Biden now opposes Hyde Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Allegedly, he is. Really a CINO in my book given his anti-life and anti-nuclear family stances
 
I’m sorry you cannot understand this simple concept. I think I explained it pretty well. Jesus judged people’s action and he was without sin.
 
Last edited:
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by meaningful, but yes the Church should and does welcome everyone. What I have a problem with is people calling themselves Catholic, most notably people in positions of power and influence who, to the general population, are seemingly “representative” of the Catholic population, yet openly and very publicly push their very anti-Catholic views, like abortion and SS marriage. Therefore yes, people who espouse anti-Catholicism yet claim to be Catholic are, in my opinion, Catholic In Name Only.

This only confuses people, including Catholics. Today we have Catholics who are pro-choice and pro-SS marriage in part because they see people like Biden who have these viewpoints. They justify their view by saying stuff like “Well he’s Catholic and he is for abortion, therefore it must be okay!”. Simply dangerous.
 
Last edited:
JoeShlabotnik said:
From what I heard from him at a press conference, Joe Biden’s change came because of what is going on in some of the southern states, where Republicans are putting forth bills that will set back the Pro-Life movement for many years to come.
For years, things have been getting better as abortions have been down in this country, but by forcing the issue in states like Alabama and Georgia, I feel that these well-intentions folks will set things back as Pro-Choice proponents will be mobilized and energized for the next election.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe him regarding that for one second. What the Southern States are doing (with is beautiful) does NOT excuse his flip on the Hyde Amendment (which he was supporting just last week) and now being OK with abortion upto birth.

He flipped because he was told that would be the only way he could win the primary.

As a person who was born and raised in Delaware (and he was my US Senator for almost my entire childhood and college years), I’m ashamed.

The man needs to be excommunicated and so do the rest of them.
 
I don’t think this has anything to do with the Second Vatican Council.
It is catechesis that needs reform.
 
Jeez for a guy who will be 77 this year you would think he wouldn’t still be changing views like he does.
I think he is way to old to be president in 2021.
 
I’m not subjectively judging his soul and I’m not preparing to stone him to death.

We are TOTALLY allowed to OBJECTIVELY judge his ACTIONS, which are mortally sinful.

“He who is without sin cast the first stone” does NOT apply to objectively judging his actions.

Also, we need to take stoning in context:
  1. is was AGAINST the law according to the Romans. It was not legal according to Roman law for the Jews to stone anyone.
  2. So while the Jews thought it was OK, the Romans had outlawed it.
  3. When the Jews stoned people when they were part of the Roman Empire, the mobs were careful to make sure Roman centurions were not around at the time - and they often had lookouts too. A stoning was a very organized crime.
  4. So Jesus not only kept them from killing her, but he also stopped them from breaking the law
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand because didn’t Pilate tell the Jews to basically go stone Jesus on Good Friday when they first brought him to the prefect but they said they couldn’t because the Jewish law said they couldn’t execute someone until the festival passed at that point?
 
If (I don’t think either political party wants to see it happen) and when (probably after our lifetime, if ever) abortion is made illegal in this country, abortion clinics will spring up along the US-Canada and US-Mexico border.
The politicians on both sides of the political dial have turned this issue into a state’s rights vs. women’s rights issue. That is why they are in no hurry to solve the issue. They play both sides against each other and try to keep their party in power.
 
phil19034 said:
He flipped because he was told that would be the only way he could win the primary.
Click to expand...
I think so too. It’s hard to believe this is his real position as at one time he was even opposed to rape and incest as exceptions.
 
Democratic Party, I believe is the correct title. Not Democrat Party.
I am Pro-Life and I vote for Democrats because there are more issues than abortion. Issues include affordable health care, Social Security, Medicare, a $15 miminum wage, more benefits for veterans, more money for public education, affordable college tuition, tax cuts for the working class, but MOST all for civility.
As long as Donald Trump sits at the top of the Grand Old Party totem pole, I refuse to vote Republican. Trump is a foul-mouthed, angry liar, and a womanizer.
Pro-life is the only issue I can agree with him on. And at one time, he was not Pro-Life, so I have little faith in his actual stand on Pro-Life and other issues.
 
JoeShlabotnik said:
Democratic Party, I believe is the correct title. Not Democrat Party.
I am Pro-Life and I vote for Democrats because there are more issues than abortion. Issues include affordable health care, Social Security, Medicare, a $15 miminum wage, more benefits for veterans, more money for public education, affordable college tuition, tax cuts for the working class, but MOST all for civility.
As long as Donald Trump sits at the top of the Grand Old Party totem pole, I refuse to vote Republican. Trump is a foul-mouthed, angry liar, and a womanizer.
Pro-life is the only issue I can agree with him on. And at one time, he was not Pro-Life, so I have little faith in his actual stand on Pro-Life and other issues.
Click to expand...
I’ll say a little prayer for you…

Just as a note: I agree that Trump is a foul-mouthed, angry liar and womanizer.

But I also know that Hillary is a foul-mouthed, angry liar too; who happens to want lots of babies killed.

So for me, I would rather have the womanizer over the one who wants to promote the killing regardless of what she says.

NOTE: I also know that all of the democrats currently running for office are foul-mouthed too.
And since they are politicians, they are all liars and many of them have been very angry these last few years.

The difference is that Trump doesn’t pretend to be someone he isn’t and he’s all for stopping abortion.
 
Last edited:
CTBcin said:
That’s really sad to hear. I used to have some respect for Biden. The Democrats have gone so far to the left the past few years, I’m guessing partly as a reaction to Trump.
Click to expand...
No, I think it is in reaction to how extreme the social tinkering has become. They’re trying to keep the more liberal part of the electorate in the fold.

Our political thinking is so all over the map and so universally marked by an intrinsic lack of room to compromise that I only wonder which major party will implode from trying to stretch the tent pegs out farther and farther.

By that, I mean that there isn’t a middle ground, for instance, when one party believes that conception results in a person with the full rights of any other human being, rights which do not include the right to take any life except when it is the only means of defense against a willful aggressor, while the other party believes that all humans ought to have the full right to decide what happens within the territory bounded by their own skin, even to the point of having the authority to commit suicide.

I don’t even know where the center of our political spectrum is. or if we even have one. That would imply that we have some agreed-upon societal standards, and I don’t think we do any more. We are facing a lot of problems that do not seem to have moderate solutions with any backing. (Let’s not even get started on the situations for which we cannot even agree on what the problem is, let alone how to influence the course that might fix it!!)
phil19034 said:
So for me, I would rather have the womanizer over the one who wants to promote the killing regardless of what she says.
Click to expand...
I found both so far from being an acceptable candidate that I had to write someone in. (But then, I don’t vote in a swing state.)
 
Last edited:
ProVobis said:
40.png
phil19034:
he’s all for stopping abortion.
Click to expand...
With exceptions. But he was pro-choice in every way several years ago.
Click to expand...
So he changed his mind for the better? Shouldn’t we applaud that?
 
ProVobis said:
40.png
phil19034:
he’s all for stopping abortion.
Click to expand...
With exceptions. But he was pro-choice in every way several years ago.
Click to expand...
I know. Many people THINK that the person he knew who was supposed to be aborted and never was really wasn’t a friend’s kid. But instead was really his own - Barron Trump.

Some people think Trump wanted his wife to have an abortion and when she didn’t, his whole outlook on abortion changed after Barron was born.

But it’s JUST a theory and NOT fact. I’m not trying to say that it’s factual that Barron’s father wanted him aborted.

Regardless: we should be celebrating the fact he had a conversion regarding that issue.
 
Last edited:
repentant2 said:
To be fair, I don’t think you’d have found much of the general population of anywhere in the world in favor of it before then either, catholic or no.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it seems less like the support of same-sex marriage is due to V2 and more that it is due to too many Catholics being easily influenced by the surrounding culture. There might also be an element of non-practicing Catholics claiming that they’re Catholics for cultural reasons.

Of course, this can flip the other way and affect Catholics who are more conservative as well.
tafan2 said:
Heck, Obama ran for president in 2008 on a platform opposed to same sex marriage. Yes, the trend was already established, but it did not pick up steam until 2009,2010.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it can be easy to forget that the same year Obama was elected was the same year Californians passed a bill forbidding same-sex marriage.
phil19034 said:
I’ll say a little prayer for you…
Click to expand...
There’s something incredibly icky about turning an act as holy as prayer into a passive-aggressive jab at someone.
 
phil19034 said:
Some people think Trump wanted his wife to have an abortion and when she didn’t, his whole outlook on abortion changed after Barron was born.

But that’s JUST a theory and NOT fact. I’m not trying to say that Barron’s father wanted him aborted.

Regardless: we should be celebrating the fact he had a conversion regarding that issue.
Click to expand...
Trump, as can be said of us all, has his flaws. I don’t particularly care for his personality, though I have heard he can be quite gracious — depends on who you talk to. The other western liberal democracies are put off by him, but then again their political and social structures are different. In much of the world, Hillary and Obama would be considered moderate conservatives, as would any of the 2020 Democratic candidates aside from possibly Bernie Sanders.

I hope he has an internal moral objection to abortion, but I am not so much concerned with what he believes, as with what he actually does. He has kept his promise and appointed two conservative Supreme Court justices, with possibly more to follow. That is the most enduring thing a president can do.
 
Vatican II calls abortion an “unspeakable crime” in Gaudium et Spes. Dignitatis Humanae instead has to do with matters of faith, not morality. In fact, in part 7 on the limits of religious freedom, it discusses the need for the state to place limits on it for the purpose of the “proper guardianship of public morality.”

The Catechism sums up the limits to religious freedom as follows (citing both the relevant document from Pius IX–which provides a definitive judgment on the relevant issues also present in certain points in the Syllabus–as well as the aforementioned paragraph of Dignitatis Humanae):
2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

39 Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3.
40 DH 7 § 3.
Click to expand...
Note, above, the due limits must take into account man’s supernatural end (ie can’t be “naturalist”) and the truth, including revealed truth (ie it can’t be “positivist”) and must conform to the objective moral order (religious freedom does not provide justification for immorality).

(Pius IX and others condemned an unlimited religious freedom or one only limited by naturalist or religiously indifferent conceptions of public order–Vatican II does not teach contrary to this and the Church still upholds that condemnation, as seen above)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top