Obama Excoriates Republican Obsession With The Term ‘Radical Islam’

[estesbob]

The thing is, abortion is neither even an issue for most Catholics in general, nor a large portion of Catholic posters here.

Or, it is about important to these Catholics as the Jewish question was for the pro-Jewish Germans who voted the Nazis into power.

They seem to operate under the belief that after world war II we should have punished those who ran the death camp but not those who hired them to run them.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

The thing is, abortion is neither even an issue for most Catholics in general, nor a large portion of Catholic posters here.

Or, it is about important to these Catholics as the Jewish question was for the pro-Jewish Germans who voted the Nazis into power.

That is quite a generalization and I do not appreciate it. I struggle tremendously at election time because I am Pro-Life. But my Pro-Life understanding extends beyond what a single candidate can do about the legalization of abortion. Abortion is the symptom of a deeper problem. Why do women choose abortion? Legality has little to do with it. Women have found many ways to terminate pregnancy. Legality certainly does not help and is a disgraceful statement about our way of life but poverty and failure to appreciate life, social pressure and immaturity take us closer to an actual cause.

Meanwhile, abortion has been legal since the 70’s through many years of “Pro Life” office holders while other issues have been acted upon. It seems to me there is a lack of proximity as to what an elected official can actually do about legalized abortion while other issues are actionable. Does that matter to a little one denied the right to life? Of course not. But we have seen that electing the right person has not helped to make it illegal. So let’s go deeper. Let’s support the pregnant women. Let’s guarantee them prenatal, perinatal, healthcare, childcare and education. No doubt there will be objections that is “Leftist”! “Socialist”! “Communist” even! Well just how important is it to prevent abortion. Are you willing to extend your efforts beyond trying to make it illegal again? Because that strategy has not been working. Sure, let’s not give up. But let’s also not neglect the other social determinants that contribute even more so to abortion. And Pro-Life, as our Pope has stated, means recognition of the interconnectness of all life. Respect for all life, even our perceived enemies when captured.

Now if someone tries to tell me that as a faithful Catholic I must vote for Trump. I must disagree and walk away from such absurdity. That does not mean I will vote for Hilary. I will certainly struggle with any vote. But notice how we get from the topic of the thread to abortion. It seems to be the only lens through which we can look at any issue.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

They seem to operate under the belief that after world war II we should have punished those who ran the death camp but not those who hired them to run them.

You believe we should have punished the entire German population. As if bombing their cities was nor enough “punishment”? What sort of punishment do you have in mind?

 

[Crossbones]

Now if someone tries to tell me that as a faithful Catholic I must vote for Trump. I must disagree and walk away from such absurdity. That does not mean I will vote for Hilary. I will certainly struggle with any vote. But notice how we get from the topic of the thread to abortion. It seems to be the only lens through which we can look at any issue.

I would say that it is unwise for any Catholic to take someone’s personal interpretation of Church teaching and use that as a basis of voting, especially those who post to CAF as many frequently misinterpret Church teaching or justify the unjustifiable. It is must better that Catholics review the relevant documents such as Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and the comments of various bishops in determining how to vote for.

 

[Darryl1958]

That is quite a generalization and I do not appreciate it. I struggle tremendously at election time because I am Pro-Life.

It doesn’t seem like much of a struggle to me, for the Catholic left to vote for Democratic over Republican.
I can’t imagine Cruz stealing a single pro-life Catholic vote from the Catholic Democrats either.

So it comes down to the character of Trump, as if the pristine character of Clinton is an overwhelming reason to not keep the rabidly pro-abortionist candidates from power.
Suffice to say Martin Luther King, she aint either. suffice to say, that Identity politics are as racist as anything Trump is accused of.
The Ferguson effect is a real thing. Fan the flames of racist resentment enough and people die, and black people disproportionately.

To me pro-life Democrat is a meaningless term, in the general sense and right down to the specifics. It is as meaningless to me as pro-Jewish Nazi would be, if ever there were a German who could have labeled himself as such with a straight face.
There are other reasons for people to have voted for the Nazis too, above all their strong socialist safety net. Isn’t that what passes as being pro-life in Catholic leftist circles, offering government support to people after the womb, the seamless garment of social justice?

But in this comparison, the proportionate reasons why not to vote Nazi only number 6 million, not 50+ million and counting.
At what point does the seamless garment argument go all out of proportion? Three cases of wateboarding obviously tips the scales. Would a reduction to one case of waterboarding tip the ‘struggle’ in the opposite direction finally?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It doesn’t seem like much of a struggle to me, for the Catholic left to vote for Democratic over Republican.

It is not for you nor I to speculate on the conscience of another.

I can’t imagine Cruz stealing a single pro-life Catholic vote from the Catholic Democrats either.

Again, purposeless speculation.

So it comes down to the character of Trump, as if the pristine character of Clinton is an overwhelming reason to not keep the rabidly pro-abortionist candidates from power.
Suffice to say Martin Luther King, she aint either. suffice to say, that Identity politics are as racist as anything Trump is accused of.
The Ferguson effect is a real thing. Fan the flames of racist resentment enough and people die, and black people disproportionately.

They don’t need to be fanned at all. Racism is endemic. I do not trust Clinton anymore than I trust Trump.

To me pro-life Democrat is a meaningless term, in the general sense and right down to the specifics. It is as meaningless to me as pro-Jewish Nazi would be, if ever there were a German who could have labeled himself as such with a straight face.
There are other reasons for people to have voted for the Nazis too, above all their strong socialist safety net. Isn’t that what passes as being pro-life in Catholic leftist circles, offering government support to people after the womb, the seamless garment of social justice?

That is the problem in this country. Democrats care after birth precisely when Republicans withdraw their care bemoaning the “welfare state”. They want the government to force women to have their unwanted babies and then be on their own. In fact shaming them who seek assistance.

I think we are distracted by the legal issue anyway. Read about prohibition. Alcohol was outlawed, Hurrah! That didn’t solve the problem at all. Did it? I am telling you we must deal with the root cause. That is especially so since our belief that life begins at conception is a religious belief. We can be advocates but we cant really expect the law to changes to align with our religious belief.

But in this comparison, the proportionate reasons why not to vote Nazi only number 6 million, not 50+ million and counting.
At what point does the seamless garment argument go all out of proportion? Three cases of waterboarding obviously tips the scales. Would a reduction to one case of waterboarding tip the ‘struggle’ in the opposite direction finally?

Again, legal abortion as been the law since 1970’s. You think Donald is going to change that? Seriously? It seems we will never have a seamless garment in this country as long as the Right abandons the mom and the Left abandons the fetus.

 

[Darryl1958]

It is not for you nor I to speculate on the conscience of another.

It is not the DNA of the lemon tree that concerns me, or that I am commenting on.
It is the lemons that it produces that tells me that it is indeed a lemon tree.
You know the tree by the fruit it produces. That is Biblical. That is what Jesus tells us anyway
Pro-life Catholic leftist have produced a rabidly pro-abortion Democratic party with their votes, that stretches back to the likes of Teddy Kennnedy.

Again, purposeless speculation.

There is a purpose, and that purpose it to present everyone with discernment with the actual truth.
It is not as if Trump is the only kind of candidate that Republicans have ever nominated.
And it mattered nary a wit to pro-life Catholic leftists.

They don’t need to be fanned at all. Racism is endemic. I do not trust Clinton anymore than I trust Trump.

I agree they do not need to be fanned.
And yet that is going to be Obama’s legacy.
And so will be Clinton the legacy of self-described pro-life Catholics.
Prager University by the way shows America to be among the least racist countries. Identity politics of the left will take care of that though, real good.
The way to power for Democrats is to fan the flames of racism, consequences be dmmd.

That is the problem in this country. Democrats care after birth precisely when Republicans withdraw their care bemoaning the “welfare state”. They want the government to force women to have their unwanted babies and then be on their own. In fact shaming them who seek assistance.

That is Democratic rhetoric that has no basis whatsoever in truth.
The welfare state has been supported lucratively by both Republicans and the Democrats.
If we accept the leftist paradigm that robbing people of their self-sufficiency by hooking them on the welfare state is indeed and example of what “caring” is all about, there is not an iota of difference on the matter between the two.
But here I am only repeating myself to you.

I think we are distracted by the legal issue anyway. Read about prohibition. Alcohol was outlawed, Hurrah! That didn’t solve the problem at all. Did it? I am telling you we must deal with the root cause. That is especially so since our belief that life begins at conception is a religious belief. We can be advocates but we cant really expect the law to changes to align with our religious belief.

It is not the legal issue that concerns me actually. It is the ludicrousness of pro-life Catholics supporting a rabidly pro-abortion party, as if abortion meant nothing in their hierarchy of concerns. It is akin to a pro-jewish German supporting the Nazis.

Again, legal abortion as been the law since 1970’s. You think Donald is going to change that? Seriously? It seems we will never have a seamless garment in this country as long as the Right abandons the mom and the Left abandons the fetus.

I think that the Republicans are changing that, one baby step at a time. This has already been pointed out repeatedly how they are doing that, for those who have the ears to hear.
Again, I am merely repeating myself. My words bead off like water off the back of a duck.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It is not the legal issue that concerns me actually. It is the ludicrousness of pro-life Catholics supporting a rabidly pro-abortion party, as if abortion meant nothing in their hierarchy of concerns.

But it *is the legal issue because that is what Pro-Choice is all about:The legal *right to choose. What do you see as the causes of abortion?

 

[Darryl1958]

But it *is the legal issue because that is what Pro-Choice is all about:The legal *right to choose. What do you see as the causes of abortion?

There is legality involved.
But my argument has always been about changing the culture first and foremost.

It is like having laws against rape. I would submit that most men do not rape women because of the laws exist and would punish them for it. I would submit that most men do not rape because they find the idea of raping a woman to be so morally repugnant that they could not contemplate actually carrying a rape against a woman out. Many may actually be turned on by the thought, may even have fantasies about it(as would many women) but they fully understand that to do so would be evil. The existence of laws merely inform them as much.

The laws themselves reflect a culture that finds rape to be morally repugnant.

Now, if all of a sudden the laws were to change, that would be a clear signal to all men that society itself does not find rape repugnant enough to outlaw. Many men would still be turned off by the whole sordid thing, and religion may well still teach that sexual union is a sacrament, but society itself would no longer have laws in place to teach the society that rape is repugnant.

The existence of law in effect inform the culture or what is moral and what is not.

Robert P George makes a very concise argument of the relationship of a law and the teaching of morality.

Now, if the law on rape were to suddenly change one day, and no longer be censured as repugnant, many people may disagree. In a democracy, they would be free to fight to rescind this state of affairs and have the law once again state that rape is illegal, immoral, repgnant, etc. etc.

But to the extent that they do not, even if they personally may find rape repugnant, to the extent that they support politicians who rabidly believe that rape ought to be a man’s choice, then that is teaching the culture something too. It is showing to the world that as much as people might say that they find rape repugnant, it is not a priority where they would actually wish men to be forced into not raping, through law.

The change in law would reflect a cultural change, and to the extent that people think that the law would be forcing men not to rape, then that means that the cultural change has even affected people who are personally against rape.

That is reflected in their language, “ought we to force men to not rape?, ought we force women to not abort?”

Now it is easy enough to see why some men might like to rape. Sex is pleasurable, and being in a position of power and dominance is satisfying to the ego. Likewise it is easy enough to see why women want to abort. Babies are very inconvenient to give birth to, and even more inconvenient to raise for decades on end.

It has always been thus,and always will be. No amount of government largess is ever going to change that.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Yes, law reflects culture and we ought to change the law on abortion. But instead of comparing to rape, compare to alcohol. Without the cultural shift FIRST, the law is ineffective just as prohibition. The culture was not ready for it. So promote life across the board and into the environment, supporting life at all stages as much as possible. That means education and healthcare.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, law reflects culture and we ought to change the law on abortion. But instead of comparing to rape, compare to alcohol. Without the cultural shift FIRST, the law is ineffective just as prohibition. The culture was not ready for it. So promote life across the board and into the environment, supporting life at all stages as much as possible. That means education and healthcare.

But abortion is more like rape than it is like consuming alcohol. Where alcohol is concerned, use brings about trauma or injury relatively infrequently. Many people drink and no one is harmed most of the time.

However, rape (in the true sense of the word) always causes a woman harm just as abortion ALWAYS causes the death of a human being.

Abortion is more like rape than it is like consuming a few alcoholic drinks.

Prohibition of alcohol means prohibiting a relatively benign activity. Prohibiting abortion means de-legitimizating the killing of human beings, just as prohibiting rape de-legitimizes harm to women.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

But abortion is more like rape than it is like consuming alcohol. Where alcohol is concerned, use brings about trauma or injury relatively infrequently. Many people drink and no one is harmed most of the time.

However, rape (in the true sense of the word) always causes a woman harm just as abortion ALWAYS causes the death of a human being.

Abortion is more like rape than it is like consuming a few alcoholic drinks.

Prohibition of alcohol means prohibiting a relatively benign activity. Prohibiting abortion means de-legitimizating the killing of human beings, just as prohibiting rape de-legitimizes harm to women.

In the minds of the public right now it is more like alcohol. No one would advocate for legal rape. Half the country seems to advocate for legal abortion. A sick culture I grant you. But that is what needs to change befor the law can be effective. For everyone who speaks of rights for women we need to speak of rights for the unborn. But also rights for children who have been born, right to food, healthcare and education. Don’t drop the ball just because a child gets born.

 

[Darryl1958]

Yes, law reflects culture and we ought to change the law on abortion. But instead of comparing to rape, compare to alcohol. Without the cultural shift FIRST, the law is ineffective just as prohibition. The culture was not ready for it. So promote life across the board and into the environment, supporting life at all stages as much as possible. That means education and healthcare.

Comparing it to alcohol makes my point actually, and that is that leftist Catholics who could vote for a rabidly pro-abortion candidate regard the morality of abortion with the same reprehension as they do with somebody drinking a sip of rum.
it reveals a total lack of moral concern, if abortion is the moral equivalent of drinking.
Other than that, I keep mentioning baby steps, which is exactly what the Republican party is doing.
It is baby steps to invite a woman contemplating abortion to have a peek at the ultrasound. It is baby steps to defund PP after the videos come out. It is baby steps to recognize the sensitivies of the culture that already exist and limit abortion to twenty months.
It is baby steps to get the Catholic leftist to recognize tand acknowledge that,if the Church teaching is true, then aborting a baby is more like a Nazi genocide than it is even a rape.