Follow up question: What voting issue could possibly outweigh the murder of millions of unborn babies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jofa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  1. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor. If you shoplift, you broke the law.
  2. Refugees and Asylum seekers are those fleeing from a country that will harm/kill them, usually due to religious persecution or culling, not those seeking a better life in our great country. Mainstream Media falsehoods, again!
    We’re discussing illegal aliens, not actual asylum seekers. That’s all spin.
  3. Ditto above
 
Being forced to buy health insurance is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Assuming that would help women who don’t want their baby is flawed. It helps no one, because the government screws up almost everything it sticks its paws in.
 
jofa said:
If you only listen to mainstream media, which is 96% Left, you probably missed the fact that separating ILLEGAL immigrant children from parents was happening under Obama first.
Click to expand...
Plus the policy is to confirm that the parents are in fact their parents, and not traffickers who may be exploiting the children while pretending to be their parents.
jofa said:
Refugees and Asylum seekers are those fleeing from a country that will harm/kill them, usually due to religious persecution or culling, not those seeking a better life in our great country. Mainstream Media falsehoods, again!
Click to expand...
Yes and they are required to seek asylum in the first country they enter, not to seek asylum after crossing 3 countries where they could have sought asylum.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
When the shoe is on the other foot, Republicans have a chance to show that they too are forbidden from placing any concern above the concern for abortion. That would include such political concerns as not wanting to be forced to buy health insurance
Click to expand...
Correct, not wanting to be forced by buy insurance is a reason far below abortion in terms of priority
 
The Church includes the word “murder” 29 times in the Catechism of the Catholic Church - including specifically moral teachings, such as:

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
and:
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.”<Mk 10:19> The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
and:
2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.”<Ex 23:7> The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.
and:
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… The one is intended, the other is not.”<St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64, 7, corp. art>
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
 
The Catechism has these summary teachings here:

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 # 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.
2323 Because it should be treated as a person from conception, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed like every other human being.
 
jofa said:
And as Church teaching is that abortion is a grave sin, we as Catholics are culpable when we minimize its importance. You may never have an abortion, but your vote can enable its perpetuation.
Click to expand...
Can it? That is not something I think I believe is provable.

It is beginning to look like you might have been disingenuous when you posted here. It looks more like you are campaigning than seeing how other’s think. This is the point at which I advise other Catholics to take the post here with a grain of salt and simply read the guide for themselves to help them vote.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/index.cfm
 
Hardly “unpopular”. Where did that come from? Are all pro-life candidates “unpopular” to you?
 
As they and your next post confirm, the Catechism does not call abortion murder. This would because the Church knows murder is defined by law
 
And infanticide? Is that murder?

BTW, divine law is above Natural Law, which is above man’s law.
 
PetraG said:
I think the reason abortion is not recognized as worthy of being a number one priority issue is that making it illegal has not made the rate lower in countries that don’t permit legal abortion. If making suicide illegal or even making murder illegal isn’t enough to lower the numbers, then the problem obviously needs other solutions.
Click to expand...
murder rate would be the same if murder was legal?? I think not.
PetraG said:
That’s fine but how do we actually encourage women not to seek to end the lives of their unborn children?
Click to expand...
Wait, now women need encouragement to not murder?

Stunning to read this.
PetraG said:
We don’t just resign ourselves to the idea that heart disease is rampant
Click to expand...
Comparing contracting heart disease to deliberately murdering a child? Really?

The theme here seems to be women aren’t moral agents who are capable of doing the right thing. They need encouragement from society to do the right thing. Pretty patronizing and sexist.
 
undead_rat said:
You discount the possibility of a global nuclear war, and this might be correct except for the fact that this disaster is predicted by the OT prophets. It seems that the earth will experience three rounds of nuclear exchanges which, were it not for the intervention of the Almighty, would result in the extinction of the human race.
Click to expand...
That’s one possibility. We don’t know that is going to be how the prophesies are fulfilled. Prophesies have this way of being fulfilled in ways that people don’t expect.
jofa said:
The KKK has always been Democrat.
Click to expand...
No. In the 1920s, it was almost exclusively Republican in the Midwest and in places like Maine and Colorado whereas it was filled with Democrats in the South and in Oregon.

After 1915, actually, I suspect the KKK was whatever the local Catholics weren’t. It was virulently anti-Catholic.
 
Aquinas11 said:
Wait, now women need encouragement to not murder?

Stunning to read this.
Click to expand...
Well, since they don’t see it as murder, yes.
Aquinas11 said:
Comparing contracting heart disease to deliberately murdering a child? Really?

The theme here seems to be women aren’t moral agents who are capable of doing the right thing. They need encouragement from society to do the right thing. Pretty patronizing and sexist.
Click to expand...
Do you think heart patients and suicide victims are “moral agents capable of doing the right thing”?

Teaching moral law, which necessary, is not and never has been sufficient to produce a moral society. That is all I am saying. I am not saying that abortion is a morally neutral personal choice any more than you are saying that overconsumption of the kind that brings on or exacerbates incapacitation and deadly chronic diseases is a morally neutral choice. I’m not saying they’re the same thing, either. I am only saying that whether you want to save lives that would be lost to suicide or abortion or yes, even murder, just passing laws is insufficient to do it. You have to think about why people are tempted to believe the lies that make them think any of this is OK.

What I’m saying with regards to heart disease, actually, is that people are aware of how many lives are lost to heart disease. I don’t think people could tell you that abortions outnumber heart attack deaths by a 4:3 margin. That is a stunning number, in my opinion, particularly if someone is trying to rationalize that the problem doesn’t deserve a high priority as a national crisis.

I don’t know if you caught the post where I posted this, but I’ll say it again: Worldwide, the rate of abortions may respresent as many as twice the losses of the Black Death every year. The problem is even worse in developing countries than it is here. The numbers are staggering.
 
Last edited:
Yet the point of this post was to point out that that very voting guide is no guide at all!

It’s equivalent to telling Catholics to “follow their heart”. But if, as one post pointed out, you have a poorly formed conscience, as so many do nowadays, your conscience is deceitful.

So, again, what can we do about the USCCB’s lack of guidance?

And you never answered my question(s?)
 
jofa said:
Yet the point of this post was to point out that that very voting guide is no guide at all!
Click to expand...
Okay. I will simply disagree. It does a lot more that say follow your heart. It is about forming conscience and the need to follow conscience which, like abortion, is also Catholic doctrine. I see no lack of guidance. I see one who did not like what the Church is teaching, something all too common in the United States. I answered you question above in post 98.

I reject this new premise though, where you have elevated you opinion on what constitutes guidance.
 
Last edited:
Don’t you remember LBJ (and this is actually documented in the national archives despite what Dems claim), “We’ll have those nig_ _ _ _ . . . voting Democrat for the next sixty years!”
See, he was typical of the Dem party up to that point, and I have yet to see proof that much has changed.
Some . . . Democrats still focus on skin color. They call everyone who disagrees with them racist so often that the very word has been rendered almost meaningless. Some Democrats . . . are bullies. They are literally violently attacking Conservatives in the street!
And don’t pretend those aren’t Dems doing it when they only attack MAGAs and ProLifers…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top