Catholics who vote for those who kill the innocent are-

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

goout:

You want to talk about human rights, but at the same are unwilling to affirm the right of all human beings to live.

I don’t think anyone is unwilling to affirm the right of all human beings to live. What we can say is that all humans have this right, and sometimes that right is unfairly infringed, as are many other rights. That does not put this one right in a class by itself, so that none of the other rights can be attended to until this one is universally defended.

The right to live is primary. In other words, all other talk about human rights is nonsensical without affirming the right to live.

For those whose life has been terminated, it is nonsensical to talk about other rights they might have. But for those whose life has not been terminated (and there are a lot of them) it does make sense to talk about their right to clean water, clean air, the right to worship God, etc. Calling the right to life (meaning the right not to be aborted) primary does not dominate the concern over all other rights.

don’t think anyone is unwilling to affirm the right of all human beings to live.

and the evidence says otherwise. Their is a loud and unreasoned sector of the population that is pro-death.

I meant no one here in this forum is denying the right of all humans to live.

LeafByNiggle:

If this one right - to be born - is so supreme that nothing else can compete, then we would not mind paying extra taxes to provide free pre-natal services and delivery services to all, rich and poor alike, regardless of complications, just to remove one possible excuse some women use for seeking an abortion.

Of course. We should pay taxes to fund social programs. The Catholic Church has a huge social justice movement that advocates for poor, homeless, oppressed, families in distress, immigrants.
Why do you bring this up?

Because the social programs we have do not provide for free delivery services for all, rich and poor alike, regardless of complications. We only partially address that issue, by providing some assistance to the destitute. But why not provide it for the middle class too? There are people who are too poor to be totally unconcerned about the cost of maternity services, but too rich to qualify for aid. Many of these choose abortion. Why not put their minds at ease so they might not choose abortion?

 

[goout]

Why not put their minds at ease so they might not choose abortion?

You are engaging in red herring. Of course the address of all human rights issues is of a whole cloth with the right to live. Are you addressing fundamentalists? Wack job left wingers? right wingers? who?
You are not addressing the Catholic Church because the Church very broadly supports all human rights.

The point is as follows:
Ideologies that propose the advancement of human rights while not affirming the primary right to live are empty HYPOCRISY. This kind of social policy is neither humane nor right. It leads to chaos, oppression, murder (hello?), poverty, unreason.

It’s no better than all the attempts of the 20th century aimed at “better human beings” and"better more pure society", at the same time millions of human beings were slaughtered. No difference. Same ignorance, same hypocrisy.

 

[Alphard]

From experience all the “battles” pushed by leftists lead to horrible results and human costs.
The “choice” of women to kill their own child, the “rights” of homosexual to declare a deviance the normality, antiracism wich is just reversed racism against whites ( see the “its ok to be white” signs deemed as racist and removed, or companies that favor non white in hiring to promote “diversity”) , feminism wich leads to masculinization of women and feminization of men, coupled with homosexualism lead to destruction of the family.
Environmental histeria wich lead to what i said in previous post. There is no one point pushed by lefts that is entirely good or do not cause catastrophic consequences.
Not to speak about verbal retoric violence of media wich label anything not leftist with a discrediting name, and censorship

 

[Alphard]

What you mean by scientific?
Several scientists ( even some Noble winners) don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming. And even if all believed in it, it would not be necessarily true. There is a lot of evidence suggesting that CO2 is in fact not meaningfully related to this warming ( wich started in 1700 and is simply part of long climate change cycles the earth went through) . the temperature of earth always changed during centuries and millennium. Political organs like IPCC pushed this idea and are backed by all media, but there are a lot of dissenting voices, many don’t express because of the POLITICAL climate we are in
The problem you don’t realize that the THEORY and the ideologies are closely linked, and one serves to reach the goals of the latters.
If man with his own presence ( because today we cannot renounce to fossil fuel) destroys the earth then the necessary next step is to reduce human presence. And ofc underdeveloped countries like many africaans, now cannot afford to pay carbon taxes so are impeded to develop

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Why not put their minds at ease so they might not choose abortion?

You are engaging in red herring.

How so? A red herring is something that is intended to be distracting or misleading. It is true that I am distracting from the view that says the only remedy for abortion is criminal penalties. But that’s because I don’t believe that is the only remedy. Yes, I believe abortion out to be illegal. Yes, I believe it ought to come with criminal penalties. But I don’t think we should stop there. Even if we make abortion illegal in every state in the union, that will not stop women from going to Canada to get an abortion. But providing maternity services can be done right now, without waiting for Roe v Wade to be overturned. And even if is overturned, it is likely that only a few states will take that opportunity to make it illegal in their state.

If society has a stake in preventing abortions (by making it illegal) then society should also have a stake is supporting the birth of its citizens. To tell a woman “we will not let you abort your child” and also tell her “the costs and risks of carrying and delivering this child is entirely your responsibility” is sending mixed messages. We should be consistent in supporting the most vulnerable members of our society. That is what I propose. Why not do that in addition to everything else you want to do to oppose abortion?

 

[pnewton]

If I had a nickel for every time I saw that we were bound as Catholics to pick the lesser evil, I’d have enough for a nice dinner out with friends. Including wine, dessert and coffee.

I notice the priest in the video is somewhat young. One thing I have noticed is there has always been another election. I see value in voting my conscience beyond the one election. Each election is also an indicator for the next as to how far it too far, either left or right, or criminal, or morally corrupt. I want parties to understand that there are real consequences in the number of votes they can expect in nominating liars, thieves, an the otherwise morally corrupt. Otherwise, we will get the candidates that are horrible, except in one way.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What you mean by scientific?
Several scientists ( even some Noble winners) don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming.

And that makes all the scientists who do believe in anthropogenic global warming irrelevant?

There is a lot of evidence suggesting that CO2 is in fact not meaningfully related to this warming…

And much more evidence that suggests that CO2 is meaningful.

Political organs like IPCC …

It is a scientific organization under the United Nations.

many don’t express because of the POLITICAL climate we are in

It seems the political climate today is much more favorable to denying climate change.

The problem you don’t realize that the THEORY and the ideologies are closely linked…

The theory goes back to 1862. Are you saying there has been an ideology from 1862 plotting this conspiracy? Wow! Those were some long-range planners.

If man with his own presence ( because today we cannot renounce to fossil fuel)…

We can, just not all at once.

 

[Alphard]

I’m from mobile, cannot break your message in several quotes so i’ll just make a unique post.

1. It doesn’t make them either relevant or irrelevant. Only thing that matters are validity of metodologies used, and the fact that all models based on CO2 as cause of warming all failed and proved untrue. How many times we heard in year x all ice will be melt and end will come? It never happened and they just pushed the date further ahead
2. what evidence? CO2 contribute to greenhouse effect much less than H2O, and human generated CO2 is a small fraction of total anmount ( 4 % at MOST).

1. IPCC is political and funded by politicians. It comprhend many journalists. Scientists inside it make worse and worse outcome prediction to receive more funds
2. all i hear in media is how world is gonna end soon if we don’t hear great and the infallible scientists. Also the word “denier” wich you used trhown around to mock and discredit everyone that dare to challenge the dogm
3. the theory may not be born as an ideology, but was picked up later and used as such to push an agenda

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m from mobile, cannot break your message in several quotes so i’ll just make a unique post.

There is a thread in the Social Justice forum called “What do you think of climate change.” This discussion really ought to take place there. So this is the last off-topic post from me in this thread.

1. It doesn’t make them either relevant or irrelevant. Only thing that matters are validity of metodologies used, and the fact that all models based on CO2 as cause of warming all failed and proved untrue.

Well, that “fact” just isn’t a fact and isn’t true.

How many times we heard in year x all ice will be melt and end will come?

None at all from the IPCC or main stream scientists.

1. what evidence? CO2 contribute to greenhouse effect much less than H2O, and human generated CO2 is a small fraction of total anmount ( 4 % at MOST).

The evidence is in the professional journals. You can read about it there. CO2 does affect climate less than H20, but H20 is not going up, and when it does, it condenses and becomes clouds that reflect radiant energy from the sun. As for the human contribution of only 4%, that statistic is misleading. Natural CO2 emissions are largely balanced by natural CO2 absorption. The human addition then should be compared not to the natural CO2 emissions, but to the natural excess of emissions minus absorption. And in that comparsion, human caused CO2 emissions dominates.

1. all i hear in media is …

I don’t care about the media. This is not a discussion about the media.

1. the theory may not be born as an ideology, but was picked up later and used as such to push an agenda

Regardless of who had used the theory for their own purposes, the validity of the theory itself is unaffected.

 

[goout]

No the red herring is this:
You are proposing that right to lifers are not in favor of social and political movements that provide for the needy.
That’s a red herring, and it’s the favorite (false) canard used by those who are not willing to support the right to live as the primary right that is the basis for any other human right.

Cause human rights aren’t for cats,
nor for trees,
nor for my dead gramma.
Human rights are for living human beings, and talk of human rights without affirming the rights of all human beings to exist is just talk.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No the red herring is this:
You are proposing that right to lifers are not in favor of social and political movements that provide for the needy.

Wrong. I am proposing that we fund childbirth for everyone - needy or not. But I can also talk about other things besides.

Human rights are for living human beings, and talk of human rights without affirming the rights of all human beings to exist is just talk.

I do affirm the rights of all human beings - including the unborn.

 

[Canvas]

If society has a stake in preventing abortions (by making it illegal) then society should also have a stake is supporting the birth of its citizens. To tell a woman “we will not let you abort your child” and also tell her “the costs and risks of carrying and delivering this child is entirely your responsibility” is sending mixed messages. We should be consistent in supporting the most vulnerable members of our society. That is what I propose. Why not do that in addition to everything else you want to do to oppose abortion?

That is a very solid point.

 

[JimG]

Another way to put this proposal is that we give every woman the right to say to the taxpayers: “Give me money or the child dies.”

 

[JanetF]

It is completely within your rights to do so. However, I’d suggest that there is another way; vote for a third party like the American Solidarity party.

Sorry. I don’t like the Reps and won’t vote for them. But I find arguments saying the Dems are better extremely spurious.

This is also my point of view. I voted American Solidarity Party in 2016 (first time I ever deviated from the main two party system). I slept well that night.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But no, just because we make laws to protect life doesn’t mean we should also make laws to give them money when they aren’t working. That is the job of Charities, not the State.
[/quote]
The question is, which is more important to you: Keeping society from funding childbirth (because it is inefficient, wasteful, etc.), or preventing abortions?

 

[Jimbo]

I respect your decision. I just can’t follow it.

I’m disgusted and apalled by the Democrats today. Bill Clinton could at least talk about being moderate, at least talk like he respected the other side.

Today? They are so pro abortion and anti-tolerance/religion that it’s disgusting.

But I’m similarly disgusted by the Republicans for several issues.

I just can’t hold my nose anymore. The parties are becoming echo chambers which just whip up their members to try to win. I can’t be a member of that anymore. I’ll vote for, and give money to, the American Solidarity part; unless they start getting screwy. To vote for one of the parties, even the ‘lesser of two evils’, ends up endorsing the downward spiral into which those parties are plunging. Just No.

 

[Divine3]

A Society has no right to permit abortion. No right!
,“The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end”. Encyclical Letter JPII. Evangelium Vitae
It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. JPII

 

[Alphard]

Ipcc is indeed political and it is so true that is born a association to impartially study the matter, the Nipcc.
You can have a idea about IPCC by reading this

Loading…

climatechangereconsidered.org

All info can be verified

About the emissions, CO2 from combustion of hydrocarbures is not different that the “natural” one. It is used by plants just the same.

You said today climate is favorable to ones disagreeing with the theory, but i pointed that almost all media, governments, activist celebrities support this narrative. Tell me how this a sign that disagreeing with anthropogenic global warming is favorable. If you are a conformist, one the worst thing for your social reputation you can do Is talking against AGW ( the worst would probably be being against abortion and homosexuality)

 

[farronwolf]

So to jump into ya’ll’s conversation.

The Church teaches that no form of birth control other than NFP should be used. That all couples should willingly accept children as part of marriage.

The Church teaches that all abortions, other than natural occurring, are wrong.

Is the Church willing to help any and all people who have children and can not afford the prenatal and birth cost, along with child care or other things to ensure the child is cared for properly until adulthood.

If the government by your assessment is inefficient at doing those things, and churches should be picking up the task, why hasn’t it been done? I know there are churches that offer some assistance in various matters, but they can not possibly fund all needs.

I am not disagreeing with the Churches positions on these matters, just pointing out the huge gap between intentions and reality.

Using another analogy, many drugs have been illegal in this country for nearly a century. Enforcement has done little to curtain their usage. Would we have been better to focus on intervention and treatment?

Would the same approach hold true for lowering or eliminating the number of abortions being performed?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I take that to mean you can do both. That is, you can prevent all abortions, without providing free childbirth services. I would say that history has proven you wrong. Even when abortions were very illegal, some were still done - either by backroom doctors, or by coat hangers, or by jumping off of ladders. Then there is the practical matter that it is highly unlikely you are going to get abortion to be illegal in all 50 states any time soon. So tell me how you are going to prevent all abortions?