Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi, Dan Daly,

If you are criticizing, “…the pro-life movement…” for staying focused - they have not concentrated on other eivils - just the biggest one - then are you aware that there are other groups that oppose divorce, contraception and ponography? Admittedly most of these groups are in Catholic organizations, and they do not get the publicity that the pro-life movement does but this is hardly a reason to criticize a group to being obviously true to their name. There are however other groups that are quite deceptive in how they have packaged themselves.

From what I recall, since the 1973 Roe decision, there have been various groups focused in a multitude of ways to overturn this murderous decision. The pro-life movement as it appears today did not look anything like those marches on Washington immediately after the decision and for the years after.

In my opinion the political activists you are complaining about are the direct result of interacting with the reality of politics and of organizing to make an effective voice. Of course there are Catholic evangelists who oppose abortion - but, as far as I have seen, they do not get the press coverage of other groups.

Now, if you want to criticize a group for giving a misleading name for themselvs, how about, “Catholics for Choice”? While I am sure that they may think they are ‘catholic’ but the issue is that one can not promote abortion without the risk of excommunication.

God bless
Dan_Daly said:
An excellent point.

The decision of most in the pro-life movement to focus exclusively on abortion and ignore things like divorce, contraception, and pornography has been incredibly damaging to any prospects for success. In addition, the decision to largely operate as secular political activists instead of Catholic evangelists has also been a big problem.

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
 
Hi, Dan Daly,

I think you have several valid concerns. I also think that, to continue on with your analogy, this ‘ship of state’ of ours has taken on too much water.

Of course, if we were not a society totally focused on sex in every aspect of the culture we most probably would not have divorce, contraception or abortion in the country. But, maybe that is the same as saying if the Costa Concordia had a better Captain, it would never have run aground and killed those people.

Like the Concordia, we have taken on a lot of water and we could very well be stuck on some reef. As I see it, the ‘passengers’ of this ship have divided themselves into several groups. There are the ones who are bailing water via pro-life activities, those who refuse to bail water because it is of no use until the ship is repaired and still another group that is actively working to make the holes larger! In real life, the Concordia was not faced with such a set of contradictory groups - everyone saw their common interest in surviving and they were focused on leaving the ship - right behind the Captain!!! :eek: We really can not abandon our ‘ship’ - like Peter in another context, “Where would we go?” The whole world is drowning in this culture of sex and instant gratification.

My view is that by doing what we can to promote life by focusing on voting out of Office our current ‘Abortionist-in-Cheif’ we will have acheived some space to possibly begin to repair some of these societal ‘holes’ we have identified. But, for now, we continue to bail because the water is still coming in.

God bless
Dan_Daly said:
An excellent point.

The decision of most in the pro-life movement to focus exclusively on abortion and ignore things like divorce, contraception, and pornography has been incredibly damaging to any prospects for success. In addition, the decision to largely operate as secular political activists instead of Catholic evangelists has also been a big problem.

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
 
tqualey said:
Hi, Dan Daly,

I think you have several valid concerns. I also think that, to continue on with your analogy, this ‘ship of state’ of ours has taken on too much water.

Of course, if we were not a society totally focused on sex in every aspect of the culture we most probably would not have divorce, contraception or abortion in the country. But, maybe that is the same as saying if the Costa Concordia had a better Captain, it would never have run aground and killed those people.

Like the Concordia, we have taken on a lot of water and we could very well be stuck on some reef. As I see it, the ‘passengers’ of this ship have divided themselves into several groups. There are the ones who are bailing water via pro-life activities, those who refuse to bail water because it is of no use until the ship is repaired and still another group that is actively working to make the holes larger! In real life, the Concordia was not faced with such a set of contradictory groups - everyone saw their common interest in surviving and they were focused on leaving the ship - right behind the Captain!!! :eek: We really can not abandon our ‘ship’ - like Peter in another context, “Where would we go?” The whole world is drowning in this culture of sex and instant gratification.

My view is that by doing what we can to promote life by focusing on voting out of Office our current ‘Abortionist-in-Cheif’ we will have acheived some space to possibly begin to repair some of these societal ‘holes’ we have identified. But, for now, we continue to bail because the water is still coming in.

God bless
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
This discussion of Justice Scalia’s constitutional opinion’s seems to me to be a side track. He’s a constitutional lawyer, not a theologian. In his view, abortion is neither permitted nor prohibited by the constitution. I think he’s right. So the Court was wrong to put in a permission for it that was not there.

The science of embryology has outpaced the constitution. The point is, Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned. Scalia agrees with that.

And Obama is STILL the most radically pro-abortion president in history. Why does a radical pro-abortion president deserve re-election?
 
Hi, JimG,

Yes, it is a side track. An interesting one, I must admit - but, still a side track.

When it comes to where our President - I have been marveling at his focused dedication - yeah - single-minded dedication to promoting abortion. Now, if butchery isn’t bad enough, I would have thought he would have tried to avoid a group under Federal investigation for Medicaid fraud like Planned Parenthood.

With the PP group looking to donate $10 million to Obama’s campaign… I think he has found a a steady supplly of cash.

God bless
JimG said:
This discussion of Justice Scalia’s constitutional opinion’s seems to me to be a side track. He’s a constitutional lawyer, not a theologian. In his view, abortion is neither permitted nor prohibited by the constitution. I think he’s right. So the Court was wrong to put in a permission for it that was not there.

The science of embryology has outpaced the constitution. The point is, Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned. Scalia agrees with that.

And Obama is STILL the most radically pro-abortion president in history. Why does a radical pro-abortion president deserve re-election?
Click to expand...
 
JimG said:
What proportionate reasons are there to offset 55 million dead unborn babies?
Click to expand...
I am not an expert on politics so this is just my honest opinion. Why would it be fair to put all the responsibility of the 55 million dead unborn babies to our current president because of his political stance as a pro choice? But if that is your take on the issue, then, would it be correct to say that the 101 million babies that were born since 1973 should be given credit to Obama since he supports the mothers’ rights to choose to conceive those babies? Didn’t we have other presidents since 1973 who were conservatives but yet abortion continued to be practiced? Do you think abortion would be become illegal and would cease to be practiced if a conservative once again takes the oval office? 🤷
 
pnewton said:
I never cared for the term “pro-life.” Everyone is pro-life in some way in that no one wants everyone dead. Likewise, “pro-choice” is ridiculous because everyone believes in choice in some areas, limits in others.

Obama is pro-abortion.
Click to expand...
Hi Michael!

Obama supports a woman’s rights to choose to either have an abortion or to conceive. The only time a person is really pro abortion is when he/she tells or encourages a pregnant woman to have an abortion.

je333
 
je333 said:
Hi Michael!

Obama supports a woman’s rights to choose to either have an abortion or to conceive. The only time a person is really pro abortion is when he/she tells or encourages a pregnant woman to have an abortion.

je333
Click to expand...
He supported infanticide (denying babies that survive abortion attempts medical care) and he called partial birth abortion a legitimate medical procedure.
 
je333 said:
I am not an expert on politics so this is just my honest opinion. Why would it be fair to put all the responsibility of the 55 million dead unborn babies to our current president because of his political stance as a pro choice? But if that is your take on the issue, then, would it be correct to say that the 101 million babies that were born since 1973 should be given credit to Obama since he supports the mothers’ rights to choose to conceive those babies? Didn’t we have other presidents since 1973 who were conservatives but yet abortion continued to be practiced? Do you think abortion would be become illegal and would cease to be practiced if a conservative once again takes the oval office? 🤷
Click to expand...
Obama has not been in office since 1973, so no I don’t blame him for the totality of abortions since then. There are 1.2 million abortions each year, and Obama as well as his party platform supports abortion rights without restriction. He supports taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, the biggerst abortion provider in the nation. He reversed pro-life polices of the previous president such as the Mexico City policy.

Supporting mothers rights to “choose to conceive” babies is not an issue. What is at issue is supporting the right to kill them.
 
tqualey said:
Hi, Je333,

You know, those annoying people who will not drop the fact that State Senator Obama favored infanticide - are at it again! Imagine!! I guess surviving an abortion sometimes just isn’t goodd enough - there is someone out there who really does want to take someone’s life - and just because they missed the first time does not mean they can not have another try.

And for those Catholics who consider Obama a worthy Candidate - maybe here is your chance to see another side of the ‘Abrotionist-in-Chief’.
Click to expand...
It’s your opinion, attitude and your choice of words. You are entitled to it. I don’t believe in these kinds of extreme political ads. Why would any person like Barack Obama or in the medical field would kill a surviving infant as you are trying to imply.

If I were to vote for Obama it is because he supports the woman’s rights to choose to conceive(pro life), for healthcare, education, environmental concerns, immigration, and numerous social issues and yes, the protection of religious freedom! But what matters to me the most is the question of their religious beliefs on the divinity of Jesus Christ within the bounds of Christian beliefs. That to me is my greatest concern.
 
Je333

A nurse turned pro life activist named Jill Stanek is the one that brought the message to the public that babies were surviving abortion and being left to die. The baby she witnessed being left to die was guility of ONE THING: DOWNS SYNDROME. That’s why the baby was ABORTED…a DISABILITY! She held this tiny little baby until he died so he wouldn’t have to die alone in a utility closet!

There are babies that DO survive what is called an “induced labor” abortion…but because the END RESULT was meant to be DEATH, they are NOT given any medical care whatsoever…sometimes they might be lucky to receive comfort care(perhaps a warm blanket)…but nothing else.

We have a medicare and social security crisis…and we are missing at least 25 MILLION workers (of ~55 Million aborted since 1973) that could be paying into the system…but aren’t here due to being ABORTED.

Barack Obama is in the good graces of the BIGGEST ABORTION PROVIDER in the UNITED STATES: Planned Parenthood…and refuses to let them LOSE ANY TAX $!

His administration has attacked the Catholic church, starting with his HHS secretary pushing this Mandate that basically says Catholic run charities aren’t Religious enough because they serve people of ALL FAITHS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top