Account: bishop says "You can't be an authentic Catholic and pro-abortion." --As pro-abortion "Catholic" in U.S. takes the public eye

[JSRG]

Not exactly the greatest places to get information from but The History Channel and Politico drive the point home that is a known fact of history and that is that Washington and many of the framers of the Constitution did not like a two party political election.

The big problem is, the voting system they set up, plurality voting, favors a two-party system so much it almost feels like it was designed to ensure a two-party system.

Something like proportional representation would probably end the two-party system on the spot, but it’d also be complicated to implement and would probably require some kind of constitutional amendment. The most practical option would probably be to switch to ranked choice voting of the instant runoff variety, not only because it would be easier to implement, but also because it’s the option that seems to be gaining popularity.

Of course, RCV is not guaranteed to stop the two-party system–Australia uses it and is dominated by two parties, even if not to the same extent as the US–but it at least would allow one to better vote their conscience, end the alleged spoiler effect, and even if a candidate is not elected at least make it more obvious what kind of candidate was desired.

And as you can see from our current election that both parties suck and yet we have people who identify with one or the other party going to despicable means to get their guy or lady elected. There are other parties in the ring that represent more of peoples wants and needs than the two top parties. Otherwise we should get rid of the party system and strictly let people just run for office.

Getting rid of a party system is basically pointless because everyone just assembles into political parties anyway, even if they’re not officially recognized.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I’ll tell you what would truly make it more possible for women to choose to allow their child to be born: Universal state-paid prenatal care and delivery services for all, regardless of ability to pay or complications in the delivery.

A myth designed to make excuses for abortion.

It is not a myth that some women choose abortion because of worries over money.

If what you say was true, no wealthy or middle class women or women with health insurance would have ever had abortions.

Faulty logic there, RR. The fact that some women choose abortion because of worries over money does not mean that all women who chose abortion do so because of worries over money. Of course some women choose abortion for other reasons and this plan will not prevent those abortions. But it will prevent some abortions - perhaps many many abortions.

And no poor woman would have ever failed to have an abortion.

Absolutely ridiculous conclusion. Just because some poor women worry about money and choose abortion does not mean all poor pregnant women will choose abortion.

 

[Ignatius]

DNC has said “There is no room in the Democrat Party for pro-lifers”.

 

[Ignatius]

DNC has said “There is no room in the Democrat Party for pro-lifers”.

 

[pnewton]

At no point can I support the party of Death!

pfft! Then don’t. I said I could not support either party. I will still vote mostly Republican, with a smattering of Democrats and independent. I do not support the two party system. If Democrats ever abandon their “abortion of die” flag, or the Republicans their tea party mentality, I will change.

 

[Ignatius]

Remember that the Democrat Nation Committee Leadership has said “There is no room in the Democrat Party for pro-lifers”.

 

[Ignatius]

Account: bishop says "You can't be an authentic Catholic and pro-abortion." --As pro-abortion "Catholic" in U.S. takes the public eye Social Justice

pfft! Then don’t. I said I could not support either party. I will still vote mostly Republican, with a smattering of Democrats and independent. I do not support the two party system. If Democrats ever abandon their “abortion of die” flag, or the Republicans their tea party mentality, I will change.

Your reply is pfft. While you might consider that a powerful argument, I would say that it means that you have no cogent argument.

 

[pnewton]

Do you know the meaning of the first personal pronoun “I”? I gave my opinion. Yours is different. That is all I meant. Your opinion has no bearing on mine. There is no “argument”. Maybe you did not initially mean to quote me. I don’t know.

I did not let my self be bullied by Tea Party Republicans into falling in line, so I withdrew support. That is why I no longer support the RNC.

As to who I will vote for, I will follow the Church’s guidelines and vote according to my conscience.

 

[JoeFreedom]

And also removed God from their platform.

 

[Dobby]

Why would I vote third party when I could just vote for Biden? A vote for Biden who actually has the chance of winning against Trump is still a vote for Biden. If a third party vote results in Trump winning - I have basically helped Trump win over Biden.

No no no…

 

[pnewton]

You made a broad statement:

"A third party vote is a vote for Trump."

For you, if the only other choice is to vote for Biden, then you might see it that way, though it is still, mathematically, only half a vote for Trump.

However, for another person, the choice might be anyone but Biden, and see the opposite to be true. In any case, as someone pointed out, the math disagrees with you. A vote for no one, or a third party is equally as supportive for Trump as it is Biden. Anything else is going to assume one other fact: who was a person’s second choice?

 

[Ignatius]

/quote

Account: bishop says "You can't be an authentic Catholic and pro-abortion." --As pro-abortion "Catholic" in U.S. takes the public eye Social Justice

Do you know the meaning of the first personal pronoun “I”? I gave my opinion. Yours is different. That is all I meant. Your opinion has no bearing on mine. There is no “argument”. Maybe you did not initially mean to quote me. I don’t know. I did not let my self be bullied by Tea Party Republicans into falling in line, so I withdrew support. That is why I no longer support the RNC. As to who I will vote for, I will follow the Church’s guidelines and vote according to my conscience.

quote/

Ah, the old your mind is made up so don’t confuse you with the Facts play. I have seen it many times when there is no cogent case that can be made for their position and are sticking the Party Line no matter what.

 

[pnewton]

Ah, the old your mind is made up so don’t confuse you with the Facts play.

You do not speak for the Church. The bishops in the United Stated speak for the Church in regards to that nation.

It is no play, no trick, and my mind is not made up. I disagree. I never said my mind is made up.
However, I know bullying when I see it and think the way you address others is out of line. It is a fact, something that should be self-evident, that the Church does not expect us to adhere to the conscience of others, that is, the crowd, but rather our own. I think it a rather solid fact that we will have people come to different conclusions. Why is this so hard to understand?

If you do not know the difference between saying I have a different opinion and my mind is made up, pardon me if I do not look to you for logic.

 

[Ignatius]

Account: bishop says "You can't be an authentic Catholic and pro-abortion." --As pro-abortion "Catholic" in U.S. takes the public eye Social Justice

You do not speak for the Church. The bishops in the United Stated speak for the Church in regards to that nation. It is no play, no trick, and my mind is not made up. I disagree. I never said my mind is made up. However, I know bullying when I see it and think the way you address others is out of line. It is a fact, something that should be self-evident, that the Church does not expect us to adhere to the conscience of others, that is, the crowd, but rather our own. I think it a rathe…

You say in your reply in sentence three, “my mind is not made up” and in the tenth sentence, “my mind is made up”. That contradiction cannot be reconciled with proper logic.

 

[pnewton]

Well, what do you think of that. I guess what I mean is my mind is not going to be influenced by you and others like you. I will only respond to changes in the news or additional information I gain. I hope that clarifies it. I should have been more specific.

 

[farronwolf]

The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection.[84] We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.

From the Holy Father.

 

[jeannetherese]

Many of those issues are quality of life issues. They are indeed important. However, addressing quality of life issues is predicated upon protecting the right to life. A dead person has no quality of life to address.
As Christ says: The poor you will always have with you.
We can’t make the problem of poverty and excuse to turn our backs on the killing of pre-birth humans.
Indeed, some argue, unfortunately, that one must kill pre-birth humans in order to improve the quality of life of the parent. It’s unfortunatel that society is attempting to justify killing those who impose upon our happiness.

 

[Ignatius]

Ah, the old “your mind is made up so don’t confuse you with the Facts” ploy once again.

 

[farronwolf]

Certain parts of society may be trying to justify, I wouldn’t say society as a whole.

The Holy Father seems to think these other issues are equally sacred.

His words not mine.

 

[jeannetherese]

The Holy Father seems to think these other issues are equally sacred.

Pope speaks to U.S. bishops about pro-life issues, transgender ideology | National Catholic Reporter

From the article:

Vatican City — Protecting human life is the “preeminent” social and political issue, Pope Francis said, and he asked the head of the U.S. bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities to convey his support to the pro-life community.

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, chairman of the bishops’ committee, told Catholic News Service Jan. 16 that the pope agreed with the U.S. bishops “identifying the protection of the unborn as a preeminent priority.”

“His response to that was, ‘Of course, it is. It’s the most fundamental right,’” Naumann recalled the pope saying. “He said, ‘This is not first a religious issue; it’s a human rights issue,’ which is so true.”

Naumann was one of 15 bishops from Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska making their “ad limina” visits to the Vatican in mid-January to report on the status of their dioceses. He and other bishops spoke to Catholic News Service Jan. 16 after meeting with the pope for more than two hours.

Naumann said he told the pope that since the Roe v. Wade court decision legalized abortion, an estimated 61 million abortions have taken place in the United States.

“I think the pope was truly kind of stunned by that number,” Naumann said. “Sadly, our abortion policies are one of the most liberal in the world. The fact is that it really is literally for all nine months of pregnancy.”