G
- Status
U
umamibella
Guest
I thought prolife means absolutely no abortion regardless of circumstances .
A
Annie
Guest
Well, there are probably 3 schools of thought: one allows for exceptions, as in, “I am pro-life except in the cases of rape or incest or endangerment of the life of the mother.”
The other two have as their goal to outlaw all abortion, but one is unwilling to compromise along the way and the other is.
By compromise I mean to back a law that prohibits many abortions but allows for exceptions such as those listed above.
The other two have as their goal to outlaw all abortion, but one is unwilling to compromise along the way and the other is.
By compromise I mean to back a law that prohibits many abortions but allows for exceptions such as those listed above.
Last edited:
Terry and Jesse if you happen to read this site, there are those of us who deep in our hearts recoil from this great ‘sign and wonder’ of the modern age. 2 Thessalonians 2 St Paul makes us aware the “the man of lawlessness” will be someone who comes as a false prophet. A false ‘savior’ that people will marvel at. He isn’t someone who comes to preach for things we obviously know are evil, murder, cheating, lying, immorality. He will preach what the faithful have been waiting to hear, so charismatically that even holy people will be fooled.
The Man of Lawlessness
2 As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction. 4 He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you? 6 And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed when his time comes. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of his mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, 10 and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, 12 so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned.
In time we will know them by their fruit. Matthew 7
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.
Terry and Jesse, we all live according to our consciences and that is the reason for our deep suspicion about the ‘preachings’ of Donald Trump.
The Man of Lawlessness
2 As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction. 4 He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you? 6 And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed when his time comes. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of his mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, 10 and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, 12 so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned.
In time we will know them by their fruit. Matthew 7
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.
Terry and Jesse, we all live according to our consciences and that is the reason for our deep suspicion about the ‘preachings’ of Donald Trump.
Last edited:
G
Gab123
Guest
You fail to notice that the Democratic Party and its candidates are the ones who are preaching that good is evil and evil is good; he shall know them by their fruits. Funding, promoting and normalizing the killing of children, perverting children through, redefining marriage and institutionalizing sodomy as being good, and legitimizing, pushing and exporting the lgbt agenda to all cultures of the world In the name of goodness and truth. It is Pope Francis who is constantly warning about these ideological colonizations that are destroying the family.
As for living by your conscience, realize that a conscience can also be corrupted. Here is the Late Fr. John A Hardon S.J. explaining:
G
Gab123
Guest
Here is an Example of an agent from —— rationalizing and painting evil as good:
Why can’t Catholics use their freedom to be counter cultural and not enslaved by two appalling choices? I refuse to be locked into either or. We are so soft and afraid to be brave and revolutionary with our free vote. Choose life. Real prolife options.Motherwit:
You fail to notice that the Democratic Party and its candidates are the ones who are preaching that good is evil and evil is good; he shall know them by their fruits. Funding, promoting and normalizing the killing of children, perverting children through, redefining marriage and institutionalizing sodomy as being good, and legitimizing, pushing and exporting the lgbt agenda to all cultures of the world In the name of goodness and truth. It is Pope Francis who is constantly warning about these ideological colonizations that are destroying the family.
I know. That is why we are taught the way of wisdom through obedience to the Church God gave us and to believe in the power of prayer and confession and penance following the model of holiness demonstrated by the Jesus of the gospel. It’s not about believing any old false prophet that comes along saying what we want to hear. Jesus and holiness attracts Christlike people and recoils from the false prophets.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
It really is a shame, isn’t it?
As someone who lives in a swing state, I believe it is important for me to vote, and right now, I believe it is important for me to vote based on who will choose constructionist judges for the USSC.
I was very sad when I realized this a few elections ago, but there you have it.
So, just one or two more elections (given the ages of the USSC justices) and then I will not care any more.
G
Gab123
Guest
It’s not a matter of supporting a perfect candidate, but rather about preventing a greater evil. It’s one thing to be a sinner and have a naughty past; everyone has a naughty past, even you. But there’s a difference between having a naughty past, than being an instrument of evil in the world. If you want to support, fund and promote the killing of children through abortion, then vote for the agents of the devil who support, fund, and promote it to children as normal and healthy. If you want to be counter-cultural and try to stop a growing juggernaut that uses politics and the votes of people to implement evil policies, then do something about it by voting against it. If all one does is stand on the sidelines and complain about how imperfect the candidates are, then that seems like a form of pride. At the very least it counts as a dereliction of duty in the culture war.
As for being counter-cultural, that entails a participation in civic duty, which includes not allowing those who promote evil to flourish.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Hillary is terrible.
About 2:33 and following
Hillary calls this murdering late-term babies “hearbreaking”, “painful”, “worst possible choices that any woman and her family would have to make” but FAVORS it anyway!
Why is this so gutwrenching to have an abortion?
Why is an “abortion” so tough
if this is just a blob of tissue?
After all, if you go in and get a wart removed,
it is not a big deal.
I will tell you WHY
(not you Gab123,
because you already know this sacredness of all life,
but just a “you” in a general sense).
I will tell you WHY this is such a big deal.
Because deep down inside we all KNOW this is a baby.
Deep down inside we all know this is not a mere blob of tissue.
Deep down inside we all know that murdering these babies is just that . . . Murdering innocrnt babies.
If Hillary is so worried about a late term baby threatening the life of the mother fine. (So am I).
The solution to that issue is to DELIVER the baby (they are very viable). Not murder it.
But no!
The “solution” for Hillary, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the other pro-aborts is murder the baby . . . .THEN deliver the dead remains.
This is sick and self-destructive.
And THAT is WHY the crying jags with these women,
the names that weren’t,
the pretend birthdays that weren’t,
the self-loathing,
the inability to form healthy deep life-long lasting relationships, etc. etc.
with these post-abortive women
that can never heal
outside of a very special grace from God.
I lament any candidate who has ANY “exceptions”, but to lump all candidates together in such a paradigm is a spoof only the most credulous could swallow.
From Saint Pope John Paul II the Great (regarding the paradigm of a “legislative vote” which can likewise be extended regarding a vote for candidates who cast [or veto] such “legislative votes”) . . . .
About 2:33 and following
Hillary calls this murdering late-term babies “hearbreaking”, “painful”, “worst possible choices that any woman and her family would have to make” but FAVORS it anyway!
Why is this so gutwrenching to have an abortion?
Why is an “abortion” so tough
if this is just a blob of tissue?
After all, if you go in and get a wart removed,
it is not a big deal.
I will tell you WHY
(not you Gab123,
because you already know this sacredness of all life,
but just a “you” in a general sense).
I will tell you WHY this is such a big deal.
Because deep down inside we all KNOW this is a baby.
Deep down inside we all know this is not a mere blob of tissue.
Deep down inside we all know that murdering these babies is just that . . . Murdering innocrnt babies.
If Hillary is so worried about a late term baby threatening the life of the mother fine. (So am I).
The solution to that issue is to DELIVER the baby (they are very viable). Not murder it.
But no!
The “solution” for Hillary, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the other pro-aborts is murder the baby . . . .THEN deliver the dead remains.
This is sick and self-destructive.
And THAT is WHY the crying jags with these women,
the names that weren’t,
the pretend birthdays that weren’t,
the self-loathing,
the inability to form healthy deep life-long lasting relationships, etc. etc.
with these post-abortive women
that can never heal
outside of a very special grace from God.
I lament any candidate who has ANY “exceptions”, but to lump all candidates together in such a paradigm is a spoof only the most credulous could swallow.
From Saint Pope John Paul II the Great (regarding the paradigm of a “legislative vote” which can likewise be extended regarding a vote for candidates who cast [or veto] such “legislative votes”) . . . .
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
The Vatican acknowledges we may not have a “perfect” pro-life candidate, that would vary too, with some of our views but it does encourage us to support the most pro-life candidate, not necessarily the “perfect” pro-lifer.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Also food for thought from Saint Pope John Paul II the Great . . .
Also from St. Pope John Paul II, The Great. Evangelium Vitae (section 20).
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html
.
Also from St. Pope John Paul II, The Great. Evangelium Vitae (section 20).
(Some minor formatting changes and bold mine)
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Also from Saint Pope John Paul II about using terms like “abortion” over “murdering an innocent pre-born baby” . . . .
(Although use of euphemisms and clinical terms is not a sin, and is reasonable,
used with the culture of death, it could potentially have an enabling effect in some cases. Therefore I tend not to call murder of innocent pre-born babies by the more distant clinical term of . . . “Abortion”.)
.
Pope Saint John Paul II the Great inference on using “innocuous” clinical terms like “abortion” in discussions with the culture of death.
He implies using language that reflects the reality. (Ex: “Premeditated murder of an innocent pre-born actual human person”) is often very reasonable.
.
So I tend to use descriptive terminology for “abortion” here on CAF.
That way when we go out into the real world and dialogue with people who are attempting to push the culture of death, we don’t inadvertently
disguise certain crimes against life
in its early or final stages
by using innocuous medical terms
which distract attention from the fact that what is involved is the right to life of an actual human person.
(Although use of euphemisms and clinical terms is not a sin, and is reasonable,
used with the culture of death, it could potentially have an enabling effect in some cases. Therefore I tend not to call murder of innocent pre-born babies by the more distant clinical term of . . . “Abortion”.)
.
Pope Saint John Paul II the Great inference on using “innocuous” clinical terms like “abortion” in discussions with the culture of death.
He implies using language that reflects the reality. (Ex: “Premeditated murder of an innocent pre-born actual human person”) is often very reasonable.
Bold mine.
.
So I tend to use descriptive terminology for “abortion” here on CAF.
That way when we go out into the real world and dialogue with people who are attempting to push the culture of death, we don’t inadvertently
disguise certain crimes against life
in its early or final stages
by using innocuous medical terms
which distract attention from the fact that what is involved is the right to life of an actual human person.
Last edited:
Y
YADA
Guest
I, a pro-Life person, would vote for a law that outlaws abortion with the exceptions for incest, rape and LIFE of the mother. 99% of abortions are for reasons other than the exceptions for incest, rape and the LIFE of the mother-that does not mean I would not continue to advocate for the 1%
I think many people feel the same as I do. Yes to be 100% perfect on the issue of abortion - it should be really all abortions. But in the world we live in today - all abortion is seen as legal. Laws are hard fought and sometimes you pass the laws you can and then continue the fight to work towards that ideal. Do the most good for the most people possible.
In my mind, once you could remove those hard cases - the life of the mother, which never really occurs and the other two involve crimes - where there are two victims really - the woman who had a crime perpetrated upon them the rape and incest and the child that is brought into being as a result of that criminal action. These are hard because of that fact … now should the child pay the penalty for a crime they did not commit - NO … Saving those 99% means we have saved millions of lives. It not 100% but it is not an insignificant number - and holding out for perfection means sacrificing those 99%. It is kind of like saying why bother to make abortion illegal as some women will still abort their children - just making it illegal does not mean you end abortion.
However, certainly - with abortion legal - working to save 100% of all babies today in danger of being aborted is so much harder than it would be to work with the mothers of 1% - the smaller numbers would make our ability to do so more targeted. It also means you would be speaking from a position where society has said that babies lives are meaningful when you are encouraging them to keep the child or deliver the child and have it adopted. And make no mistake - not every mother that falls within the exceptions chooses to end the life of their child - and that is great testimony.
I do not hold this position lightly as I have a cousin who was adopted by my aunt and uncle who was the child of incest - her life is precious she is loved by her entire family -including her husband, children and grandchildren and her friends. I had a great uncle, who was conceived in rape. Again loved by family and friends.
I kind of feel like those who say its 100% or you are not worthy of support or that anything less than 100% is not enough - are fake pro-Lifers … as that position in the world as it is today - is dead on arrival - you will never get any meaningful legislative changes … just look at the hard fought partial birth abortion ban … the legislative history, the vetoes, the passage and the lawsuits to prevent it being enacted once it was signed … politicians lost their offices for supporting that effort. This is played out at the state and local level as well … hard fought legislatively and then expensive defenses in the Courts. Being a purest on abortion is a luxury at the expense of tens of thousands of baby lives lost - innocent lives murdered. For me its a luxury I cant support - it is not risking my own life - but innocent lives.
I think many people feel the same as I do. Yes to be 100% perfect on the issue of abortion - it should be really all abortions. But in the world we live in today - all abortion is seen as legal. Laws are hard fought and sometimes you pass the laws you can and then continue the fight to work towards that ideal. Do the most good for the most people possible.
In my mind, once you could remove those hard cases - the life of the mother, which never really occurs and the other two involve crimes - where there are two victims really - the woman who had a crime perpetrated upon them the rape and incest and the child that is brought into being as a result of that criminal action. These are hard because of that fact … now should the child pay the penalty for a crime they did not commit - NO … Saving those 99% means we have saved millions of lives. It not 100% but it is not an insignificant number - and holding out for perfection means sacrificing those 99%. It is kind of like saying why bother to make abortion illegal as some women will still abort their children - just making it illegal does not mean you end abortion.
However, certainly - with abortion legal - working to save 100% of all babies today in danger of being aborted is so much harder than it would be to work with the mothers of 1% - the smaller numbers would make our ability to do so more targeted. It also means you would be speaking from a position where society has said that babies lives are meaningful when you are encouraging them to keep the child or deliver the child and have it adopted. And make no mistake - not every mother that falls within the exceptions chooses to end the life of their child - and that is great testimony.
I do not hold this position lightly as I have a cousin who was adopted by my aunt and uncle who was the child of incest - her life is precious she is loved by her entire family -including her husband, children and grandchildren and her friends. I had a great uncle, who was conceived in rape. Again loved by family and friends.
I kind of feel like those who say its 100% or you are not worthy of support or that anything less than 100% is not enough - are fake pro-Lifers … as that position in the world as it is today - is dead on arrival - you will never get any meaningful legislative changes … just look at the hard fought partial birth abortion ban … the legislative history, the vetoes, the passage and the lawsuits to prevent it being enacted once it was signed … politicians lost their offices for supporting that effort. This is played out at the state and local level as well … hard fought legislatively and then expensive defenses in the Courts. Being a purest on abortion is a luxury at the expense of tens of thousands of baby lives lost - innocent lives murdered. For me its a luxury I cant support - it is not risking my own life - but innocent lives.
E
Ender
Guest
I guess because even Catholics can’t change reality, and the reality in this case is that there actually are only two options: you can vote for Trump or for Biden. OK, yes, you can vote third party, or not vote at all (which is pretty much the same thing) but either Trump or Biden will be our next president. And you will have had a hand in it.
It may seem that not voting exempts you from the responsibility of choosing and that therefore you have nothing to do with the result, whatever it is, but that’s not correct. Doing nothing essentially helps the person who wins. After all, you had a chance to oppose him, and chose not to.
This is not a situation you get to wash your hands of.
G
graciew
Guest
Sometimes more than washing our hands it is not allowing our hands to be handcuffed.
When two parties are entrenched to extremes , and have been for decades, it is like they cannot see options and they extend that vision and pressure to everyone else.Aside from distributing guilt left and right.
Voting a third party in good conscience and allowing it to grow is not only a good option but a means to break the unhealthy polarization cycle you don’t agree with also in good conscience.
It is also benches in Congress…
May or may not apply here and/or this time. But saying this in general
When two parties are entrenched to extremes , and have been for decades, it is like they cannot see options and they extend that vision and pressure to everyone else.Aside from distributing guilt left and right.
Voting a third party in good conscience and allowing it to grow is not only a good option but a means to break the unhealthy polarization cycle you don’t agree with also in good conscience.
It is also benches in Congress…
May or may not apply here and/or this time. But saying this in general
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
I think there have been some relatively successful third party candidacies, most notably, H Ross Perot. 18.9 percent of the vote in 1992, you aren’t going to win with that percentage but it is still a lot of people.
Turnout 55.2%, so, that means a whole lot of people did not show up to vote. Those who stay home can swing elections. I’m amazed so many people don’t. Maybe some elections, it’s a bit higher, some elections, lower.
Turnout 55.2%, so, that means a whole lot of people did not show up to vote. Those who stay home can swing elections. I’m amazed so many people don’t. Maybe some elections, it’s a bit higher, some elections, lower.
Last edited:
- Status