"Defiant Hillary Clinton says no apology for emails needed: ‘What I did was allowed’

[Jeanne_S]

So what you are saying is that the ends justifies the means. We agree that Romney’s position on abortion is sinful. But it is ok to sin if it means a lower abortion rate?

In an ideal world,abortion wouldn’t be an issue at all.However,the reality is it is a huge sin and scourge on our society.So for starters,let us be grateful for any and all lives saved from this evil,with continued perseverance in prayer that it will one day be blotted out completely.
Now I do agree that it is disingenuous on the part of politicians who state the caveat of rape and incest,they are indeed placating the moderates and pro aborts.
Having said that,I am in line with Archbishop Chaput and other conservative bishops,that we in the prolife movement have to be will ing to take whatever positive progress in the effort to obliterate abortion is presented to us.That doesn’t mean we give up and stop fighting for all life but we have to start somewhere.

 

[stinkcat_14]

No, I’m saying I don’t think it’s honest to label POLAND as being PRO-ABORTION.
I also said it’s dishonest to label Romeny as being PRO-ABORTION. The additional judgements are all yours.

Tell me where the Church teaches that it is not a sin to be in favor of abortion? The Church teaches that abortion is wrong in all circumstances and that we are not to support politicians who support abortion in any form. Under Church teaching, we cannot support Romney on his own merits. The only reason one could vote for him in the last election was because Obama was worse.

So, if the Church teaches that we cannot support a politician like Romney on their own merits, how can we conclude that he is not pro-abortion?

 

[Theo520]

Tell me where the Church teaches that it is not a sin to be in favor of abortion? The Church teaches that abortion is wrong in all circumstances and that we are not to support politicians who support abortion in any form. Under Church teaching, we cannot support Romney on his own merits. The only reason one could vote for him in the last election was because Obama was worse.

So, if the Church teaches that we cannot support a politician like Romney on their own merits, how can we conclude that he is not pro-abortion?

Since you’ve already been answered, I’ll just paste the quotes. The church doesn’t teach your conclusion. FYI, Romney was sincere to the teachings of his faith. Something in complete contrast to leading Catholic politicians who openly support PP.

But to give you more rope, Both Poland and Romney’s position is sinful by RCC teachings. However, I believe the Church much favors achieving the blue color on the map and not everyone is Catholic.

In an ideal world,abortion wouldn’t be an issue at all.However,the reality is it is a huge sin and scourge on our society.So for starters,let us be grateful for any and all lives saved from this evil,with continued perseverance in prayer that it will one day be blotted out completely.
Now I do agree that it is disingenuous on the part of politicians who state the caveat of rape and incest,they are indeed placating the moderates and pro aborts.
Having said that,I am in line with Archbishop Chaput and other conservative bishops,that we in the prolife movement have to be will ing to take whatever positive progress in the effort to obliterate abortion is presented to us.That doesn’t mean we give up and stop fighting for all life but we have to start somewhere.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Since you’ve already been answered, I’ll just paste the quotes. The church doesn’t teach your conclusion.

Please quote from Church teaching where it says that it is not a sin to support abortion. You cannot just claim I am wrong without providing evidence.

FYI, Romney was sincere to the teachings of his faith. Something in complete contrast to leading Catholic politicians who openly support PP.

Here you are just deflecting. Here is Church teaching in regards to the types of abortion that Romney supports. He is in direct violation of Church teaching. A Catholic cannot support him on his own merits because of his views.

Q: Does the Catholic Church oppose abortion if it is needed to save a woman’s life?
A: We may never perform an intrinsically evil act even to bring about a great good. For example, a just society cannot intentionally kill innocent civilians in a war, even for the praiseworthy goal of ending a conflict quickly and saving many lives. Likewise, in the context of pregnancy, a woman may not be killed in order to save the life of her child, and a child may not be killed in order to save the life of his mother. However, the Church does permit morally neutral medical procedures designed to save a pregnant woman’s life that may have an unintended side-effect of causing a child to die in the womb, such as the removal of a cancerous uterus. (For a more detailed treatment of this topic, see this essay by the Diocese’s Medical Ethicist Fr. John Ehrich)
Q: Does the Catholic Church oppose abortion in the case of pregnancy due to rape or incest?
A: In Romans 12:21 Paul says that we should not be conquered by evil but that we should conquer evil with good. The act of rape is a grave sin and an injustice that claims too many people, most often women and children, as victims. The Church teaches that victims of rape deserve immediate medical, emotional and spiritual care. The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (#36) states that Catholic healthcare providers have a duty to provide this care and to prevent the contraction of disease or the conception of a child.However, if a child is conceived in a pregnancy caused by rape, then this child is just as innocent and precious as the woman who was victimized and he or she should not be killed because of the actions of the rapist. The Church teaches that through mercy and love, a non-violent solution for both mother and child is far superior to helping a victim of violence (the raped woman) commit violence against her own child through abortion.

diocesephoenix.org/abortion.php

 

[grotto]

Are you one of those people who refuse to understand what “Thou shalt not” from God means?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Could we get back to the subject of the thread please?

 

[Theo520]

Are you one of those people who refuse to understand what “Thou shalt not” from God means?

To whom and what are you speaking about? You didn’t include any quotes.

I’ve already said I think abortion is the intentional taking of another life, regardless of extenuating circumstances.

 

[grotto]

Are you one of those people who refuse to understand what “Thou shalt not” from God means?

---

I am addressing the “you” - anyone who wants to wiggle around abortion to make it O.K. under their invented circumstances. Its not!

 

[estesbob]

So what you are saying is that the ends justifies the means. We agree that Romney’s position on abortion is sinful. But it is ok to sin if it means a lower abortion rate?

The Church teaches that if two candidates support an intrinsic evil we may, in good conscience vote for the one who whom limit this evil the most.(I have posted quotes from a Pope, a Cardinal, a Vatican Document and an Archbishop affirming this) We all get it that you don’t like Romney but voting for him was perfectly legitimate for a Catholic given his opponents views. Now of you can show us something other than your opinion that refutes this please do so.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The Church teaches that if two candidates support an intrinsic evil we may, in good conscience vote for the one who whom limit this evil the most.

I have never argued any different. What the other poster was trying to claim, was that Romney’s position was not pro-abortion. What I said, was that Romney’s position on abortion is sinful. I did not say that a Catholic in good conscious could not vote for him in the last election. In fact, I have said the exact opposite dozens of times. I said, that we could not vote for Romney on is own merits, but only because his opponent had a worse position on abortion. So one could not infer that I thought it was sinful to vote for Romney.

(I have posted quotes from a Pope, a Cardinal, a Vatican Document and an Archbishop affirming this) We all get it that you don’t like Romney but voting for him was perfectly legitimate for a Catholic given his opponents views. Now of you can show us something other than your opinion that refutes this please do so.

I think you ought to stick to what I said. I never said that it was sinful to vote for Romney. The reason it is not sinful, is because his opponent had a worse position. However, I did say that he was pro-abortion and that is perfectly correct.

 

[Theo520]

I think you ought to stick to what I said. I never said that it was sinful to vote for Romney. The reason it is not sinful, is because his opponent had a worse position. However, I did say that he was pro-abortion and that is perfectly correct.

You think Poland is Pro Abortion and I don’t.

I think Pro-Abortion is synonymous with Pro-Choice, the polar opposite of Pro-life, ie. Pro-Choice/Abortion means abortions are readily available and legal.

I don’t think the Pro-Choice label applies when the procedure is not legally available to 99% of women currently seeking abortions.

I think Poland is mostly Pro-Life, but clearly not 100% in compliance with Church teachings.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Could we get back to the subject of the thread please?

I guess not.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You think Poland is Pro Abortion and I don’t.

Where did I say anything about Poland?

I think Pro-Abortion is synonymous with Pro-Choice, the polar opposite of Pro-life, ie. readily available and legal.

Pro-life means that you think all life is sacred and needs to be protected. If you think it should be legal for a woman to kill her child, you cannot be pro-life. Both Obama and Romney both thought it should be legal for a woman to kill her child. Clearly, Romney thought it should be legal in more limited circumstances, but if you think a woman should have the right to kill her child, you cannot be pro-life.

I don’t think the Pro-Choice label applies when the procedure is not legally available to 99% of women currently seeking abortions.

I think Poland mostly Pro-Life, but clearly not 100% in compliance.

I said nothing about the pro-choice label. Although he had no problem with women who were raped choosing to kill their child.

 

[estesbob]

I guess not.

Bush’s Fault

 

[Lormar]

If any one of us did what Clinton did, we’d be behind bars long ago.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Bush’s Fault

You are the only one who brought up Bush. For the record, I have no problem with Fox News. I know you don’t like it, but my advice to you is if you don’t like it, don’t watch it.

 

[estesbob]

You are the only one who brought up Bush. For the record, I have no problem with Fox News. I know you don’t like it, but my advice to you is if you don’t like it, don’t watch it.

And if you don’t like SS don’t accept it.

 

[Theo520]

Since it’s not possible to just lose the emails, maybe there is even a third server.

breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/16/theres-gap-hillarys-emails-server-installed/
There are five months’ worth of gaps in the emails that Hillary Clinton turned over to federal investigators, and one of those gaps encompasses the period in which her private email server was installed.

Bryan Pagliano, an IT staffer on Clinton’s 2008 campaign, installed Clinton’s private email server in early 2009 after Clinton began her tenure at the State Department in January 2009. This was Clinton’s second private server, following an initial server that she used on her campaign.

Bryan Pagliano earned an adviser job at the State Department in April 2009, after Clinton’s server had been set up, and he managed the server throughout Clinton’s State Department tenure before the Clintons tapped Denver-based Platte River Networks to manage the server. Pagliano recently pleaded the Fifth Amendment to avoid having to testify about the server to the House Benghazi Committee.

 

[estesbob]

Since it’s not possible to just lose the emails, maybe there is even a third server.

This didn’t work out to well for Richard Nixon but then he was a Republican.

 

[stinkcat_14]

And if you don’t like SS don’t accept it.

There is a big difference. Social Security as you well know, violates the principle of subsidiarity. So while I am against Social Security, I am against it because it violates a clear Church teaching. Fox News on the other hand, does not violate any such Church teaching, so while you might think it is evil, you have no real moral foundation for your opinion.