Mike Huckabee: Abortion Most Important Political Issue

[irishpatrick]

Financially helping a nation is helping the government of that nation, and if we decide not to help it any more, we can stop financial aid. We have provided foreign aid to some really bad actors in the past as well as to the more deserving.

But, as for helping the populace being suppressed or slaughtered - what did we do when Saddam gassed his citizens or what did we do about Cambodia?

Even conservatives didn’t suggest that we go to war in Cambodia to stop the slaughters then, and we didn’t go to war with Iraq over the killing of its citizens.

The question is not what did we do; rather, the question should be: what should we do and what should we have done?

Put it more simply: Would Christ have us clothe and feed the needy? Would he have us help innocents being slaughtered if there is anything we can do to help?

Have we, as a nation, fallen short? Yes, we sure have.

Does that mean from now on we should ignore all need throughout the world? NO!

If you think it is good to help the poor and needy, then logic dictates you must also choose to help those innocents being slaughtered as innocents. If not, you are a hypocrite.

 

[irishpatrick]

Financially helping a nation is helping the government of that nation, and if we decide not to help it any more, we can stop financial aid. We have provided foreign aid to some really bad actors in the past as well as to the more deserving.

But, as for helping the populace being suppressed or slaughtered - what did we do when Saddam gassed his citizens or what did we do about Cambodia?

Even conservatives didn’t suggest that we go to war in Cambodia to stop the slaughters then, and we didn’t go to war with Iraq over the killing of its citizens.

The killing of the people in Iraq was, in fact, one of the reasons we went to war against Iraq. It was not the primary reason, but it was a reason.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Put it more simply: Would Christ have us clothe and feed the needy?

Yes, it’s in Scripture.

Would he have us help innocents being slaughtered if there is anything we can do to help?

As in being a Good Samaritan, yes. He said nothing about our using force of arms against anyone.

 

[irishpatrick]

Yes, it’s in Scripture.

As in being a Good Samaritan, yes. He said nothing about our using force of arms against anyone.

Yes, and a good Samaritan does not stand by watching innocent people get slaughtered if they hold the means to prevent it…that whole love they neighbor thing actually means something…

 

[grampben]

Financially helping a nation is helping the government of that nation, and if we decide not to help it any more, we can stop financial aid. We have provided foreign aid to some really bad actors in the past as well as to the more deserving.

But, as for helping the populace being suppressed or slaughtered - what did we do when Saddam gassed his citizens or what did we do about Cambodia?

Even conservatives didn’t suggest that we go to war in Cambodia to stop the slaughters then, and we didn’t go to war with Iraq over the killing of its citizens.

Oil for food ‘helped’ Iraq’s government (Saddam of course) but at the expense of the people of Iraq. Saddam should have been toppled in gulf war I, sadly that didn’t happen. I am with the 80%+ of Iraqis who voted for the democratic constitution in saying I am blo*dy glad that monster is dead.

 

[grampben]

And I’m not pro intervention militarily because I’m a conservative. Heck, Ron Paul is a lot more ‘conservative’ than me. I am a neocon, and proud of it!

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Yes, and a good Samaritan does not stand by watching innocent people get slaughtered if they hold the means to prevent it…that whole love they neighbor thing actually means something…

If you believe, and I think you do, that the U.S. has a duty to see to it that other nations conform with our notions of what is good for their citizens even if it takes force to accomplish that, then you would do well to work towards electing politicians who share your view.

I myself believe that we ought not to interfere with another sovereign nation unless our vital interests are put at risk by that nation’s actions.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

And I’m not pro intervention militarily because I’m a conservative. Heck, Ron Paul is a lot more ‘conservative’ than me. I am a neocon, and proud of it!

If you’re a neo-con, how can you say that you’re not pro-intervention militarily?

 

[hawkeye]

You need a job, your home is up for sale if you can sell it, your child can’t get educated, healthcare is unaffordable, the unemployment queues are growing,crime will increase ( your home shall not be safe) the Celtic Tiger of Ireland is now a pussycat… worldly politicians play russian roulettee with our future and children get murdered…(abortion mills)
Has the penny dropped yet, God can be mocked for so long, and then…

 

[irishpatrick]

If you believe, and I think you do, that the U.S. has a duty to see to it that other nations conform with our notions of what is good for their citizens even if it takes force to accomplish that, then you would do well to work towards electing politicians who share your view.

I myself believe that we ought not to interfere with another sovereign nation unless our vital interests are put at risk by that nation’s actions.

You and I would actually agree in 90% of all areas regarding relations with other nations, perhaps even more. However, when we know (with complete certainty) that a authentic slaughter of innocent people (i.e. my example of the Holocaust) is ongoing, then we have a Christian moral imperative to help–if we can! If it si simply not moral to watch other people be slaughtered if we can actually do something to stop it. Now, this is a complex issue and all things must be weighed when making such decisions, yet we cannot just look the other.

I have no idea where you stand with abortion, but millions die through legal abortions mainly because millions look the other way and millions think that they should not think outside their own lives.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

You and I would actually agree in 90% of all areas regarding relations with other nations, perhaps even more. However, when we know (with complete certainty) that a authentic slaughter of innocent people (i.e. my example of the Holocaust) is ongoing, then we have a Christian moral imperative to help–if we can! If it si simply not moral to watch other people be slaughtered if we can actually do something to stop it. Now, this is a complex issue and all things must be weighed when making such decisions, yet we cannot just look the other.

We differ in our approach to taking action in such situations. You are willing to take whatever action you see as needing be done on the basis of that slaughter. I believe that we can’t interfere overtly and militarily absent a real threat to our national interests.

I fear that we will go down the slippery slide that way. Send in the Army for that, then it becomes easier for the government to send in the Army for something lesser, and when something even lesser happens, then it is easier still - after all, we will have had precedent for interfering directly in the internal matters of two countries already!

We can encourage the suffering to fight their own government, give them arms if need be, and act covertly and overtly in providing aid and comfort But, send our Army - no.

 

[estesbob]

You and I would actually agree in 90% of all areas regarding relations with other nations, perhaps even more. However, when we know (with complete certainty) that a authentic slaughter of innocent people (i.e. my example of the Holocaust) is ongoing, then we have a Christian moral imperative to help–if we can! If it si simply not moral to watch other people be slaughtered if we can actually do something to stop it. Now, this is a complex issue and all things must be weighed when making such decisions, yet we cannot just look the other.

I have no idea where you stand with abortion, but millions die through legal abortions mainly because millions look the other way and millions think that they should not think outside their own lives.

You are aware that you have allowed Rich to derail this thread?. Much easier for him to engage in hypothetical foreign-policy discussions then try to defend his chosen Party’s support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand.

 

[estesbob]

We differ in our approach to taking action in such situations. You are willing to take whatever action you see as needing be done on the basis of that slaughter. I believe that we can’t interfere overtly and militarily absent a real threat to our national interests.

I fear that we will go down the slippery slide that way. Send in the Army for that, then it becomes easier for the government to send in the Army for something lesser, and when something even lesser happens, then it is easier still - after all, we will have had precedent for interfering directly in the internal matters of two countries already!

We can encourage the suffering to fight their own government, give them arms if need be, and act covertly and overtly in providing aid and comfort But, send our Army - no.

Do you agree with Mike Huckabee that abortion should be the most important political issue? In light of the Church’s teaching on abortion should not a Catholic agree with Mike Huckabee-and that should not a Catholic take it a step further and acknowledge that abortion is the most important issue of all? If Mike Huckabee and the church are correct how does that impact a Catholic who claims allegiance to the Democrat Party?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Do you agree with Mike Huckabee that abortion should be the most important political issue? In light of the Church’s teaching on abortion should not a Catholic agree with Mike Huckabee-and that should not a Catholic take it a step further and acknowledge that abortion is the most important issue of all? If Mike Huckabee and the church are correct how does that impact a Catholic who claims allegiance to the Democrat Party?

Ah, yes! We can always count on you, Bob, to bring your animus toward us Democrats to the fore whenever you can!

As for Huckabee, I’ve had him as a Governor, and the less said about that the better!

 

[estesbob]

Ah, yes! We can always count on you, Bob, to bring your animus toward us Democrats to the fore whenever you can!

Another attempt to derail the thread is duly noted.

Do you agree with Mike Huckabee that abortion should be the most important political issue? In light of the Church’s teaching on abortion should not a Catholic agree with Mike Huckabee-and that should not a Catholic take it a step further and acknowledge that abortion is the most important issue of all? If Mike Huckabee and the church are correct how does that impact a Catholic who claims allegiance to the Democrat Party?

I post these questions for the lurkers to examine as I know you will not answer them as the truth of the matter is you can’t.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Another attempted to derail the thread is duly noted.

You keep score any way you like, and if you want to go and cry to the Moderators that Irishpatrick and I have “derailed the thread,” you are welcome to do so.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I post these questions for the lurkers to examine as I know you will not answer them as the truth of the matter is you can’t.

Another snideness and a presumption of mind-reading is noted.

 

[estesbob]

Another snideness and a presumption of mind-reading is noted.

Do you agree with Mike Huckabee that abortion should be the most important political issue? In light of the Church’s teaching on abortion should not a Catholic agree with Mike Huckabee-and that should not a Catholic take it a step further and acknowledge that abortion is the most important issue of all? If Mike Huckabee and the church are correct how does that impact a Catholic who claims allegiance to the Democrat Party?

 

[grampben]

If you’re a neo-con, how can you say that you’re not pro-intervention militarily?

You misunderstand me. I am a conservative and a neoconservative, but my conservatism didn’t lead me to being pro intervention.

 

[Ender]

Do you agree with Mike Huckabee that abortion should be the most important political issue? In light of the Church’s teaching on abortion should not a Catholic agree with Mike Huckabee-and that should not a Catholic take it a step further and acknowledge that abortion is the most important issue of all? If Mike Huckabee and the church are correct how does that impact a Catholic who claims allegiance to the Democrat Party?

The problem here is not that Mr. Olszewski won’t address this question, it is that the bishops won’t. One thing to look for around November of this year is another missive from the USCCB on the rights and duties of voters similar to the Faithful Citizenship document they put out before the 2008 elections. If they put out another vague, interpret-this-however-you-want document then you can be sure that they have still not reached the point where they are willing to relinquish their other political goals merely to end abortion.

Ender