Democratic Ad: Catholic Church More Concerned About Abortion Than Poor

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
Apparently the Minnesota Democratic Party (DFL) is willing to sacrifice Catholic support in favor of abortion support. The ad takes a jab at Church intransigence on abortion, yet the Democratic party is nothing of not intransigent in the firmness of its pro-abortion views. Democratic candidates could win Catholic support if they were willing to take a firm and unyielding pro-life stance. But that would put them in opposition to the national Democratic platform.
Click to expand...
The pro-life Democrats who got the anti-abortion measures into the healthcare bill did more than any pro-life republicans have done on the federal side in at least a few years.

So some Dems had the courage to go against the party line. How many Republicans have had the courage to go against their party on issues favorable to other Catholic causes?

Peace
 
portarica said:
The pro-life Democrats who got the anti-abortion measures into the healthcare bill did more than any pro-life republicans have done on the federal side in at least a few years.

So some Dems had the courage to go against the party line. How many Republicans have had the courage to go against their party on issues favorable to other Catholic causes?

Peace
Click to expand...
It would be easier to answer if you would name the Catholic causes you are talking about.
 
dmelosi said:
I wasn’t asking you, but nothing like defending abortion than changing the subject.
Click to expand...
Open forum. There is a PM feature for two way conversations. And my answer was to your question and did not reflect on abortion. It in no way defends or justifies abortion. Please do not slander me.
 
pnewton said:
Open forum. There is a PM feature for two way conversations. And my answer was to your question and did not reflect on abortion. It in no way defends or justifies abortion. Please do not slander me.
Click to expand...
It is changing the subject from the post, and yes, you and the poster before you deflected it away from the issue. Slander you? Tell me…how does making abortion less important make you pro life?
 
dmelosi said:
It is changing the subject from the post, and yes, you and the poster before you deflected it away from the issue. Slander you? Tell me…how does making abortion less important make you pro life?
Click to expand...
I did not make abortion less important. I did not mention it. That is why I see it as slanderous. Is that simple enough for you?

I suggest that you not ask questions if you do not want answers. My Catholic faith has sole priority over my political convictions.
 
pnewton said:
I did not make abortion less important. I did not mention it. That is why I see it as slanderous. Is that simple enough for you?

I suggest that you not ask questions if you do not want answers. My Catholic faith has sole priority over my political convictions.
Click to expand...
You many not have intentionally made abortion less important, but that is certainly what you did by deflecting attention from the original thread.

That is really how simple it is.
 
All I can say is: VOTE REPUBLICAN. Democrats are becoming scarier by the minute!
 
I agree with the Democrats; I, as a Catholic, am ABSOLUTELY more concerned with ending abortion than helping the poor.

The aborted are dead; the poor are not. One group has no money; the other is being murdered.

Which group would you be more concerned about?

That said, I care very much about the poor and fully suppport charitable efforts to help the poor. But I’m not ashamed to say I care about abortion more.
 
Yeah. I finally found a new outlet that spoke with the DFL to confirm the mailing came from them.

kstp.com/article/stories/s1809604.shtml

Okay, so it was just a major act of stupidity, one that will cost votes for sure. Tthe card appeals only to the stupid. A cursory read of the thing shows that it is not the poor that was opposed by the Church, but rather one specific bill. Since the Democrats could have easily wrote a bill that did not provide for tax-funded abortions, one could make a better claim that the Democrats care more about promoting abortion than they do about the poor. Which makes sense when one knows that their concern for the poor goes only as far as it takes to get votes. Yet since the card only appeals to the simple non-critical thinker, then such a one is more likely to react with an anger at this dirty tactic.

Yes, abortion is a greater issue than most others. We must love the poor, or we are doomed to Hell. That is a biblical theme start to finish. However, the means of caring for the poor is not a set issue. Through the government, individually, in groups, these all are means of loving the poor. It should be a no brainer that giving of ourselves and our own resources for the poor is a much greater act of charity than Robin Hood (and the federal government) practices.
 
dmelosi said:
It would be easier to answer if you would name the Catholic causes you are talking about.
Click to expand...
The point isn’t the specific Catholic issue, there are many , immigration for one, education, foreign aid for the poor, medical care, human rights etc. etc.

The point is that Republicans , while proclaiming they are pro life, frequently ignore the rest of Jesus’ teachings. And when considering their actual political achievements, many pro life republicans are pro abortion .

And your comment about being for abortion just for bringing up the fallacies that abound in the political arena involving abortion is patently false. And that falsehood reflects a lack of understanding of how the whole of Jesus’ message about the value of each life , was in fact the basis for the formation of our faiths opposition to abortion.

Abortion didn’t become the pinnacle issue because it started out that way, it became the apex issue because of the foundation built upon the whole of Jesus’ teachings.

I find it ironic, that some people seem to claim some sort of purity of belief because of their firm pro-life beliefs, yet pick and choose which ,among the other teachings of Jesus , they want to follow.

In that context, politicians tailor their message to reach certain voter segments, when they know they don’t have to produce results favorable to their voters. They know by just mouthing what the voters want to hear that they will get votes. In the meantime they may be doing the devils work on other issues, but they know that is not a concern of many of the people who vote for them or give them financial support.

Peace
 
I don’t claim any sort of doctrinal purity for either Republicans or Democrats. But the Democrats could have ensured the support of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (who have many areas of agreement with them on matters relating to the poor, and even on healthcare) if they had simply adopted the Stupak Amendment. But in the end even Stupak threw his own amendment under the bus, relying instead on useless promises from the White House. It seems, based on their party platform and past history, that being pro-choice, aka providing for abortion, is absolutely fundamental to the Democratic Party–more important even than the poor.
 
portarica said:
The point isn’t the specific Catholic issue, there are many , immigration for one, education, foreign aid for the poor, medical care, human rights etc. etc.

The point is that Republicans , while proclaiming they are pro life, frequently ignore the rest of Jesus’ teachings. And when considering their actual political achievements, many pro life republicans are pro abortion .

Peace
Click to expand...
The Democrat party is no more in line with Jesus’ teachings than is the Republican party, and less so in some.

After spending trillions of dollars, I have to ask whether the Democrats, who could have passed anything they wanted to pass, did anything for the disabled needy; the ones who are expected to be totally impoverished and then receive about $600/month from SSI? The answer is that, no, they did not. Nothing whatever.

What they did instead is impoverish an entire generation or more in order to transfer money to middle class people and to their favored Wall Streeters who are mostly Democrat supporters, contrary to propaganda and popular belief.

The most cursory reading of the Social Encyclicals makes it very clear that the Democrat party is not at all in line with them; opposed for the most part, in fact.

And so, with the Democrat party totally in bed with big business, doing nothing at all for the poorest of the poor and buying middle class votes with the wages of future generations, it is very difficult to think of it in terms of being consistent with Jesus’ teachings.

I didn’t say the Repubs are any better on social issues, though I think they are closer to what the Social Encyclicals say in some ways. And, of course, there is abortion.

I say all that as a “cradle Democrat” (I’m not a Republican) who could no longer support the party when abortion on demand and the financial support thereof became the most important thing to the Democrat party.
 
Ridgerunner said:
The Democrat party is no more in line with Jesus’ teachings than is the Republican party, and less so in some.

After spending trillions of dollars, I have to ask whether the Democrats, who could have passed anything they wanted to pass, did anything for the disabled needy; the ones who are expected to be totally impoverished and then receive about $600/month from SSI? The answer is that, no, they did not. Nothing whatever.

What they did instead is impoverish an entire generation or more in order to transfer money to middle class people and to their favored Wall Streeters who are mostly Democrat supporters, contrary to propaganda and popular belief.

The most cursory reading of the Social Encyclicals makes it very clear that the Democrat party is not at all in line with them; opposed for the most part, in fact.

And so, with the Democrat party totally in bed with big business, doing nothing at all for the poorest of the poor and buying middle class votes with the wages of future generations, it is very difficult to think of it in terms of being consistent with Jesus’ teachings.

I didn’t say the Repubs are any better on social issues, though I think they are closer to what the Social Encyclicals say in some ways. And, of course, there is abortion.

I say all that as a “cradle Democrat” (I’m not a Republican) who could no longer support the party when abortion on demand and the financial support thereof became the most important thing to the Democrat party.
Click to expand...
I agree with some of your points, most specifically about the need to separate the parties from their big business interests.

And I think that is the crux of the problem. I don’t believe that either “party” (DNC or RNC) really cares one way or another about abortion from a moral perspective, but it is critical to each from a political perspective. It benefits both that it is an issue that won’t go away.

And why won’t it go away? Because it is a line in the sand. So we have Repubs sitting on their hands and letting babies die by doing so and Dems using every word but abortion in their writing of bills.We have Dems personally against abortion but supporting “choice” and pro life Republicans refusing to stick their necks out far enough from their party handlers to get practical anti-abortion measures passed.

As for the trillion dollars spent by dems on the stimulus and tarp , tarp is pretty close to breaking even and the 100’s of thousands of jobs saved by bailing out GM and Chrysler will eventually save money. And in many instances the stimulus money was just a transfer of money from the feds to the states, the equivalents of Bush sending out rebate checks and increasing the deficit.

I will admit it was much better PR to send checks to people that to state governments, but if it was a bad idea the republicans could have refused the stimulus money for their states instead of taking credit for it after the checks arrived. While it lowered peoples state tax bills or stymied the increases that would be needed, it wasn’t handled very well by Obama.

As far as giving money to middle class people, after the beating they took over the last 20 years, isn’t it about time?

Peace
 
portarica said:
I will admit it was much better PR to send checks to people that to state governments, but if it was a bad idea the republicans could have refused the stimulus money for their states instead of taking credit for it after the checks arrived.
Click to expand...
We** did** refuse it. It was one of the few things I have ever agreed with Rick Perry on, as the the stimulus was one of many bad economic policies that have worsened our woes.
 
portarica said:
I agree with some of your points, most specifically about the need to separate the parties from their big business interests.

And I think that is the crux of the problem. I don’t believe that either “party” (DNC or RNC) really cares one way or another about abortion from a moral perspective, but it is critical to each from a political perspective. It benefits both that it is an issue that won’t go away.

And why won’t it go away? Because it is a line in the sand. So we have Repubs sitting on their hands and letting babies die by doing so and Dems using every word but abortion in their writing of bills.We have Dems personally against abortion but supporting “choice” and pro life Republicans refusing to stick their necks out far enough from their party handlers to get practical anti-abortion measures passed.

As for the trillion dollars spent by dems on the stimulus and tarp , tarp is pretty close to breaking even and the 100’s of thousands of jobs saved by bailing out GM and Chrysler will eventually save money. And in many instances the stimulus money was just a transfer of money from the feds to the states, the equivalents of Bush sending out rebate checks and increasing the deficit.

I will admit it was much better PR to send checks to people that to state governments, but if it was a bad idea the republicans could have refused the stimulus money for their states instead of taking credit for it after the checks arrived. While it lowered peoples state tax bills or stymied the increases that would be needed, it wasn’t handled very well by Obama.

As far as giving money to middle class people, after the beating they took over the last 20 years, isn’t it about time?

Peace
Click to expand...
I totally disagree that the government should be concentrating on giving money to middle class people. As the Social Encyclicals say, the first duty of government (and at the appropriate level) when it comes to social welfare is to provide a decent support for those who cannot help themselves. This, the U.S. absolutely fails to do, and none of the Obama proposals even suggested doing that. Many live in abject poverty, and nobody does anything.

For people who can help themselves, they should do exactly that, instead of calling on their neighbors to do it for them. Nowhere does the Church teach in favor of middle class welfare.

I will agree that TARP1(b) was a good idea. That was Bush’s though, not Obama’s. That’s the one (the only one) that stands any reasonable chance of being paid back.And it probably will be paid back. Fundamentally, it enabled otherwise solvent banks to take over insolvent banks. However, to the extent it rescued the “too big to fails” which were NOT solvent,(Citi, B of A, Goldman) but which were headed by friends of the Obama administration, I believe that, at minimum, they should have been shorn of their trading affiliates and reduced to banking again. They’re still creating and trading junk derivatives, you know, and with our money. They also profit from the bond trade caused by all the government debt.

GM and Chrysler would have been bought in bankruptcy by someone for the plants and equipment that were still good and the brand names and distribution networks. I have seen that happen too many times to doubt it would have happened with those companies. There was not adequate reason to give those companies to the unions, and they’ll likely fail eventually anyway.

There isn’t much the Repubs could do to stop abortion on demand. They could only impede the funding, which they did. Only the Supreme Court can reverse Roe and its progeny. Bush appointed Roberts and Alito. One more Repub appointment probably would have resulted in the overturn of Roe, but Obama was elected and appointed two pro-abortion justices. So there actually is a difference between the parties on that. The prolife Repub platform and the pro-abortion Dem platform actually do have some meaning. There is really no such thing as a prolife Democrat anymore.

I did not favor Bush’s handing out rebate checks. I didn’t think it would do any good, and it didn’t. Regardless, it was paltry in amount compared to the bogus “stimulus” welfare paid for the benefit of the public employees’ unions.

And, no, I’m not a Republican. I was born and raised Democrat and held office in the party. I could no longer support the party when abortion became its number one priority.
 
portarica said:
They took $ 22,000,000,000. and $16,800,000,000 has already been obligated.How much did they refuse? bi.cpa.state.tx.us/OpenDocument/opendoc/openDocument.jsp

I guess it was fun to complain about it , but too hard to actually refuse it.

Peace
Click to expand...
I do not know if this is true or not. It seems to be contrary to everything I have read in the news. Your link does not work.

dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/031309dntexperrystimulus.2b47185d.html
cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5166310-503544.html
examiner.com/nonpartisan-in-salt-lake-city/gov-perry-refuses-stimulus-money-for-the-unemployed
google.com/webhp?rls=ig#hl=en&rls=ig&rlz=1R2ADSA_enUS369&site=webhp&&sa=X&ei=AX_ITJa_OIL98Aavrvgo&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QBSgA&q=rick+perry+refuses+stimulus&spell=1&fp=956ab502b015b9a1

Maybe everyone is wrong but you.
 
portarica said:
They took $ 22,000,000,000. and $16,800,000,000 has already been obligated.How much did they refuse? bi.cpa.state.tx.us/OpenDocument/opendoc/openDocument.jsp

I guess it was fun to complain about it , but too hard to actually refuse it.

Peace
Click to expand...
I wonder if all those who complain about the Bush tax cuts have been refraining from taking them on their personal tax returns?. Somehow I doubt it but I guess it’s fun to complain about it but too hard to actually refuse it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top