New Catholic Cardinal: Catholics Can’t Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates

  • Thread starter Thread starter rlg94086
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
elts1956 said:
Why dare you ask??😉 He was a KENNEDY? But let me say, such a scandal would not have happened forty years ago. Not publically anyway.

Oh, and you must realize, this happened in Boston.
Click to expand...
Oh I don’t know about that! JFK was a marginal Catholic at best.
 
tskrobacz said:
I’m not sure it is an issue of moral courage…the US system is corrupted by financing from large businesses. It takes more than moral courage to make changes in a corrupt system - to oppose the very factors that were responsible for putting you in office in the first place.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with this. The system is entirely corrupt, from top to bottom, but mostly among the very politicians themselves, committing daily fornication with the banking system, the lobbysts, etc.

Pick your immorality. (Where to begin?)

Anyone who thinks there’s some kind of simplistic formula about who and what (incumbents and candidates) are “good” and “bad” has frankly not been paying much attention to the dynamics of our complex political functioning. Do not fool yourselves: not a single candidate who can even touch qualification to run complies with moral character even by non-religious definitions, let alone what would make any of them endorsable relative to Catholic moral values. :sad_yes:
 
Elizabeth502 said:
I completely agree with this. The system is entirely corrupt, from top to bottom, but mostly among the very politicians themselves, committing daily fornication with the banking system, the lobbysts, etc.

Pick your immorality. (Where to begin?)

Anyone who thinks there’s some kind of simplistic formula about who and what (incumbents and candidates) are “good” and “bad” has frankly not been paying much attention to the dynamics of our complex political functioning. Do not fool yourselves: not a single candidate who can even touch qualification to run complies with moral character even by non-religious definitions, let alone what would make any of them endorsable relative to Catholic moral values. :sad_yes:
Click to expand...
The sad part is the public largely believes that this country is run by one political party or the other. In truth, if you follow the money, it is clear that the Federal Reserve is the ultimate source of money and is therefor singularly responsible for funding and setting the Presidential and political agenda. The populace is forever kept at arms length from the real truth of our system of government.
 
Rence said:
But I don’t see the point of voting for the only candidate who is anti-abortion if that candidate ignores some or all of the other needs of society, or who makes it worse for citizens or particular groups of citizens to have access to basic needs. I couldn’t, in all good conscience, vote for an anti-abortion candidate if they affected the other basic rights of groups of individuals. All matters are important to consider. I have to look at the whole picture.
Click to expand...
Rence, thank you for this and for bringing back to our attn the USCCB guidelines do not say we can not. God bless you and peace.
 
Well, for one thing, we did not vote on it. A supreme court decision over-turned state laws prohibiting it and invented a new “right” not really found in our constitution. Our politcal elites decided that this is what we as a people needed. And, I should add, this was fine with a lot of the people in the country, people who were fine with contraception, people who view (and in practice this is how they use it) abortion as just an extension of contraception. In addition, as Warrenton pointed out somewhere earlier, congress has not found the will or means to oppose supreme court decisions. My view is that the political fight will follow the cultural fight: that if the mass of people can be persuaded of the wrongness of abortion, changes in the laws will follow.
 
Why use the term ‘pro-abortion’? This term has the connotation of favoring forced abortions for all pregnant women. As such, this seems more an effort to paint the opposing viewpoint in a negative light as opposed to accurately reflecting their position. There are many people who are ‘pro-choice’ in the general sense, but are ‘pro-life’ in regards to themselves specifically. Surely one can argue their point of view without resorting to semantics and disingenuousness.
 
Christopher68 said:
Why use the term ‘pro-abortion’? This term has the connotation of favoring forced abortions for all pregnant women. As such, this seems more an effort to paint the opposing viewpoint in a negative light as opposed to accurately reflecting their position. There are many people who are ‘pro-choice’ in the general sense, but are ‘pro-life’ in regards to themselves specifically. Surely one can argue their point of view without resorting to semantics and disingenuousness.
Click to expand...
“Pro-choice” is a euphemism for child murder.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/euphemism

The notion that one can be personally against abortion but not willing to force their opinion on others is the same many Germans who had knowledge of the Nazi concentration camps.
 
I understand what you are saying. However, if those who hold the opposing viewpoint are the primary audience for your comments, I would suggest that your terminology may have the opposite effect that you intend. The words you are using might immediately tell them that you are someone who cannot engage in a rational discussion. And from my experience - and whatever the topic is - one is more likely to change another’s mind when engaging in rational debate, as opposed to using buzzwords to tell them how evil you think they are. The words you use may make you feel better, but that’s probably about all they are doing.
 
Good point. “Pro-Choice” is a euphemism for “Aborition” which is a euphemism for “Murder”.

I don’t know where you’d peg yourself on the political sphere but I’ve gotten to the point here in Canada where the two major parties are practically identical in terms of fiscal policy. As neither are prepared to publically condemn the practice and make it illegal, my vote goes to a fringe party willing to take the proper moral position.
 
I wonder what “law” will be used to counter this statement:

“Personally, I don’t own slaves, but I won’t condemn those who do.”
 
Ockham said:
Can you defeat my contention or do you have to hide behind Godwin’s Law?
Click to expand...
I am not on this thread to argue against the church’s position, therefore I have nothing to add in regards to your “contention.”

I would simply refer you back to my earlier post # 56, and would suggest that your proving of Godwin’s Law is not going to serve you well in your attempts to change anyone’s viewpoint.
 
Christopher68 said:
I am not on this thread to argue against the church’s position, therefore I have nothing to add in regards to your “contention.”

I would simply refer you back to my earlier post # 56, and would suggest that your proving of Godwin’s Law is not going to serve you well in your attempts to change anyone’s viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Ok, how about this example of moral relativism:

“Personally, I’ve never raped a woman but I understand why some guys do.”

Do you have any “law” to counter that?

Or, how about this:

“Personally I’ve never killed anyone but some people deserve to die so we shouldn’t criminalize those who carry it out.”
 
Ockham said:
Ok, how about this example of moral relativism:

“Personally, I’ve never raped a woman but I understand why some guys do.”

Do you have any “law” to counter that?

Or, how about this:

“Personally I’ve never killed anyone but some people deserve to die so we shouldn’t criminalize those who carry it out.”
Click to expand...
To your analogies from above, I don’t know anyone on either side of the abortion debate who would make such comments, so I don’t know what type of response you are looking for.

However, I seem to have touched a nerve by pointing out your validation of Godwin’s Law. As mentioned, I did not join this thread to argue against the church’s position on this topic - only to provide my comments on the terminology that is often used. And your reply to my initial post corroborated my point in splendid fashion.
 
Christopher 68:

If I read you right above, you are suggesting that in debates with those who favor abortion we stand a better chance of convincing them they are wrong by referring to their side as “pro-choice”, that is, to use the label that they prefer, not because we agree that its the best label, but to save debate over the label and focus the debate on winning the main points of disagreement, which is that abortion takes a human life, and life is worthy of protection?

Do you not think, however, that in accepting the label “pro-choice” we also accept some of the underlying premises of the opposing argument? For example, there is a tendency to focus on “hard cases” (rape, incest), as well as a false-liberty (and I would add, false-feminist) argument, which are facilitated by describing the position as pro-choice.

🤷
 
Christopher68 said:
Why use the term ‘pro-abortion’? This term has the connotation of favoring forced abortions for all pregnant women. As such, this seems more an effort to paint the opposing viewpoint in a negative light as opposed to accurately reflecting their position. There are many people who are ‘pro-choice’ in the general sense, but are ‘pro-life’ in regards to themselves specifically. Surely one can argue their point of view without resorting to semantics and disingenuousness.
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that to die with a mortal sin on your soul condemns you to Hell. The Church also teaches that abortion is murder, thus a violation of the Fifth Commandment. To commit murder or to condone it is a mortal sin. The Pope and Cardinal Burke are instructing the faithful to not vote for politicans who support abortion. It’s that simple. You can throw up whatever flak or distractions you want but it’s not me you are opposing, its God’s Law. Think beyond petty politics and towards the greater good along with your own salvation.
 
Christopher68 said:
To your analogies from above, I don’t know anyone on either side of the abortion debate who would make such comments, so I don’t know what type of response you are looking for.

However, I seem to have touched a nerve by pointing out your validation of Godwin’s Law. As mentioned, I did not join this thread to argue against the church’s position on this topic - only to provide my comments on the terminology that is often used. And your reply to my initial post corroborated my point in splendid fashion.
Click to expand...
Pro-abortionists won’t compare their cause to the rapist or murderer because they believe life begins whenever the mother determines her child worthy of protection.

You haven’t touched any nerve; I’ve merely pointed out the fallacy of your argument. Go ahead and take one of those analogies on. If you are going to wave the flag of moral relativsim at least have the conviction to defend it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top