Do Catholics still support Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter MamasBoy33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stop with the games. I’m not talking to someone who supports Russia’s mass poverty. Go away
 
I studied economics.

Statistics don’t tell the truth of the matter.
 
Poverty as measured by the U.N.'s economists is not a good indicator of a nation’s health.

Neither is GDP a good measure of a nation’s health.
 
I’m pro-life but I’d like to make an observation. With so many fertility treatments available fewer couples choose to adopt. So instead of finding a loving family, adoptable children are cast into the foster-parenting system. Because so many “pro-life” politicians, like our dear Mr. Trump, would vastly prefer to take money away from social programs rather than our bloated military, these programs are usually vastly overcrowded and underfunded. So these children wind up never having a stable home and often having emotional problems because of it.

But that’s only if they’re lucky. If they’re not they may be abused to death by a monster using the system for easy money because a social worker was too exhausted and overworked to properly vet prospective foster parents.

Forgive me for being so harsh, but at least an aborted baby can’t feel pain when it’s being tortured to death.
 
Last edited:
So you’re saying you think it’s okay for innocent children to live in hellish situations?
 
TheAmazingGrace said:
Abortion is not that simple.
Click to expand...
Yes, actually, it is that simple. It is taking the life of another innocent human person. It is morally clear that killing another innocent human being for whatever motive or under whatever circumstances is morally wrong.

It might be true that the guilt of the one who commits a killing might be mitigated by their emotional state or the circumstances, but neither of those make the act right. This applies to the killing of any human being no matter what age when the perpetrator is under some severe duress or in an emotional corner.
You’re asking a woman to either: 1) take on parenthood, which some are incapable of doing for a myriad of reasons, or 2) have them give the baby up for adoption, a decision which is incredibly painful, and has to be approved by the baby’s father. Stigma also comes into play.
Click to expand...
Sorry to burst your bubble but many individuals who commit wrong acts or have the moral courage not to commit those acts, bear burdens that are equally difficult to carry. Start by excusing one wrong act and you may as well excuse all of them and, thereby, remove all moral responsibility and culpability.

I have no doubt that that is precisely the modern liberal agenda – to continually erode the sense of moral responsibility, which we all ought to carry, by normalizing morally questionable acts and a lax set of standards which these “progressives” feel they ought to be free to commit or follow as they will.
Oftentimes, the people who are most vocally anti-abortion are the ones who visit the most shame on single mothers.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no. This is a typical liberal talking point which attempts to guilt or shame those who think otherwise into changing their moral position. Another plank in the progressive strategy to erode moral standards. Unfortunately, it has been an effective one.

A far stronger case could be made that those who support or aid women in having abortions, and then abandon them to deal alone with their ongoing guilt and trauma after they have had their abortion, inflict far more suffering on women than those who advise against abortions.
 
Last edited:
billsannie said:
Mr. Trump, would vastly prefer to take money away from social programs rather than our bloated military
Click to expand...
The Church never condemns politicians for spending less or more on social programs because the individual and Catholic society should step up with private organizations. The Church has always been wary of giving governments too much power or money.

The military and national security is the one thing individuals and Catholic charities can’t do, and our military is frightfully outdated and in need of strengthening. If we did go to war, we might not be able to protect ourselves and allies with some of the old equipment we have.
 
Last edited:
How do you define “hellish”.

I think strict prioritization of cases is the answer. Work from high to low (with the bar being raised on the low cases, so that there are fewer cases).
 
billsannie said:
So you’re saying you think it’s okay for innocent children to live in hellish situations?
Click to expand...
Are you saying it would be okay to kill innocent children who live in hellish situations in order to release them from those situations?
 
HarryStotle said:
Yeah, no. This is a typical liberal talking point which attempts to guilt or shame those who think otherwise into changing their moral position. Another plank in the progressive strategy to erode moral standards. Unfortunately, it has been an effective one.
Click to expand...
It’s not a liberal talking point. It’s something I’ve seen in my own life from “good Catholics.”

I never said abortion was right. The culture is not going to change overnight, and Trump won’t be the one to change it.
 
There is a parable about what you are discussing. It answers the question of “should everyone share in everything equally”. THe answer Jesus gave is : “No”.
 
Bon_Croix said:
There is a parable about what you are discussing. It answers the question of “should everyone share in everything equally”. THe answer Jesus gave is : “No”.
Click to expand...
It’s not about equal sharing. It’s about making sure that disadvantaged people have access to basic requirements for living.
 
I really wish you would stop acting like your ridiculous, callous, unknowing view on pretty much everything you’ve said here is coming from a Christian stance. No, you’re just trying to justify cruelty. Not doing a very good job, either.
 
Your definition of cruelty includes poverty?

So, everyone should be rich according to you?
 
Bon_Croix said:
So, everyone should be rich according to you?
Click to expand...
Nobody should have to wonder where their next meal is coming from, or die because they couldn’t afford necessary medical treatments. Especially not in the so-called “greatest country in the world.”
 
Last edited:
Why would a Christian argue against that? I have no argument against that.
 
You’re not getting it and I have a feeling you never will. I’m curious as to how much personal experience you’ve had with poverty, social work (which you said should have spending cuts), etc. Your views are so disconnected from reality I can’t imagine you know anything about it other than from a book.
 
I don’t agree with that statement.

Sufficient for a day is its own evil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top