Cruz Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lily Bernans. You asked:
None of those talking points tell me why several Republican presidents and a Republican SC have failed to eradicate abortion. That was the question. Why haven’t they?
Click to expand...
Because Pro-Life Republicans have to deal with Pro-abortion Republicans AND deal with Democrats too (which are virtually all Pro-abortion in their leadership positions so “a Democrat” and a “Pro-abortion Democrat” is virtually the same thing at least concerning national politics).

It is Pro-Life Republicans vrs. Pro-Abort Republicans (some Republicans) and Pro-Abort Democrats (all Democrats).

(Again I am speaking in context of national Republican and Democrat LEADERSHIP, not necessarily individual voters)

If you want to find out more about how this was done see the late Dr. Nathanson’s book (here):

**Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by The Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind
by Bernard Nathanson **

The story is heartbreaking and I suspect many who have read it, have had tears in their eyes reading this compelling biography.

I think I read the book three times (I know I read it at least twice).

Bernard Nathanson M.D. was one of the founders of NAARL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, later renamed National Abortion Rights Action League)

There is no “Constitutional” support for killing innocent human beings.

That’s WHY Harry Blackmun had to appeal to a “penumbra” in his “ruling” among other things.

That’s a shadow of a shadow.

Take a flashlight and see your shadow on your hand in the dark.

Now look at the hazy “second shadow”. That’s the “penumbra”.

THAT is part of the shaky basis for Roe.

Not to mention Roe is based on a lie (here for example).

All the candidates KNOW Roe is bad law. One of the candidates, Senator Cruz, is honest enough to admit it openly.
 
Cathoholic said:
Lily Bernans. You asked:

Because Pro-Life Republicans have to deal with Pro-abortion Republicans AND deal with Democrats too (which are virtually all Pro-abortion in their leadership positions so “a Democrat” and a “Pro-abortion Democrat” is virtually the same thing at least concerning national politics).

It is Pro-Life Republicans vrs. Pro-Abort Republicans (some Republicans) and Pro-Abort Democrats (all Democrats).

(Again I am speaking in context of national Republican and Democrat LEADERSHIP, not necessarily individual voters)

If you want to find out more about how this was done see the late Dr. Nathanson’s book (here):

Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by The Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind
by Bernard Nathanson

The story is heartbreaking and I suspect many who have read it, have had tears in their eyes reading this compelling biography.

I think I read the book three times (I know I read it at least twice).

Bernard Nathanson M.D. was one of the founders of NAARL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, later renamed National Abortion Rights Action League)

There is no “Constitutional” support for killing innocent human beings.

That’s WHY Harry Blackmun had to appeal to a “penumbra” in his “ruling” among other things.

That’s a shadow of a shadow.

Take a flashlight and see your shadow on your hand in the dark.

Now look at the hazy “second shadow”. That’s the “penumbra”.

THAT is part of the shaky basis for Roe.

Not to mention Roe is based on a lie (here for example).

All the candidates KNOW Roe is bad law. One of the candidates, Senator Cruz, is honest enough to admit it openly.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Cathoholic said:
Lily Bernans. You asked:

Because Pro-Life Republicans have to deal with Pro-abortion Republicans AND deal with Democrats too (which are virtually all Pro-abortion in their leadership positions so “a Democrat” and a “Pro-abortion Democrat” is virtually the same thing at least concerning national politics).

It is Pro-Life Republicans vrs. Pro-Abort Republicans (some Republicans) and Pro-Abort Democrats (all Democrats).

(Again I am speaking in context of national Republican and Democrat LEADERSHIP, not necessarily individual voters)

There is no “Constitutional” support for killing innocent human beings.

All the candidates KNOW Roe is bad law. One of the candidates, Senator Cruz, is honest enough to admit it openly.
Click to expand...
Justice Blackmun, and six other justices, came to the conclusion that the unborn are not “persons,” innocent or not, under the US Constitution. He didn’t have to appeal to a “penumbra.” :rolleyes:

And how do you “know” what the candidates really think about Roe? Did they tell you? Do you know all of them personally?

It is my opinion that they know Roe is perfectly good law and will stay around for the balance of their lifetime, probably for the balance of the lifetime of anyone born today.

The story of a former abortionist wouldn’t prove a thing to me, so I didn’t bother to read it. I’m asking why Republican presidents and a Republican SC, if they “know” Roe is bad law, chose to uphold it in PP v Casey, for example. They make no move to overturn themselves. I don’t think they ever will.
 
carpenter383 said:
I’m not exactly sure what your question is
Click to expand...
Thank you for asking. I’ll repost my question:
Peter_J said:
carpenter383;13818633:
Here are the 5 things currently that faithful
Click to expand...
Catholics cannot negotiate on when at the voting booth: Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and same-sex “marriage”
Can you explain a little how your negotiating would work? For example, what would you be willing to trade Israel’s security for?
Click to expand...
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Justice Blackmun, and six other justices, came to the conclusion that the unborn are not “persons,” innocent or not, under the US Constitution. He didn’t have to appeal to a “penumbra.” :rolleyes:

And how do you “know” what the candidates really think about Roe? Did they tell you? Do you know all of them personally?

It is my opinion that they know Roe is perfectly good law and will stay around for the balance of their lifetime, probably for the balance of the lifetime of anyone born today.

The story of a former abortionist wouldn’t prove a thing to me, so I didn’t bother to read it. I’m asking why Republican presidents and a Republican SC, if they “know” Roe is bad law, chose to uphold it in PP v Casey, for example. They make no move to overturn themselves. I don’t think they ever will.
Click to expand...
You keep using the inability to overturn Roe (as though the case is tried annually) as some sort of proof Republicans care or do little, all the while ignoring the folks who have pointed out the myriad of successes at state and local levels almost exclusively by conservatives at those levels. The number of good things have been numerous, but you cling to Roe because it apparently fits your agenda. That’s fine, but there is no need to continue to post the same thing and ignore the evidence presented. Most people with your position simply state it once, then move on when the evidence against them is presented.

Arguing that Republicans have not done exponentially more to defend the unborn is akin to the argument that there is no life at conception. Now that there is irrefutable evidence that life begins at conception, the argument for pro-abortionists has shifted to ‘viability’ or some other moving goalpost. You’d think the same thing would happen with those who claim Republicans have done nothing for women or children in the womb. At least shift the argument; why dig in and repeat when it has been shown to be an incomplete narrative?

And if you want to argue that republicans don’t deserve our vote because we have eliminated abortion, I am assuming you would also argue that Democrats do not deserve our vote because they have yet to make any dent in poverty (and in fact, have increased the number of poor and indigent under the current administration). Can we assume you are left with a third-party vote, given your own argument?
 
Cathoholic said:
Lily Bernans. You asked:
Because Pro-Life Republicans have to deal with Pro-abortion Republicans AND deal with Democrats too (which are virtually all Pro-abortion in their leadership positions so “a Democrat” and a “Pro-abortion Democrat” is virtually the same thing at least concerning national politics).

It is Pro-Life Republicans vrs. Pro-Abort Republicans (some Republicans) and Pro-Abort Democrats (all Democrats).

(Again I am speaking in context of national Republican and Democrat LEADERSHIP, not necessarily individual voters)

If you want to find out more about how this was done see the late Dr. Nathanson’s book (here):

Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by The Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind
by Bernard Nathanson

The story is heartbreaking and I suspect many who have read it, have had tears in their eyes reading this compelling biography.

I think I read the book three times (I know I read it at least twice).

Bernard Nathanson M.D. was one of the founders of NAARL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, later renamed National Abortion Rights Action League)
There is no “Constitutional” support for killing innocent human beings.

That’s WHY Harry Blackmun had to appeal to a “penumbra” in his “ruling” among other things.

That’s a shadow of a shadow.

Take a flashlight and see your shadow on your hand in the dark.

Now look at the hazy “second shadow”. That’s the “penumbra”.

THAT is part of the shaky basis for Roe.

Not to mention Roe is based on a lie (here for example).

All the candidates KNOW Roe is bad law. One of the candidates, Senator Cruz, is honest enough to admit it openly.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing your fine knowledge and explaining its truth. Its the clear voice being heard over the noise of deliberate distraction and supporting abortion. This will continue to sound until the evil is returned to hell.

St. Michael, the Archangel, defend us in the day of battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil, and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the other evil spirits who prowl through the
world seeking the ruin of souls.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
You keep using the inability to overturn Roe (as though the case is tried annually) as some sort of proof Republicans care or do little, all the while ignoring the folks who have pointed out the myriad of successes at state and local levels almost exclusively by conservatives at those levels. The number of good things have been numerous, but you cling to Roe because it apparently fits your agenda. That’s fine, but there is no need to continue to post the same thing and ignore the evidence presented. Most people with your position simply state it once, then move on when the evidence against them is presented.

Arguing that Republicans have not done exponentially more to defend the unborn is akin to the argument that there is no life at conception. Now that there is irrefutable evidence that life begins at conception, the argument for pro-abortionists has shifted to ‘viability’ or some other moving goalpost. You’d think the same thing would happen with those who claim Republicans have done nothing for women or children in the womb. At least shift the argument; why dig in and repeat when it has been shown to be an incomplete narrative?

And if you want to argue that republicans don’t deserve our vote because we have eliminated abortion, I am assuming you would also argue that Democrats do not deserve our vote because they have yet to make any dent in poverty (and in fact, have increased the number of poor and indigent under the current administration). Can we assume you are left with a third-party vote, given your own argument?
Click to expand...
I will quit pointing it out when people realize that the Democratic Party is no more the “party off death” than the Republican and that Republican SC justices would be certain to overturn Roe v Wade. They are the ones who upheld it!

May I suggest you just skip my posts if they irritate you?
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I will quit pointing it out when people realize that the Democratic Party is no more the “party off death” than the Republican and that Republican SC justices would be certain to overturn Roe v Wade. They are the ones who upheld it!

May I suggest you just skip my posts if they irritate you?
Click to expand...
The Democrat Party Platform advocates taxpayer funded abortion on demand. Eutnasia is being pushed solely by Democrat legislatures. As far as then being the party of death again let us turn to the Magestrium:

*At this point, the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitively into a “party of death” due to its choices on bioethical issues, as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life."And I say this with a heavy heart, because we all know that the Democrats were the party that helped our Catholic immigrant parents and grandparents to better integrate into and prosper in American society. But it’s not the same anymore.Nonetheless, there are among Democrats some pro-lifers, but they are, unfortunately, rare. *

Cardinal Edmend Burke
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I will quit pointing it out when people realize that the Democratic Party is no more the “party off death” than the Republican and that Republican SC justices would be certain to overturn Roe v Wade. They are the ones who upheld it!
Click to expand...
Roe vs Wade, which came out of absolutely nowhere, was not foreseen 40 years ago when it was decided.

Better to look at more recent history of the Court. As we know, Carhart vs. Gonzales was about partial birth abortion bans. 100% of the Democrat appointees voted in favor of partial birth abortion without limitations. 100% of the Repub appointees voted in favor of bans, even kennedy did.

If Hillary Clinton is elected, we can be sure she will support partial birth abortion and oppose all bans and will appoint people to the Supreme Court who will vote to reverse Carhart vs. Gonzales. How do we know that? Because she, herself, favors it.

It does matter who one votes for in this election. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for abortion, including partial birth abortion, which is the deliberate killing, by extremely cruel means, of viable infants. Supporting abortion in the voting booth is not okay just because there’s a curtain hiding the action. God can see through curtains.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I will quit pointing it out when people realize that the Democratic Party is no more the “party off death” …
Click to expand...
Well “party of death” may be a bit on the colorful side, but I think any faithful Catholic should know that voting for them is a bad idea.
 
Lily Bernans. You said (emphasis mine):
The story of a former abortionist wouldn’t prove a thing to me, so I didn’t bother to read it.
Click to expand...
But I am not trying to “prove” something to you.

You asked about HOW, despite “Republicans” (Republicans in office, and Republican appointees on the Supreme Court), could Roe have happened?

And I told you from a political perspective: Pro-Life Republicans had to battle not only Pro-abortion Democrats, but Pro-abortion Republicans as well. These were the abortion politics from INSIDE Washington.

And I gave you information from a Pro-abortion activist perspective on how this was done (via Dr. Nathanson’s biography). There were Pro-abortion politics from OUTSIDE Washington as well.
  • Pro-abortion politics from INSIDE Washington
  • Pro-abortion politics from OUTSIDE Washington
And your reply is . . . . .
. . . . it doesn’t “prove a thing to me.”
Click to expand...
That’s fine. But it is still the reasons to your question.

If you don’t want to accept it, that’s your call.

Your comment discounting the “penumbra” is also wrong.

Go look up Blackmun’s Supreme Court writing on Roe. This is HIS language, not mine.

Blackmun HAD to invent some “shadowy” aspect of the “Constitution” because there isn’t any CONCRETE Constitutional evidence for what he (and others) did.

You appealing to Supreme Court justices approving Roe is no more persuasive to me, than me appealing to the Supreme Court justices that did NOT approve of Roe is to you.

Now you will appeal to the “majority”.

But were pre-born human persons . . . “persons” . . . BEFORE Roe?

Roe was based on a lie. (Lots of lies actually).

Roe is bad law.

The Democrats have morphed into the abortion party. Which is WHY so many Democrats walked away from it in the 1970’s.

You CANNOT be a national Democrat leader and be Pro-Life.
Pro-Life violates the Democrat litmus test of being Pro-abortion.

Senator Cruz is Pro-Life. Which is WHY (among other reasons) I will support him.

Because of this, Senator Cruz is having to take on the Democrats (who are ALL Pro-abortion, at least in Washington), the Pro-abortion Establishment Republicans, and now the Populist Republicans (whose “leader” you don’t really know what his positions are because he doesn’t formulate them on “principles” and so his “positions” frequently change, sometimes in a matter of minutes).

This translates into an uphill battle for the Pro-Life Senator Cruz to be sure.

To paraphrase Gimli: “Certainty of political death, small chance of political success . . . . What are we waiting for?!”

I’m all in.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Roe vs Wade, which came out of absolutely nowhere, was not foreseen 40 years ago when it was decided.

Better to look at more recent history of the Court. As we know, Carhart vs. Gonzales was about partial birth abortion bans. 100% of the Democrat appointees voted in favor of partial birth abortion without limitations. 100% of the Repub appointees voted in favor of bans, even kennedy did.

If Hillary Clinton is elected, we can be sure she will support partial birth abortion and oppose all bans and will appoint people to the Supreme Court who will vote to reverse Carhart vs. Gonzales. How do we know that? Because she, herself, favors it.

It does matter who one votes for in this election. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for abortion, including partial birth abortion, which is the deliberate killing, by extremely cruel means, of viable infants. Supporting abortion in the voting booth is not okay just because there’s a curtain hiding the action. God can see through curtains.
Click to expand...
Appointing SC justices, even those who share your beliefs, is no guarantee. I will say it until people understand: It was a REPUBLICAN SC that UPHELD Roe v Wade and it was a REPUBLICAN SC that refused to strike at Roe in PP v Casey.

Logic would tell us it might be better to go with Democratic appointees. At least Byron White dissented in Roe opinion.

SC justices are not the puppets of the president who appoints them.
 
Peter_J said:
Well “party of death” may be a bit on the colorful side, but I think any faithful Catholic should know that voting for them is a bad idea.
Click to expand...
It is a little colorful. I think “pro-choice party” is more like it. “Party of death” makes it seem like the Democrats are going to order women to have abortions and drive them to the clinics, and that’s not going to happen.
 
Well, FWIW I don’t call you or anyone else a “pro-death” or “anti-life” person – just as presumably you don’t join in calling me an “anti-choicer” as some on the forum have done.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Appointing SC justices, even those who share your beliefs, is no guarantee. I will say it until people understand: It was a REPUBLICAN SC that UPHELD Roe v Wade and it was a REPUBLICAN SC that refused to strike at Roe in PP v Casey.

Logic would tell us it might be better to go with Democratic appointees. At least Byron White dissented in Roe opinion.

SC justices are not the puppets of the president who appoints them.
Click to expand...
You can keep repeating it if you like (;)), and it is a true historical fact, but it’s not a good predictor of future behavior. The Supreme Court 40 years ago (and the two political parties themselves) are very different now than they were then.

A better indicator is to look at the SCOTUS appointees since Roe v. Wade. Some of the Republican appointees have been duds on the issue of abortion, but all of the Democrat ones have been.

So, is a Republican President a guarantee that a good Justice will be appointed who would vote against abortion? No. But a Democrat President is a guarantee that the Justice will vote in favor of abortion.

In other words, the only pro-life Justices on the bench were appointed by Republicans.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
It is a little colorful. I think “pro-choice party” is more like it. “Party of death” makes it seem like the Democrats are going to order women to have abortions and drive them to the clinics, and that’s not going to happen.
Click to expand...
They are the Party of Death in that they embrace policies that negate the sanctity of life: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, etc. They do not have respect for life, because they do not have respect for God.
 
tomarin said:
They are the Party of Death in that they embrace policies that negate the sanctity of life: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, etc. They do not have respect for life, because they do not have respect for God.
Click to expand...
Well said. If we end up with Clinton and Trump, I don’t think I’ll vote. (I have been thinking about voting Clinton, but I can’t do it. It would be as bad as voting for Trump, possibly even worse.) We cannot have a Democrat in the White House, simple as that.
 
Peter_J said:
Well, FWIW I don’t call you or anyone else a “pro-death” or “anti-life” person – just as presumably you don’t join in calling me an “anti-choicer” as some on the forum have done.
Click to expand...
I just call you Peter, and I respect your right to vote any way you think is best.
 
tomarin said:
They are the Party of Death in that they embrace policies that negate the sanctity of life: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, etc. They do not have respect for life, because they do not have respect for God.
Click to expand...
I understand where you’re coming from, but I wouldn’t say they don’t respect God. I think their religion, which they do respect, allows for abortion. Most people are not as opposed to abortion as Catholics are, and not all Catholics are opposed to it. I know Catholic women who have had abortions. That’s why I think “pro-choice” is a better way of expressing it. It gets the message across without offense. I do not deny that most Democrats are pro-choice, but I do deny that most Democrats are pro-death and do not respect God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top