse acknowledging the ten commandments as the beginning of codified ethical laws without someone from San Fran showing up and suing them?

. . . acknowledging the ten commandments as the beginning of codified ethical laws . . . ?

Sorry, I know "he" didn't devise it.  However, plenty of others that consider themselves followers of Christ would consider the Catholic interpretation inaccurate.  What does the Catholic church say about Biden or any other Catholic politicians/voters with similar views?  Are they officially "not in good standing" and, if so, how are they treated differently? 

I can generally agree with that concept. 

Why though can we not have certain areas that are allowed to remain religious? 

Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural in the Lincoln Memorial reads as much like a sermon as any speech you hear on Sunday at a church.  Should we get up there and chisel that off? 

Our money says we trust in God.  Not "A god", "God".  But it's not right for some small town in Wilbarger County Texas to have a plaque on the front lawn of the courthouse acknowledging the ten commandments as the beginning of codified ethical laws without someone from San Fran showing up and suing them?

Please don't take this as flip, but wouldn't the most appropriate (most righteous?) course of action be to move to a country that outlaws abortion?

ETA: Is the theory that all governments are corrupt, so the church/Christ/God doesn't distinguish between which government you happen to be supporting?

I am being 100% sincere when I ask that. I really want to know. Honestly.

I completely understand that you (in the general sense) want to vote for someone with your morals and values. I think that is natural. But when it comes to the country and the Federal government, what moral outcome do you hope to gain? If you could have what you want, how would this country look?

I mean we already know abortion would be illegal, and gays would not be able to marry. But what does that do for the country, and why is it that alone is the deciding factor when it comes to a vote? Or rather, the other issues are moot until that one is settled?

I guess I'm asking what the end game is here? The way I see it, if you give the Federal Government the power to legislate morals, then you give it the power to legislate the ones you do not want when the other guy wins.

What is it about voting morals, that living them does not accomplish?

Personally, I'm 100% pro choice and absolutely support a woman's right to choose.  She can choose to engage in behavior that results in the conception of a child or not.  That I don't have a problem with.  But once a child is conceived I'm on the side of protecting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the innocent child.

she doesn't always have a right to choose, actually.

(i'm no pro-choicer, but i at least recognize it takes 2 people to make a baby.  i am pro-life except in the instance of rape or protecting the life of the mother, for reference.)

He didn't devise it. He has no real choice, he must obey Christ's direction by paying taxes to a corrupt system of government (render unto Caesar) and he has the obligation not to support the killing of innocents when he has the choice to do so by not voting for candidates who support abortion.

His point all along is that the catholics who claim to be catholics and vote for pro-abortion candidates or the politicians who claim to be catholic and vote in-favor of abortion are not catholics in good standing and should not be saying they are catholic. 

Joe Biden claiming he's a good catholic and that he differs on this issue is the "incredibly convenient distinction."

This article is very interesting.  Americans are pro-life 50-41% and yet they voted exactly opposite of that in this election. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottatlas/2012/11/02/the-republicans-war-on-women-is-a-fiction-of-the-liberal-media-elite/

Interestingly, 46 percent of women say they are "Pro-Life" while 44% say they are "Pro-Choice".  Pretty even there.

she doesn't always have a right to choose, actually.

(i'm no pro-choicer, but i at least recognize it takes 2 people to make a baby.  i am pro-life except in the instance of rape or protecting the life of the mother, for reference.)

It seems like the majority of Americans agree that abortion as birth-control is not ethical and that abortion in the case of rape or incest is acceptable as it was before Roe v Wade.

See this I don't understand.  If you believe it is wrong to take the life of a fetus regardless of when you define it as a life how does that change due to the circumstances of conception.  The "life" that stands to be lost is wholly innocent of any wrong doing yet you are willing to allow it to be punished for the wrongs committed by another.    I understand the life of the mother argument as it is a life pitted against a life it is the same in a self defense argument.  In the case of rape it is a life pitted against emotional distress; that would never fly as a self defense argument.  So yes the logic of this position escapes me.

agreed.  for me personally, i am pretty sure i would not choose an abortion in ANY instance, even rape.  i HAVE been in the position to decide whether or not abort a pregnancy that would result in extreme physical deformities if the baby was ever born and did not choose abortion, so i feel pretty confident that for MYSELF, i would never exercise that option.

BUT i understand the potential emotional distress of giving birth to your rapist's child and would not take that right away from another woman.  make sense?  in the terms of a LAW, i would want to leave the option.

I got a question about this part.  The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty.  Wouldn't you also have the obligation to not support any candidate that supports the death penalty? Even if one is the lesser of two evils, are you not still formally cooperating with evil?   Both Romney and Ryan are death penalty proponents.  There was not any candidate this year (including Jill Stein and Gary Johnson) that opposed both the death penalty and abortion, so it seems to me that a true Catholic would have to abstain from voting or write in their own candidate. 

I'm not Catholic, so if I'm wrong here please correct me.

I understand that it is an emotional argument but Law is supposed to be reason free from passion as it were.  Where one person's well being is pitted against another it seems to me that one has way more to lose than the other in this instance.

hey, banning abortions wouldn't affect me at all, go for it. 

hey, banning abortions wouldn't affect me at all, go for it.  keeping them legal up to 15 months doesn't affect me either cause i'll never have one.  but i don't need anyone thinking i would be waging war on women. 

The catholic church is against the death penalty, but it is not perceived on the same level as abortion, illicit stem cell research (look it up, it's using aborted fetuses for stuff), and euthanasia.

Christians are divided on the Death Penalty. Gotta work.  I'll esplain later.

hey, banning abortions wouldn't affect me at all, go for it.  keeping them legal up to 15 months doesn't affect me either cause i'll never have one.  but i don't need anyone thinking i would be waging war on women. 

The issue is most certainly not cut and dry and it's really difficult to write laws that fit.  If you purely look at the rights (assuming the baby does have rights) there is almost no circumstance where it's ok.  With the life of the mother in danger, there's obviously a lot tougher because at that point legally speaking (if the fetus has rights) they both have the right to live.

Another challenge is even with exceptions for rape and mothers life in danger there could be a lot of abuses.  For example what level of proof is required for the rape or is it just statement that is made?  Technically a mother is at risk of death with the birth of any child (granted its a low risk) so wouldn't the mothers life always be at risk going to full term?

So they are picking and chosing what is "more important".  Isn't that what they are saying?  If murder is murder, then they shouldn't be seen as separate.  It should be black and white, shouldn't it?

Keep in mind, banning abortions won't make them go away. 

Keep in mind, banning abortions won't make them go away. 

Heh Heh I always thought of you as an Amazon Warrior anyway.