No Compromises: Kansas State Bishops Declare Voting for Abortion Candidate is "Evil

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris_LaRock said:
I have to respectfully disagree.

Both canidates are supporting the killing of innocent human beings in both instances.

Unless you think a child conceived by rape or incest is less worthy of protection than one conceived under different circumstances.
Click to expand...
Im sorry-Im not going to go down that goat trail with you.
 
snhs said:
It is ineffectual in ending the murder of innocent children across America.

It is effectual in allowing the culture of death to continue its advance and the perpetuation of the killing of millions of babies before they can even take their first breath.
Click to expand...
I will say for the final time that I am not perpetuating the killing of the unborn just because I don’t vote for B. So let us cease and desist with the false acccusations or I will never visit these judgemental forums again.
 
estesbob said:
A vote cast for a politician who supports abortion and same-sex “marriage” is nothing less than casting a vote for “evil” says a state conference of Catholic bishops.
Click to expand...
Great and about time too, we need more of the same.
 
goofyjim said:
I will say for the final time that I am not perpetuating the killing of the unborn just because I don’t vote for B. So let us cease and desist with the false acccusations or I will never visit these judgemental forums again.
Click to expand...
Youre just making it more likely
 
goofyjim said:
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I said they should be born and given a decent quality of life.
Click to expand...
Before they can have any quality of life they must first be born. That means voting for the candidate who will nominate conservative Supreme Court Justices. It also means voting for the candidate who will nominate those conservative justices and who is best place to win. To give you a bit of a hand a candidate who doesn’t win doesn’t get to nominate anyone.
 
estesbob said:
Youre just making it more likely
Click to expand...
I could make the claim that just throwing your support behind B is also splitting the prolife vote and therefore making it more likely. I am sick and tired of only having two candidates to choose from that don’t suit my tastes. And don’t tell me about the primaries being an option because they are set up by the big bosses up top. We need a grass roots effort to unseat both these parties and then maybe I’ll come and discuss things.
 
snhs said:
Before they can have any quality of life they must first be born. That means voting for the candidate who will nominate conservative Supreme Court Justices. It also means voting for the candidate who will nominate those conservative justices and who is best place to win. To give you a bit of a hand a candidate who doesn’t win doesn’t get to nominate anyone.
Click to expand...
This discussion has made me sick enough. I must shut down for the night and I won’t be rejoining.
 
estesbob said:
Im sorry-Im not going to go down that goat trail with you.
Click to expand...
LOL

Goat trail?

I’m just saying that it’s wrong to vote for anyone who supports the culture of death under any circumstance for any reason. The respect for unborn human life should be held without comprimise.
 
goofyjim said:
I will say for the final time that I am not perpetuating the killing of the unborn just because I don’t vote for B. So let us cease and desist with the false acccusations or I will never visit these judgemental forums again.
Click to expand...
Not yet you aren’t.

Once you’ve cast your vote for a third party candidate and satisfied your sense of protest, placing your conceit of your conscience ahead of those millions of innocent babies’ lives it may be a different matter.

If the purpose of casting your vote is to save those millions of lives then casting it for a third party candidate has no effect. Except that of decreasing the chances of candidate b winning and ensuring the culture of death and legalised killing of babies will continue for another generation.
 
goofyjim said:
This discussion has made me sick enough. I must shut down for the night and I won’t be rejoining.
Click to expand...
The reality of such decisions made to vote for third parties often has a sickening reality to it. The problem is in their haste to sate their conscience people often don’t consider the effect of their actions in allowing the status quo to continue.
 
goofyjim said:
I could make the claim that just throwing your support behind B is also splitting the prolife vote and therefore making it more likely. I am sick and tired of only having two candidates to choose from that don’t suit my tastes. And don’t tell me about the primaries being an option because they are set up by the big bosses up top. We need a grass roots effort to unseat both these parties and then maybe I’ll come and discuss things.
Click to expand...
Wonderful so you propose the entire pro-life movement throws its weight behind a candidate with no hope of winning? That’s really going to work isn’t it. I can think of no surer way to ensure A’s Party win elections consistently, although maybe that’s what you want. After all what’s a Court that favours a culture of death when you can get universal health care out of it?

Most conservatives get behind B’s party, often regardless of whether they’re ‘pro-choice’ or not. That coalition is more likely to win than parties based on religious or single issue grounds.

While you sit around planning your political machinations the slaughter of babies shall continue unabated. Rather than bemoan your lack of choice try being thankful you are alive and have a choice to make at all, and then maybe you could try to make the choice which will allow millions of children a life to make choices in for themselves rather than satisfy your little protest.
 
Been listening to this great information all weekend on EWTN radio. Now lets get the other Bishops to do the same.
 
snhs said:
Kathleen Sibelius, the current governor of Kansas. She claims to be pro-life but consistently vetoes pro-life abortion legislation, the Archbishop of Kansas City has asked that she no longer receive Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
Plus, her last name is only one letter away from the Latin word for “sinister”.
 
So according to the logic here, back in the 1930’s when Hitler was running for office, if he opposed abortion, but his opponent, although pro-live in his personal decisions, took the position that the government needs to stay out of the decision, Catholics would be forced under the threat of mortal sin, to vote for Hitler?

Excuse me, but I think I’ll take the chance on the better overall candidate, over the one who is crazy enough to create a nuclear holocaust.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
So according to the logic here, back in the 1930’s when Hitler was running for office, if he opposed abortion, but his opponent, although pro-live in his personal decisions, took the position that the government needs to stay out of the decision, Catholics would be forced under the threat of mortal sin, to vote for Hitler?

Excuse me, but I think I’ll take the chance on the better overall candidate, over the one who is crazy enough to create a nuclear holocaust.

Jim
Click to expand...
There’s always the possibility of not voting. That’s what I’m doing. (Of course, I can’t vote yet anyway).
 
snhs said:
Kathleen Sibelius, the current governor of Kansas. She claims to be pro-life but consistently vetoes pro-life abortion legislation, the Archbishop of Kansas City has asked that she no longer receive Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
Sadly, there are a lot of Catholics like that in government.
 
Filius99993 said:
Plus, her last name is only one letter away from the Latin word for “sinister”.
Click to expand...
Brain dead today. I thought you were referring to me. I wondered why you were calling me “sinister” 😃 (Kathleen).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top