G
GKMotley
Guest
UK does, yep.
Follow up question: What voting issue could possibly outweigh the murder of millions of unborn babies?
- Status
G
GKMotley
Guest
J. Robert Oppenheimer was the speaker.
“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
“We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita ; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” I suppose we all thought that, one way or another”.
He was being interviewed on an NBC television program in 1965.
“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
“We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita ; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” I suppose we all thought that, one way or another”.
He was being interviewed on an NBC television program in 1965.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Yep.
“The blessed one [Krishna] said: I am the full-grown [or mighty] world-destroying Time [or Death], now engaged in destroying the worlds”).
“The blessed one [Krishna] said: I am the full-grown [or mighty] world-destroying Time [or Death], now engaged in destroying the worlds”).
V
Victoria33
Guest
Yes it is. Do you have a resource? Or just a 6 word sentence?
Yes it is. And you seem to be the one that defends Democrats who are now in some cases, standing up for infanticide. We’ve had enough of infanticide proponents like Buttigieg and Obama. Your statement is just a statement in denial of the truth.
If you can negate the above, please post it.
Last edited:
M
MamaJewel
Guest
May I ask, on what grounds?
What? Huh? How and where does the government screw up almost everything it sticks its paws in?
Are you in the US?
Imho, it’s the crappy, greedy folks who want what they want, without care for the dignity of others that screw up almost everything.
The govt often steps in where “we the people” have stepped out from taking ownership of our behaviors and actions.
Under Obama, immigrant children were being dropped off by the busloads and dumped into major cities without any resources for their personal safety. If that isn’t trafficked, I don’t know what is.
I find this wording odd since there is no prescription for the formal baptism or an embryo of fetus within its developmental environment. I wouldn’t even know where to begin with baptism for these early stage humans.
Certainly if they have the rights to medical care, they have the rights to spiritual care, even more so because the journey from zygote to neonate is an arduous one that frequently results in death in almost half of all pregnancies. Maybe extreme unction would be the more preferable sacrament because of the risk of death.
Of course it isn’t. Abortion wasn’t illegal when the Constitution was written.
However, the Constitution does specifically address the census issue, an it appears there were no specific nor implied provisions for counting an embryo or fetus to determine the population in a district. But, then again, just because I haven’t found proof of the unborn being counted doesn’t mean that a pregnancy wasn’t counted in the census. But it looks like a fetus wasn’t given consideration of being a person or even 3/5th of one.
If abortion had been an issue, the founding fathers would have addressed it. That said, I do believe that the 9th amendment could be argued to grant an embryo or fetus Constitutional human rights.
9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am glad you posted that. Can people please stop dismissing third party voters?
V
Victoria33
Guest
My understanding though, is some of this is about barring immigrant arrivals from getting public assistance. Guess what? That wasn’t around 100 years ago.
I’m all for helping refugees. I don’t think it is helpful if there is just a transference of their problems are just transferred from one country to another.
I’m just going to add this on up here, since this forum says things sometimes like "you’ve posted 20% here, give others the chance to speak.
You were the one who said “Imagine if this policy was in place 100 years ago”, my mere point was not a rationalization but a statement of fact, that 100 years ago, there was also not public assistance and this bill seems to address that as well.
So, this was not a rationalization, this is what the news reports refer too.
I already stated, I am all for helping refugees. But just transferring their problems from one country to another isn’t that helpful.
I can very easily answer your questions.jan10000 said:
Is it Christian or Catholicism, if immigrants bring in illegal contraband?
Is it Christian or Catholicism if we have an open door to immigrants and they are exploited by criminal organizations in Northern Mexico, a no-man’s land?
We can see this is a clear NO.
I can go on enumerating points, I think that open-borders is actually more of an evil, possibly much more so than having a secured border. The system needs to be overhauled. Within reason, I am for helping out refugees.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
This is a good example of something that does contradict Catholic moral teaching, by the way. The option for the poor has been turned into the option against the poor in immigration law, making it immoral, at least from the standard of Catholic doctrine. So, while voting for Trump on the basis of abortion is most understandable, Catholics should really not defend him when he directly contradicts Catholic doctrine.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You didn’t cite a source for your quote.
Even still, your quote only says something about what a Catholic may do and nothing about what a Catholic must do.
Even still, your quote only says something about what a Catholic may do and nothing about what a Catholic must do.
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
There, there is a source.
If supporting proponents of infanticide like Obama or Buttigieg is one’s idea of a viable candidate, I can not change that. But I hope people own up to it. Again:
Might, Must, May, frame it your way. If you want to support infanticide, that’s your decision. I don’t see how that is Catholic.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Have the abortion numbers gone down because of those things?
But actually, this is not the question because the proposition spoke about the millions, and clearly Trump has done nothing that addresses that scope of the issue. So my vote is not cast for the savior of millions either way.
But actually, this is not the question because the proposition spoke about the millions, and clearly Trump has done nothing that addresses that scope of the issue. So my vote is not cast for the savior of millions either way.
V
Victoria33
Guest
Likewise, if one is supporting open-borders and that de facto, means supporting the great hardships immigrants go through including being massacred, that needs to be called too and saying, those viewpoints are just as evil if not more so.
I’m not going to have a “cartel friendly” view of the border that helps the worse of criminals rake in $6 billion dollars a year. So, a Cartel friendly policy to human smuggling, is much worse than Trump’s views in my view.
It’s time that open-borders people or whatever is the proper term, for all of their rhetoric also take responsibility for the horrors that happen in Northern Mexico,
Cartels enlisting immigrants to be soldiers in a Cartel? Gee, thanks a lot.
This is a usual ploy by open-borders people, “Oh, they are poor and just looking for work”, wrong, women are raped, immigrants are severely abused. Fix the Mexican system if one is so concerned.
Your outlook in reality, without the kind of verbiage above, could actually be much more immoral than Trump’s, drugs come through and everything.
It’s time to end the faux morality because believe me, those arguing such, don’t have it.
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
Well the horrors in Mexico and the number of immigrants have more to do with its history and the fact that NAFTA destroyed Mexican agriculture. But your post has many valid points.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
No, no, no…might, must and may are three entirely different things! You are implying a “must” when you say things like “I don’t see how that is Catholic.” That leaves no room whatsoever for “might” or “may.” You are adding something in that is taught in an interpretation that is only proposed as “would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted.” Even EWTN is clearly avoiding saying “must.”
V
Victoria33
Guest
Now, falsehoods are being spread, I don’t see where I said “must”. So, this is a deprecable way to characterize my words. I did not say “must”, I said “That’s what the Church teaches”, so please, do not argue things that one did not say.
But again, I doubt if the Catholic church says vote for de facto infanticide, if you want.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Maybe we need a less “cartel friendly” black market for drugs in the US.
Madam, when you write:
it implies that people who don’t agree with you aren’t really Catholic or those who don’t vote your way are supporting infanticide even though the question is whether to vote for a fully-acceptable candidate you don’t think is popular enough to win.
Please stop characterizing people who are merely discussing possibilities that are all within Church teaching as not being Catholic because they don’t support the side if the question that you do. . . .
Last edited:
S
Shasta-Rose
Guest
Thank you, Petra. This is the most well thought out and rational post I’ve seen on this topic.
P
PetraG
Guest
Let me clarify: I do not think it is good for the perception of citizens concerning the moral reality of what abortion is to make it legal. It should not be legal. It should not be “OK sometimes, if…” We wouldn’t make infanticide OK sometimes if……[fill in the blank]. Maybe we wouldn’t throw everyone whose actions killed a child into prison, but we would still avoid even the slightest indication that it is not an offense. Maybe an offense for which the perpetrator might not always be held culpable, but yet still we keep the recognition that it is a serious offense.
I am only saying that other countries have found that simply making the procedure illegal when there is a widespread sentiment that it is OK and when other pressures that lead to abortion are not addressed can lead to abortion rates even higher than we have.
We currently have law enforcement efforts to stop prostitution that have moved from incarcerating prostitutes to looking for ways to get prostitutes out of prostitution. It works better, it recognizes the situation that puts some women into prostitution against their will and certainly leaves them there against their will. That needs to be the direction we are going; very roughly speaking (because the two are clearly different matters) it is a more “Rachel’s Vineyard” approach to ending prostitution.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
edit - I did not notice that you switched topics on me from discrimination against the poor to open- borders, not that I buy into any of the unsubstantiated talking points you gave.
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
No, it doesn’t. The original poster who said :“must” was not me, therefore, that was a falsehood to use a polite word. Following your advice, the conversation can not even be had. All I said was that is not what the Catechism says.
If the Catechism says we can support infanticide and abortion, please kindly, bring it on. I want to see a source.
Last edited:
- Status