D
- Status
D
dvdjs
Guest
And another thing to remember is that most have not.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Argumentum ad populum
D
dvdjs
Guest
You really should consider brushing up on your understanding of logical fallacies.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Undoubtedly. Now, what’s the percentage compared to non-adulterous relationships? I’m guessing it depends on what we mean by “adulterous”. Sure are a lot of unmarried people living together nowadays.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Virtually all of them vote for candidates NARAL endorses as being pro-abortion.
D
dvdjs
Guest
NARAL makes no such endorsements. And their focus on a single issue is only one aspect of a candidate’s profile - at least to most voters.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
It is a simple thing to know what Democrats stand for: all one has to do is read their own explanation.
…every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion … We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers… We will continue to oppose — and seek to overturn — federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment. (2016 Democratic Party Platform)
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Of course NARAL is focused on one issue…abortion. It’s their business. And they rate the candidates that support abortion. Almost all are Democrats and almost all democrats get high “pro choice” ratings from NARAL.
Why does NARAL do it? In order to inform pro-abortion voters who supports their own desired policy on abortion. In other words, to tell the abortion supporters who to vote for. That, then, would almost totally be Democrat politicians.
National Right to Life, on the other hand, rates politicians. Virtually all who have high prolife ratings are Repubs, and almost all Repubs do. Almost none are Dems. NRL’s purpose is the same as NARAL’s; to let voters know who supports their own views of abortion.
H
HCTC
Guest
I am sadden about the bad bargain that the Church made by subjecting the sanctity of life to the political process so that now we are at each other’s throats discussing political party platforms instead of ways that we can help mothers choose life because it is the right thing to do and because we are there to do the right thing by helping with the care of a new life.
Proverbs 1:28-33
28 Then they will call me, but I shall not answer, they will look eagerly for me and will not find me.
29 They have hated knowledge, they have not chosen the fear of Yahweh,
30 they have taken no notice of my advice, they have spurned all my warnings:
31 so they will have to eat the fruits of their own ways of life, and choke themselves with their own scheming.
32 For the errors of the simple lead to their death, the complacency of fools works their own ruin;
33 but whoever listens to me may live secure, will have quiet, fearing no mischance.’
And in popular music (lyrics by Tracy Chapman)
Don’t be tempted by the shiny apple
Don’t you eat of a bitter fruit
Hunger only for a taste of justice
Hunger only for a world of truth
'Cause all that you have is your soul
Oh my mama told me
'Cause she say she learned the hard way
Say she want to spare the children
She say don’t give or sell your soul away
'Cause all that you have is your soul
All that you have
All that you have
All that you have
Is your soul
T
Theo520
Guest
Unless there is another leak of emails, we won’t know why the DNC refused to initially provide him with support.
Sticking to the facts, we know there was some negative press on the issue, and the DNC responded by providing support.
The squeaky wheel
Sticking to the facts, we know there was some negative press on the issue, and the DNC responded by providing support.
The squeaky wheel
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
I don’t follow this. Abortion is one of the very few political issues where the comments by the clergy are appropriate, because it is one of the very few issues that contrasts a moral choice with an immoral one.
If a group supports acts that are gravely immoral, is that not something the clergy should speak out on? As far as “doing the right thing”, that is a judgment about which people may reasonably disagree. You may endorse one approach and condemn another as harmful, and it may in fact be so, but that doesn’t make it immoral. It makes it a mistake, and the clergy has no mandate (or ability) to determine what is or is not a political miscalculation.
If there is a moral choice involved, the clergy should be involved, but if there is only a prudential choice, then they should rarely involve themselves.
R
Raxus
Guest
No. The Church encourages us to follow our conscience, provided that conscience is formed correctly.
I don’t care if the Democrats promised every homeless person in the world a solid gold house and all the caviar they can eat, we don’t endorse murder.
We don’t endorse murder. And the Democrats do. Not a hard decision for anyone who opposes murder.
A
Annie
Guest
The Church did put abortion into politics, advocates for legalization of abortion did. Catholics and others opposed to the legality of killing unborn children are merely responding to what was done by others.
Look at what the advocates of legal abortion have voted against: taking minors across state lines without parental permission to get an abortion, taking minors in for abortions without parental notification, any restriction of when a woman can get an abortion, requirements that babies who survive abortion be appropriately cared for…
I mean, seriously? This is absolutely sickening that we allow this. Consider the sex grooming gangs in England:: they wpuld not have been able to carry on for so long without being able to hide the evidence of their crimes through abortion. And there have been a few cases in the US which have come to light.
Look at what the advocates of legal abortion have voted against: taking minors across state lines without parental permission to get an abortion, taking minors in for abortions without parental notification, any restriction of when a woman can get an abortion, requirements that babies who survive abortion be appropriately cared for…
I mean, seriously? This is absolutely sickening that we allow this. Consider the sex grooming gangs in England:: they wpuld not have been able to carry on for so long without being able to hide the evidence of their crimes through abortion. And there have been a few cases in the US which have come to light.
J
JimG
Guest
It wasn’t the Church that politicized abortion. There was a time when Sen. Ted Kennedy was anti-abortion. That changed, and he needed to find a way to be able to support abortion after Roe v Wade. He solicited the help of some priests—I think Fr. Drinan may have been one—to help him draft a “personally opposed but…” policy. That was the beginning of the Dem rejection of the pro-life voter, and the beginning of Catholic disaffection with the party.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Actually Cicero did a long time before Christ.
H
HCTC
Guest
I want to thank you for the form and tone of your post.
The bargain was that in exchange for Catholic votes the Republican Party would oppose abortion availability and there would be no need for the GOP to support any other ethical policies either small or large - for example the school lunch program for the needy or the protection of the environment.
While it might seem like a good bargain for the Church, I think it has proven not to be so for a number of reasons:
Most importantly to me is that now the emphasis is on if women should or should not have rights rather than on the responsibility of the faithful to honor the sanctity of life in our individual lives at birth and beyond because that is the right thing to do.
It has sown discord within the Catholic community because some of us believe that Catholic women should not be aborting unborn children because it is a sin (regardless of the medical procedure’s availability); and we are unwilling to give up our other ethical concerns that we need the government to address.
The clergy should speak out in support of life, but it’s the bargain that I find objectionable. Politics cheapens just about everything because it involves trade-offs. This for that. I think it is inappropriate to engage in those trade- offs and make political bargains when it comes to our religion.
Last edited:
I
Imdaman
Guest
That does not say a lot about the moral character of these Catholics. They should feel ashamed of there party for voting down legislation that would stop late term abortion. Democrats believe in the freedom of people to literally tear apart a child, that can technically survive outside of the womb, limb from limb. Drop the pieces into a bed pan then count them to make sure all the pieces are there. Then these maniacal killers sell the body parts to their friends for what ever nefarious purpose they have.Imdaman:
And the majority of Catholics.
Yes I can see why you are such a defender of your party, you must be so proud!
T
Theo520
Guest
That’s a nice story you weave, but it’s has the holes of a fishing net.
State and local Govt should fund those school lunch programs, it’s called subsidiarity and they are directly responsible for the welfare of their citizens. It’s not anti Catholic for the GOP not to fund it from the fed budget.
State and local Govt should fund those school lunch programs, it’s called subsidiarity and they are directly responsible for the welfare of their citizens. It’s not anti Catholic for the GOP not to fund it from the fed budget.
E
Ender
Guest
Thank you, but it’s really not that difficult to disagree with someone without being snotty about it.
First, this denigrates Republicans by asserting they really don’t oppose abortion, but are willing to appear to do so in exchange for votes. You cannot know this. It is a rash and uncharitable judgment for which there is little evidence. Every single bill, both state and federal, that has been proposed to limit abortion in any way has been offered by a Republican and opposed en masse by the Democrats. If Republicans are just making a show of opposition it seems indistinguishable from what they would do if they “really” opposed it.
Second, I reject the trade-off you perceive. I was very careful in my previous post to distinguish moral political issues from prudential ones. “Protection of the environment” is one of the latter, where the trade-off between what is necessary and what is overkill is a judgment. This does not involve a moral choice. It is purely a political, prudential preference.
The discord some Catholics see is because they are faced with the choice of electing a candidate who supports what is immoral as a trade off for his support for prudential policies they mistakenly see as moral. Abortion is a moral question. Choosing the best environmental policy is not. It is a very valid concern, it is just not a moral one.
- Status