M
Mickey
Guest
I suppose they would need super majorities in the house and senate and/or a favorable ruling from the supreme court…but with the democrats you have absolutely zero chance. They are the party of pro-abortion.
- Status
E
exnihilo
Guest
Modern wars are pretty brutal towards civilians. That has not always been so. Sometimes it has been worse. But sometimes it has been better. We have embraced the concept of Total War. The irony is the US first practiced this on its own people, the South. But war does not have to be made upon civilians.
US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright replied when asked if half a million dead Iraqi children from US sanctions was worth it said: ‘I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.’ I doubt she was or is alone in her belief.
I don’t think any US wars meet the requirement. There are many criteria for Just War. I think on all points there are significant problems. One reason I will no longer vote Republican is because of their preemptive strike platform. If the government can preemptively strike foreigners it can preemptively strike me. I might be a threat. And with their current powers they can detain me indefinitely or the president can just order me killed. That is a terrible form of government. If such power ever should be wielded it should certainly not be given to the kind of people that obtain office in the US.
I am slow to attribute bad faith. I’m not saying I know what their motives are. I think we should be wary of politicians and those involved in politics. That just seems to be common sense given the vast history of man.
Thanks. Chesterton said so many great things it is hard to choose just one.
M
Mickey
Guest
And I was responding to someone else who tried to make that anaolgy. It is usually the analogy the pro-abortion side tries to make when they are attempting to justify abortion.
M
Mickey
Guest
That saddens me. I believe such a stance would favor Obama.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Ron Paul’s attempt to pass any Sanctity of Life bill(s) had very little, if any, support from either party. Realistically many “pro-life” positions translate into pro-status-quo positions. But then so do some “pro-choice” positions.
T
Tony_the_mad
Guest
I am not certain that the cause of the American Revolution was the correct moral choice. We like to preach how morally superior we are because of our desire for freedom, but are we? We seem to be a nation that is perpetually at war with all but possibly 2 wars being morally unjust (WWII and the Civil War being exceptions, but half of us were on the unjust side in the later and in both wars the good side had many dark-grey to black moments such as the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden.)
Our complicity in slavery for so long followed by our unjust persecution of the blacks and then followed by legalized abortion makes it hard for me to believe that we are a just and caring nation. Why can’t we as a nation get rid of such evils immediately? Part of the answer is that we, as a nation, are very susceptible to a vocal minority being able to completely paralyze our government.
We like to fool ourselves into thinking all we have to do is get this person(s) elected and they will fix the problem, but it is a lie. (The vast majority of the Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans yet Roe v. Wade stands solidly.) Those of us who are aware of both how abortion (or slavery and civil rights before it) is the number one evil in our country and that it is politically impossible to make a difference are caught in a catch 22. For, the non-abortion issues are important as well and we CAN make a difference there.
T
Tony_the_mad
Guest
Your point about prudential action is well taken. Although, that distinction can be nearly as important; for example there are (or were) many pro-choice who are anti-abortion but feel that the government cannot fix it as it currently stands. So to them the prudential action is to do nothing for now.
I am unaware of any time in the US history (with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln) where one person or party was 90% ‘moral’ and the other 10% so. It most certainly is not the case today. (I put the term ‘moral’ in quotations because I an not 100% certain that the responsibility of the government is to be ‘morally’ correct at all times. There are quite a few moral issues we don’t want the government to interfere with such as marital infidelity, pre-marital sex, alcohol abuse, bad parenting, divorce and remarriage, private homosexual lifestyles, etc.)
M
MitcheleSheree
Guest
I read today that Paul Ryan was quoted as saying he was inspired by Ayr Rand. Therefore I will be voting for Obama in 2012. I am pro life but free will is free will and if another woman wants to commit murder there is only one why she will be judged.
R
rlg94086
Guest
So, you are in favor of removing murder laws, as well?
You aren’t pro-life, if you are okay with allowing people to choose to murder.
M
Mickey
Guest
As I said…we vote with our conscience. There are two viable candidates. One is pro-life…one is pro-abortion. I know who I’ll vote for.
There is no such thing as “pro-choice.” It is either pro-abortion or pro-death.
M
Mickey
Guest
How very sad.
E
eightandsand
Guest
I think you missed my point.
But I do agree with you somewhat on your points.
I agree that very few, if any, modern wars have been just. The more I study any recent modern war, the stronger that conclusion becomes for me. But, then again, that is just my opinion, which I hold as a veteran and a son of veterans. The Church has specific, stringent criteria that must be met for a so-called Just War and I think few, if any, of our modern conflicts have met those criteria. You said WWII and the Civil War were “exceptions” for you. I would beg to differ on that point. The Civil War was a total war, waged on civilian populations. In 1861, every West Point graduate was faimiliar with the rules of conduct for fighting a just war that had existed since the Middle Ages, and prohibited making war on civilians. Those rules were thrown out the window (by both sides) during the Civil War. Sherman and Sheridan were the first to cross the line. However, there were many soldiers who protested. Buell and Chamberlain (of Gettysburg) fame come to mind. Some even resigned. As to WWII, the tactics used by both sides violated the basic, fundamental principles of Just War.
As to the our modern warfare state, I will quote something Paul Craig Roberts
whacky recently said:"There is no war on terror. There is war on countries that are not Washington’s puppet states. Unaccountable Washington is currently slaughtering thousands of Muslims in a variety of countries and is preparing Syria as its next holocaust. Washington, taking advantage of the splits between Sunnis and Shi’ites and between Islamists and secular Muslims, has organized a rebellion in Syria in order to overthrow a government that is not a puppet of Washington and Israel.
Among the foreigners streaming into Syria to overthrow the secular state in which Sunni and Shia Arabs have lived peacefully, are the Islamist extremists that Washington has squandered $6 trillion fighting for 11 years. The extremists are on Washington’s side. They want the secular Syrian government overthrown, because it is not an Islamic government.
This suits Washington’s policy, so now the taxes extracted from hard-pressed Americans are flowing to the Islamists that Americans have been fighting.
Does anyone believe that Washington, determined to overthrow the Syrian government, is refusing to arm the most effective part of the fighting force that is involved? Is there anyone so naive not to know that military aid to “rebels” is fungible?
Having suffered damage to its superpower reputation by being fought to a standoff by a few thousand al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington learned that the trick was to employ al Qaeda not as an enemy but as an ally.
The test case was in Libya, where the US-al Qaeda alliance worked to overthrow the Libyan government. The advantage for Washington is that Libya is now beset by warring factions and is no longer a country that could get in Washington’s way.
Libya is the roadmap for Syria.
Syria made its mistake when it thought it could pacify Washington by taking Washington’s side in the first war against Iraq, thus confirming for Washington that Arabs are incapable of sticking together and thus are an easy mark to be overthrown.
If Syria falls, Washington will have murdered yet another nation. But this is not a part of the presidential debate. Both candidates agree that Washington should prevail in establishing a puppet state in Syria. Even Amnesty International has been suborned and lends its influence to the demonization of the Syrian government. Only the US is moral, indispensable, virtuous, humane, a light upon mankind. By definition, any opponent chosen by Washington is debauched, evil, sinful, a country that suppresses dissent and tortures its opponents, something Washington would never do, being, of course, the “light unto the world.”
As far as the domestic political situation, remember, the political process does have its limitations. The prospects for a resolution to legal abortion are steadily diminishing. The Democrat Party started the fire, but the Republican Party refuses to put it out, and is only content with containing it. Sometimes our only recourse is to prayer and fasting, which are more powerful than any political device.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
One notes that the above post suggests that I let politics become more important that treating others with Christian charity.
I did not call the gentleman any name or refer to the gentleman himself, but to the idea. As expressed, his foundational concept is that one is justified in following one’s “faith informed” conscience. That is not a Catholic concept. As your citation makes clear, one’s conscience is not formed by “faith”, but by both the inborn perception of the natural law and studied adherence to objective truth, both as observed and as taught by the Church.
It is, in fact, a charity to encourage others to correspond their views and actions to objective truth. My objective, and my only objective, was and is to encourage others to actively oppose evil rather than to sit on the sidelines and let evil have its way. In referring to “evil”, I do not mean “evil” as supposed or as subjectively perceived, but evil that is objectively verifiable and as taught by the Church.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Actually, modern wars in which the U.S. has been engaged have progressively exacted fewer civilian casualties than those previous to them. There are reasons for that, but we ought to realize that there has not been anything approaching a “total war” since WWII, that the U.S. has been engaged in.
If Madeline Albright said the sun comes up in the east, I would be tempted to look for dawn in the west. Her statement was not only heartless, it was erroneous. There were nowhere near 500,000 Iraqis who died as a result of the allied sanctions, let alone 500,000 children.
I think one can argue that the U.S. has engaged in “preemptive wars”, but I think one can argue the opposite. One can also argue that even “preemptive wars” can meet the Just War test. One can say that this war or that was or was not “just” depending on the inclusions and assumptions one makes. For example, it does not say the evil to be overcome must necessarily be prior armed aggression against the opposer itself. It could, for example, be an internal genocide that is sought to be stopped, or aggression against another country.
But I do understand that strict pacifists have a view different from my own.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Not being privy to the secrets of government, I can’t say for certain that the U.S. had no hand in causing Sunnis and Shiites in Syria to hate each other, but I think you are probably giving the government too much “credit”. Like the Sunnis in Iraq who dominated and oppressed the Shiites, the Alawite “Shiites” in Syria have long dominated and opporessed the Sunnis, or at least made them think themselves oppressed.I think you missed my point.
But I do agree with you somewhat on your points.
I agree that very few, if any, modern wars have been just. The more I study any recent modern war, the stronger that conclusion becomes for me. But, then again, that is just my opinion, which I hold as a veteran and a son of veterans. The Church has specific, stringent criteria that must be met for a so-called Just War and I think few, if any, of our modern conflicts have met those criteria. You said WWII and the Civil War were “exceptions” for you. I would beg to differ on that point. The Civil War was a total war, waged on civilian populations. In 1861, every West Point graduate was faimiliar with the rules of conduct for fighting a just war that had existed since the Middle Ages, and prohibited making war on civilians. Those rules were thrown out the window (by both sides) during the Civil War. Sherman and Sheridan were the first to cross the line. However, there were many soldiers who protested. Buell and Chamberlain (of Gettysburg) fame come to mind. Some even resigned. As to WWII, the tactics used by both sides violated the basic, fundamental principles of Just War.
As to the our modern warfare state, I will quote something Paul Craig Roberts
"There is no war on terror. There is war on countries that are not Washington’s puppet states. Unaccountable Washington is currently slaughtering thousands of Muslims in a variety of countries and is preparing Syria as its next holocaust. Washington, taking advantage of the splits between Sunnis and Shi’ites and between Islamists and secular Muslims, has organized a rebellion in Syria in order to overthrow a government that is not a puppet of Washington and Israel.
Among the foreigners streaming into Syria to overthrow the secular state in which Sunni and Shia Arabs have lived peacefully, are the Islamist extremists that Washington has squandered $6 trillion fighting for 11 years. The extremists are on Washington’s side. They want the secular Syrian government overthrown, because it is not an Islamic government.
This suits Washington’s policy, so now the taxes extracted from hard-pressed Americans are flowing to the Islamists that Americans have been fighting.
Does anyone believe that Washington, determined to overthrow the Syrian government, is refusing to arm the most effective part of the fighting force that is involved? Is there anyone so naive not to know that military aid to “rebels” is fungible?
Having suffered damage to its superpower reputation by being fought to a standoff by a few thousand al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington learned that the trick was to employ al Qaeda not as an enemy but as an ally.
The test case was in Libya, where the US-al Qaeda alliance worked to overthrow the Libyan government. The advantage for Washington is that Libya is now beset by warring factions and is no longer a country that could get in Washington’s way.
Libya is the roadmap for Syria.
Syria made its mistake when it thought it could pacify Washington by taking Washington’s side in the first war against Iraq, thus confirming for Washington that Arabs are incapable of sticking together and thus are an easy mark to be overthrown.
If Syria falls, Washington will have murdered yet another nation. But this is not a part of the presidential debate. Both candidates agree that Washington should prevail in establishing a puppet state in Syria. Even Amnesty International has been suborned and lends its influence to the demonization of the Syrian government. Only the US is moral, indispensable, virtuous, humane, a light upon mankind. By definition, any opponent chosen by Washington is debauched, evil, sinful, a country that suppresses dissent and tortures its opponents, something Washington would never do, being, of course, the “light unto the world.”
As far as the domestic political situation, remember, the political process does have its limitations. The prospects for a resolution to legal abortion are steadily diminishing. The Democrat Party started the fire, but the Republican Party refuses to put it out, and is only content with containing it. Sometimes our only recourse is to prayer and fasting, which are more powerful than any political device.
Personally, I think the world is going to see a protracted and bloody internecine struggle for power in the Middle East, and while I do think the U.S. attempted to keep a lid on it in the past, I doubt this country is now going to influence it very much.
As far as abortion is concerned, I’ll agree it’s very deeply embedded in this country; worse than almost anywhere else on earth. But one still has an obligation to do what he can do to oppose it. To me, at minimum, that means politically opposing its active proponents.
J
jediliz
Guest
read these articles from two years ago about what looks to be Obama administratiom campainging in Kenya for them to add virtually UNLIMITED ABORTIONS to their constitution
lifenews.com/2010/07/14/int-1593/
lifenews.com/2010/08/13/int-1624/
Wonder if he used OUR tax $ to do this?
Romney is the lesser of two evils.
lifenews.com/2010/07/14/int-1593/
lifenews.com/2010/08/13/int-1624/
Wonder if he used OUR tax $ to do this?
Romney is the lesser of two evils.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
The articles are loose on facts and the accusations are from one Republican congressman.
He says he has evidence, but doesn’t provide it, despite both the Administration and Embassy in Kenya, denying any tax payer money going to promote an abortion campaign there.
I wouldn’t take these stories to the bank, there are unreliable as birther stories.
Jim
M
mary_bobo
Guest
This reminds me of the Act of Contrition that we say at Mass sometimes, asking forgiveness for “what I have done and what I have failed to do”. I think this applies to abortion and gives pause to the notion of proportional wrongness. Abortion is wrong any way you slice it.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I agree. Before 1973 the abortion issue was left up to the states. Had it not been for the US Supreme Court, pro-abortion would not have been the law of the land. They acted independently of Congress on the matter, and Congress will not fix it, especially when polls show that only 20% actually want to ban all abortions.
J
jediliz
Guest
Right after Obama was inaguarated he made sure that our tax $ went to OVERSEAS ABORTIONS…by rescinding the mexico city policy, which forbids US tax money be used for overseas family planning funds, which of course INCLUDE ABORTION. That’s a HUGE REASON Not to vote for him.
- Status