Yes, you made it personal with your comment that you personally do not feel that you are compromising at all when you cast a vote for McCain.

I will, howver, note in conclusion that, unlike you, I’ve actually taken on my party in a very public way by opposing a proabortion Republican presidential candidate…

I am not affiliated with any political party.

I strongly oppose ESCR, and will continue to do so. By deciding to vote for McCain, I am simply choosing between the best of the remaining two candidates on life issues.

And by doing so, you are compromising.

I fail to see how that decision is not in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Your decision to vote McCain is not contrary to Catholic teaching. Your insistence that you are not compromising is the problem.

I’ll let you have the last word on the matter.

Thanks.

I see no reason to debate this with you any further. Any reasonable observer can read this exchange and determine for themselves who made this “personal.”

I will, howver, note in conclusion that, unlike you, I’ve actually taken on my party in a very public way by opposing a proabortion Republican presidential candidate (who at that time was leading in the national polls). The notion that I care more for the Republican Party than the teachings of the Catholic Church is beyond ridiculous.

I strongly oppose ESCR, and will continue to do so. By deciding to vote for McCain, I am simply choosing between the best of the remaining two candidates on life issues. I fail to see how that decision is not in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I’ll let you have the last word on the matter.

I don’t. It’s dishonest of you to suggest that I do, but I don’t expect much better from you.

As for McCain’s views on torture, you’ll have to point me to something more credible than the Huffington Post.

They’re reporting on his voting record, which is not simply an opinion. If they’re wrong about it, produce some evidence. Simply dismissing the publication because of your partisan preferences won’t cut it.

In any event, is allowing a child who survives an abortion to slowly die for lack of medical care torture? Is it murder? Or is it both? I am just curious whether your outrage on these issues is selective, as it often seems to be.

Of course it’s both torture and murder. I have never given you any reason to think that my outrage is selective. I have always been against abortion, as well as wars fought “to defend our way of life,” a way of life that includes abortion. When I criticize american ideology I frequently refer to abortion as one of the primary sacraments of the american way of life.

I have also repeatedly said that a vote for Obama is a huge compromise, and should I vote for him I will admit that compromise again. Have I not even said that perhaps the best choice is to refrain from voting?

But you aren’t able to admit that your vote involves a compromise because your true allegiance is to the party above all else. The U.S. bishops teach that Catholics are politically homeless in this two party system. You do not feel homeless, and you will not admit that you are compromising because you are acting out of your true faith: Republicanism.

In any event, is allowing a child who survives an abortion to slowly die for lack of medical care torture? Is it murder? Or is it both? I am just curious whether your outrage on these issues is selective, as it often seems to be.

I still don’t see how I am compromising on the issue of ESCR by voting for a candidate that I believe has a better position on that issue than the alternative, or by following the guidelines established by the Holy Father. If you take issue with then Cardinal Ratzinger’s guidelines, then it seems to me that you’re the one whose thinking on these matters is questionable.

Whenever I feel like it? Does it make sense to disagree with the Church when one doesn’t feel like it?

In fact, I disagree with Church teaching on only a couple matters. And they are matters of practice, not anything central. I do not disagree with the Church on any life issues. Eddie Fedder here seems to dismiss certain life issues at the expense of others, believing that he is not compromising anything. He’s deluded.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/science/11prof.html

“When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters,” said Dr. Yamanaka, 45, a father of two and now a professor at the Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences at Kyoto University. “I thought, we can’t keep destroying embryos for our research. There must be another way.”

After years of searching, and at times almost giving up in despair, Dr. Yamanaka may have found that alternative. Last month, his was one of two groups of researchers that independently announced they had successfully turned adult skin cells into the equivalent of human embryonic stem cells without using an actual embryo.

Fedsterama, let me walk you through this. “Proportionate reasons” refer to the reasons why someone might compromise and vote for a non-ideal candidate. My voting McCain you are compromising. What don’t you understand?

McCain has been an eloquent spokesperson against torture.

Spokesperson, sure. How about the votes?

Now, please explain how many decision to vote for McCain fails to meet the proportionate reasons test outlined by the Holy Father.

And yet you still insist that you are not compromising by casting a vote for McCain.

War is a life issue that you conveniently omit from your moral calculus. And so is torture.

Look, vote for McCain. Just admit that by doing so, you are indeed compromising. Otherwise it seems clear that you think he is the perfect Catholic candidate.