Catholics who vote for those who kill the innocent are-

  • Thread starter Thread starter Divine3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree they were the two worst candidates, which is why I could not vote for either one. Neither was fit for the office of President.

However, I still feel that politicians are a reflection of the people themselves. There is, especially in a group like we have here, constant talk about how they can’t see how so many politicians can be pro choice. Well, half of america is pro choice, and half of it is pro life to some extent.


A large percentage of US households can’t come up with $400 for an unexpected expense. Seems to be a direct reflection on our countries constant deficit spending and lack of concern over the future financial stability of our country.

Loading…

www.cbsnews.com

These are just a couple of examples, but if we look at numerous issues to me there is a big correlation between government priorities and american’s personal priorities.

Heck look at the lines when a new Iphone comes out, or on black friday sales. We have turned into a me, me, me country.
 
These are good points.

And I didn’t say I straight out rejected your idea. I just don’t necessarily view as a direct reflection. I would totally agree that it’s an indirect reflection, but not a direct one.
 
I would assume they do what was stated during their confirmations, state that R V W is established law.
 
farronwolf said:
How does one automatically place thou shall not murder at the top of the list above all else and simplify voting to one issue like so many do?
Click to expand...
Probably same way some in 1850s put slavery ahead of other issues by identifying is as greatest moral evil of the time
 
Was it morality that was at issue during the 1850’s or was it economics, and or federal control vs. states rights on the matter, at the heart of the debate over the issue of slavery?

There are arguments for both being the issue on which people chose to vote one way or another. There was much compromise legislation during the mid 19th century regarding slavery as our country was expanding. Much of it had an economic basis.
 
pnewton said:
In the United States, each representative votes individually, not as a party. The platform is a guideline of unity that is voted on and represented as a whole. I am not satisfied with the Democratic Party platform and would like to see their rigidity loosened in regard to abortion, especially with the Republican Party becoming less in line with my morality as well. This will not happen in an election, but takes place over a generation or two.
Click to expand...
Just another thought, from a previous post I made on this point of yours

One party in particular, on this and many other social hot button issues, has become more and more anti reason, anti religion, Anti God, etc etc, over the decades…AND they’re getting worse not better. So what is it that you are saying? Keep voting for the same party, just in case some day they change?

Here’s one example of one person who changed 6 yrs ago. Bp Tobin

Was the party he switched from, bad on key issues at the time he switched? Absolutely Yes. Did the party he switched from get worse not better since then? Absolutely Yes.

Just being transparent, I was wondering at the time, what took him sooooo long to let go of that party? They’d been this way for decades. Maybe for Social justice issues perhaps that he stayed? Nice try but no dice. Infanticide by abortion, is the biggest social INjustice of innocent life, on the planet. Abortion has been legal since Roe V Wade 1973. Just look at the statistics.
 
Last edited:
It is the right thing to do. I am true to my own conscience, not the conscience of others.
 
I vote by my conscience and therefore vote Democrat. I would not feel morally good if I voted Republican.
 
Last edited:
Psychae said:
Robin Williams said something once about how wars would never happen if women ruled the world; there would just be intense negotiations every 28 days. 😂
Click to expand...
No, there would a very intense stand-off occasionally punctuated by “You know what you did…”🤣
 
Without a healthy environment, there can be no life.
I oppose abortion. But I also know there are many other political issues that are important, for example, global warming.
 

Loading…

www.voteforjoe.com

You could probably vote for Joe Sneider in good conscience. I know I could and I certainly have significant problems with portions of his platform.
 
pnewton said:
It is the right thing to do. I am true to my own conscience, not the conscience of others.
Click to expand...
I’m NOT talking about following the conscience of others. One’s own personal conscience can be mis informed.
 
Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t they the ones who have aborted more babies than all people killed in all wars combined?
 
Anrakyr said:
To act like pro-life is the only moral issue on the table is ignorant.
Killing babies just makes it an easy selling point.

While the numbers of babies killed is staggering voting war mongers, cheap trust fund baby ceo’s who would write off millions of already living lives (and have done) is just as pressing.

Sadly our options often are kill a few or kill a few other there. Both are terrible so voting is difficult.

I can do more with a compassionate elected who allows abortion then work to limit the reasons for abortions then a bible thumping xenophobe.
Click to expand...
“bible thumping xenophobe”?
Is that the mother of all stereotypes?
To act like pro-life is the only moral issue on the table is ignorant.
Killing babies just makes it an easy selling point.
Click to expand...
Does a non-existent human being (yea, that doesn’t make any sense does it)…😉
let’s try another way:
The human rights and moral issues that you are concerned about…
Are they for living human beings? It would seem to make sense that if a human being does not exist, that non existing human being cannot have human rights.

Does that make sense to you?
So while it is true that abortion is not “the only moral issue” ( somewhat obvious), it is the primary issue, by definition.
Because human rights are not for cats,
nor for trees,
nor for my dead gramma.
Human rights are for living human beings.

Talk of human rights without first affirming the right of all human beings to live is hypothetical nonsense.
 
Last edited:
To say that one is concerned about the deaths caused by war but not so much about feticide when more deaths have occurred by feticide than all wars combined is, to be extremely charitable, illogical.
 
MiserereMeiDei said:
To say that one is concerned about the deaths caused by war but not so much about feticide when more deaths have occurred by feticide than all wars combined is, to be extremely charitable, illogical.
Click to expand...
Yea, the children of enlightened reason are not very…reasonable.
 
goout said:
“bible thumping xenophobe”?
Is that the mother of all stereotypes?
Click to expand...
Stereotypes exist for a reason.
goout said:
Yea, the children of enlightened reason are not very…reasonable.
Click to expand...
I’d rather be known unreasonable then dispassionate about say Gaza, Syrian refugees, our own poor, police violence.

To name a few.

How about we solve poverty and systematic racism. Make a world worth living in. Make abortion irrelevant as an option.

Then talk.
 
RCIAGraduate said:
How do you respond with people who have an issue practically voting for the other side especially if (like me), they have an issue with their stance on seemingly on every other issue (that might be hyperbolic but not the most major fan of them on several issues (even I could (maybe I can, at least compromise))?
Click to expand...
I know it wasn’t asked of me, but my answer is this:
https://solidarity-party.org
(their platform can be found here)
 
Last edited:
Jimbo said:
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.

I’ve largely given up on the Republican party. But for all the things that they do that disgust me (regulatory capture, selling out to most industries, alot of climate change denial) the Democrats have just as many things (Their own issues with industry and finance, selling out completely on free trade, things like the ‘Dear Colleague’ letters that enforced bathroom bills and made the sexual assault proceedings on college campuses draconian, wanting to limit carbon but ignoring options like nuclear power) and like icing on top of the cake… they are going full force even harder into abortion. The direct killing of innocent human beings.

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

I feel much the same way, minus your total dismissal, and I did vote 3rd party once in awhile, around 40 yrs ago, but I had a guilty conscience because my vote merely registered that I was another of the dissatisfieds whose vote went no place in determining the election. So, if the worse (in particular areas) of the two parties won, I had trouble sleeping due to self-incrimination. In an ideal world, we’d not feel the need to vote for the least worrisome party; we’d know that both parties are upstanding, wholesome, blah, blah, blah, and that the two parties would simply follow a different path to get to the same goal. But our world is far from ideal. Our parties no longer have the same ultimate goals. Consequently, if we don’t want our vote to go for nought, we’re stuck with voting for the party who will take us the shortest distance off the path to our goals. I wish it weren’t true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top