S
Seraphim73
Guest
Now we’re comparing the plight of the saints to voting for a politician who supports abortion?
- Status
M
Milasol
Guest
Unreal, right?Now we’re comparing the plight of the saints to voting for a politician who supports abortion?
I am reading St. Catherine of Sienna and wow she would have been one of those attacking vociferously the pro-choice candidates with all her might and would have never, in a million years, even thought about voting for anyone who was not a staunch pro-life candidate.
It is a matter of life and death. No charity can be given to a dead baby. St. Catherine was a huge proponent of Charity.
I think none of the Saints would have ever voted for anyone pro-choice. They wouldn’t be saints in my opinion.
A
acarlson
Guest
Which doctor? Her PCP or OBGYN? Or a doctor whom she’s never met before who works at the “family planning” (abortion) clinic? I bet it’s probably the latter.
All the same (on topic) : OP, I’m the same when it comes to how much I tend to support one party over the other. However, there needs to be some sort of egregious, immoral stance on the side of the pro-life candidate for there really to be a justification for “doing the least harm” and voting pro-choice. And let’s be honest here, when a candidate supports abortion, it’s rare to find something else that is equally harmful that’s supported by the other side.
N
NeedsMercy
Guest
My conscience is not clear because I don’t want to get into a pissing contest with you about whether or not you impugned my dignity? Yeah, uh, ok.
There is no mention of voting on this page. That is the issue of this thread, not whether abortion is/is not immoral.
You are to be commended for your work, but Romney was not a pro-life candidate. I don’t really want to go any further away from the OP but if you want to discuss this further, PM me. It’s sad that you think it’s not important to vote when you remove the abortion issue from the table. You should really reconsider. The welfare of all Americans relies on it.
Abortion is not legal in the United States? And there’s something in the constitution about abortion? I don’t think you meant to say these things… And please don’t bring the Nazis and the Holocaust into the abortion debate. There is no comparison.
But we’re not talking about the abortion issue itself! We’re talking about voting!
Well, maybe if you explained it further, but on its face, it’s not a good comparison. We dishonor the WWI dead by not appreciating them for their bravery and service during their lives on earth. This is not comparable to the deaths of the unborn.
If I hadn’t listened to it, then how was I able to quote it?
WOW! Chill out, girl!
I understand that you don’t like Democrats, but let’s not get judgmental and mean-spirited. It’s not worthy of you. But, for the record, I’m really not trying to “twist reality” and I am not a “pathological liar” because of the way I happen to vote. Yes, abortion is a sin, but I didn’t have one, help another have one, perform one, or support a candidate solely because they backed abortion on demand. Maybe one day you will really and truly understand that.
N
NeedsMercy
Guest
I see I have to explain. When the saints had people who falsely accused them of something, they did not react to that person with anger or insults. They took it and remained silent. I am saying that I am being falsely accused of being a murderer, but I should not be reacting back the way I am. Ok?Now we’re comparing the plight of the saints to voting for a politician who supports abortion?
M
Milasol
Guest
“Abortion is not legal in the United States? And there’s something in the constitution about abortion? I don’t think you meant to say these things… And please don’t bring the Nazis and the Holocaust into the abortion debate. There is no comparison.”
I hope you know the law. The law doesn’t say it is legal. It states that it is a private thing now. And that is exactly what I wrote.
And yes it is comparable to the Nazis, the holocaust and much much worst. And I was comparing how the nazis did every horrible thing they did LEGALLY.
“Well, maybe if you explained it further, but on its face, it’s not a good comparison. We dishonor the WWI dead by not appreciating them for their bravery and service during their lives on earth. This is not comparable to the deaths of the unborn.”
Exactly how it dishonors them? I posted a scenario. Stop acting all righteous and read what I wrote instead of trying to lecture me on what I never did. It is unreal.
“It’s sad that you think it’s not important to vote when you remove the abortion issue from the table. You should really reconsider. The welfare of all Americans relies on it.”
How exactly can we talk about welfare if they are dead? I really think you should reflect on that.
I believe that anyone who supports abortion doesn’t even care for the welfare of anyone but themselves.
I don’t buy that democrat cheap slogan of perpetual welfare at the expense of others merely easing poverty but not getting rid of it. I haven’t swallowed the big lie about that. I come from a socialist country and the chant that democrats say is the typical demagoguery and I heard it before. Many times before.
So it is the abortion issue first and foremost, and all the other issues as well. And since the democrat party has been a huge proponent of planned parenthood and has by its own self proclamation claimed that it is the pro-choice party I could never vote for them. I have not seen one single democrat candidate in the last decade that has been pro-life. At the national level and in my area.
You should think about the babies. I didn’t care so much about abortion before (I used to think everyone just condemned themselves and it was between them and God)
Then I started to work searching and viewing violent islamic propaganda from every terrorist group in the world. I have seen beheadings, stoning to death, floggings, bombings, people being burn alive, you name it, however when I saw an abortion I started to scream. There is absolutely nothing in our lifetimes that is as precedent as this. It is the grand battle of our times. And I will do anything possible to not only prevent them but also to defend the lives of the unborn. And that includes to stop the party of death and to stop voting for those who are pro-choice.
Life is the first and foremost welfare. Think about that.
I leave you with this…
“Declaration on Procured Abortion” (Cardinal Seper, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1974) there is a discussion of “Morality and Law” (#19-23). “Man may never obey a law which is in itself, immoral and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle, the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find themselves obligated to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional situation.” (22)
Pope John Paul II in “Evangelium Vitae” states “I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. … No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself and proclaimed by the Church” (EV 62C).
“The 1917 Code of Canon Law punished abortion with excommunication. The revised canonical legislation continues this tradition when it decrees that a person who actually procures an abortion incurs automatic (Latae sententiae) excommunication” (Canon 1398) " The excommunication affects all those who commit this crime with knowledge of the penalty attached and thus includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed" (Canon 1329).
“By this sanction the Church makes clear that abortion is a most serious and dangerous crime, thereby encouraging those who commit it to seek without delay the path of conversion. In the Church the purpose of the penalty of excommunication is to make an individual fully aware of the gravity of a certain sin and then to foster genuine conversion and repentance”(EV 62B).
The argument can be made that voting is a very remote form of cooperation in abortion. But is it all that remote? The legislator who votes for abortion is clearly a formal accomplice, giving formal cooperation with abortion. S/he shares both in the intention of the act, and in supplying material support for the act. If I vote for such a candidate, knowing full well that he will help make available public monies for abortion, or continue it decriminalization, then I am aiding him/her.
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/SINTOVOT.htm
M
Milasol
Guest
I think you are accusing people of accusing you of being a murderer. Where is that accusation exactly? Where?
N
NeedsMercy
Guest
Milasol, I think you’re getting too worked up to have a rational discussion. Maybe some other day…
M
Milasol
Guest
I think you are accusing people and you are making things up. I really hope you think of the babies next time.
I hope that you realize that you have falsely accused people and simultaneously acted offended.
I am very calm right now. I just wonder where you get the stuff you write about from, especially that of people accusing you of being a murderer and a pathological liar.
Maybe you should relax sit back and actually read what the others write rather than react.
Good day and think of the unborn.
I
ishii
Guest
Anyone who votes for people who keep abortion legal is indirectly responsible for the continuation of killing unborn children. If a candidate was for lynching black people but you agreed with them on other issues, would you say, “I didn’t support a candidate solely because they backed lynching blacks, therefore my conscience is clear.” ???WOW! Chill out, girl!
Sounds to me like Milasol was getting uncomfortably too close to the heart of the matter.
Ishii
N
NeedsMercy
Guest
Please don’t goad me into a public fight. If you have something to say to me, which it looks like you do, PM me.
M
Milasol
Guest
I believe it was you the first one who acted offended and falsely accused people of having accused you of being a murderer and a pathological liar.
You want to accuse people of that publicly then expect a public response.
You should have really thought twice about lying to the public in that manner.
I am done and you should apologize for falsely accusing people publicly.
Good day and God Bless you.
N
NeedsMercy
Guest
If anyone wants to get back to the real subject of this thread, let me know.
E
Ender
Guest
“I am justified in supporting pro-abortion politicians because my conscience is clear.”
True, nor have I made that assertion, and you wouldn’t have to repeat yourself if you understood that what you are rejecting is not what I have claimed. I have (so far) addressed only the argument about following one’s conscience.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
"ishii:
The point is that no one would justify voting for a candidate who sanctioned lynchings because (e.g.) he vowed to end our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. So the question is, if no one would entertain for a moment the idea of supporting someone who supported lynchings, how does one justify supporting someone who supports abortion, which by any rational comparison is significantly worse?
Ender
Actually, I think ishii’s comment is right to the point. Abortion has become such a common, every day action that it has come to be seen as rather mundane by a great many people. Lynchings, which haven’t occurred in 60 years, are viewed in an entirely different light, but except for the methods involved, the result is identical: the life of an innocent person is brutally terminated.
The point is that no one would justify voting for a candidate who sanctioned lynchings because (e.g.) he vowed to end our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. So the question is, if no one would entertain for a moment the idea of supporting someone who supported lynchings, how does one justify supporting someone who supports abortion, which by any rational comparison is significantly worse?
Ender
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Considering that there have been eight Presidential administrations since RvW (including Nixon, 1973) and 5 were Republican and 3 were Democrat, I would simply suggest that Catholics stop voting, because no President, regardless of party, has gotten anywhere close to overturning it.
Right?
Right?
K
kozlosap
Guest
Agreed! There is no GOP or DEM politician at the national level that is going to be able to overturn Roe. It seems that currently the method that works the best in stopping access to abortions is at the state level where they can pass laws that make it almost impossible to run a clinic. I firmly believe that the populated states on the West Coast and the North East will always have abortion clinics. Yes, I vote for whom I think is the best candidate. On the national level, I worry about or young men and women being shipped off to battle zones and children who need food everyday and a reasonable place to live where they aren’t in fear of being shot at school or in their neighborhoods.
M
Milasol
Guest
Well considering that presidents can’t really just turn a constitutional amendment overnight, if at all. I wouldn’t judge by overturning it. However the administration can do a few things. One is in the appointments, the other is terms of support for legislation. And legislation is where the funding is. So yes presidents, senator, congressmen at the national level do something.
At the state level you see a lot more being done.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Seems to me the best way of conquering the death culture is to stop name calling and find consensus on policies that are the most likely to end abortion. Without regard for the cost.
Let’s see a show of hands: How many of us have changed our minds about anything after we’ve been the target of verbal attacks?
Banning abortion wouldn’t end it. Making it unconstitutional wouldn’t end it. It existed before RvW, it will continue to exist afterward. Yes, there were many fewer abortions prior to 1973, but the whole world was unrecognizably different then. There’s no going back. Once people have been given a “freedom,” you can’t ever take it away from them by force.
Let’s see a show of hands: How many of us have changed our minds about anything after we’ve been the target of verbal attacks?
Banning abortion wouldn’t end it. Making it unconstitutional wouldn’t end it. It existed before RvW, it will continue to exist afterward. Yes, there were many fewer abortions prior to 1973, but the whole world was unrecognizably different then. There’s no going back. Once people have been given a “freedom,” you can’t ever take it away from them by force.
M
Milasol
Guest
Moral issues should not be forced, that is true but we can start by voting out pro-choice politicians. These are enablers, especially when it comes to funding the killing machinery.
And if some Catholics doubt whether is good or bad to vote for a pro-choice candidate or not, then we are not in good shape.
I guess we need to educate people on the Catholic moral law and as well as changing their hearts.
Society today has become so desensitized to abortion it is dehumanizing. It’s as if humanity went through some sort of bestialization.
So I pray and pray and work for the pro-life movement.
Always call your local women’s crisis center, 99% of them are catholic, and ask them what they need.
If you go to the supermarket and you have extra money buy some formula or diapers and take it to the local woman’s center.
Pray pray pray…
- Status