Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[Mickey]

You are the one telling us what she would have done or felt,

We all know the pro-life stance of this future this saint. And we all know (well, except maybe you) that she would not have condoned Obama and his platform …not for a new York minute!

What makes you think that her quotes against abortion were not geared to those in power in every country that procures abortions?

The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between.
Mother Teresa (New Dehli 1979)

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.
Mother Teresa

 

[JimG]

But we don’t vote for parties. Parties put up individual nominees. Romney once said he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy. If one truly believed Romney to be ‘lying’, or pandering to a bloc of voters, then it seems reasonable that one would understand people looking to issues that could be expected to change.

Sure, I can understand people looking at other issues if they believed Romney was lying about being pro-life. But I can’t understand that they would reject a candidate who says he is pro-life but might not be, while preferring a candidate who says he is pro-abortion and there is no doubt that he means it and intends to back it up with action.

I might add that at a particular point in time, it was easy to be more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy, since Ted Kennedy was pro-life! He changed his position to pander for votes, just as you say that Romney was doing!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sure, I can understand people looking at other issues if they believed Romney was lying about being pro-life. But I can’t understand that they would reject a candidate who says he is pro-life but might not be, while preferring a candidate who says he is pro-abortion and there is no doubt that he means it and intends to back it up with action.

I might add that at a particular point in time, it was easy to be more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy, since Ted Kennedy was pro-life! He changed his position to pander for votes, just as you say that Romney was doing!

Perceiving a politician as a liar opens many doors to what else he might be lying about.

Now, there are ‘rumblings’ from the GOP that they need to make changes. Sadly it’s not the other issues they are willing to make changes on.

 

[Lucky7]

Perceiving a politician as a liar opens many doors to what else he might be lying about.

Now, there are ‘rumblings’ from the GOP that they need to make changes. Sadly it’s not the other issues they are willing to make changes on.

But you’re still not looking at this part of Jim’s point:

while preferring a candidate who says he is pro-abortion and there is no doubt that he means it and intends to back it up with action.

Even if Romney lies about a lot, we know Obama is not lying about his support of abortion.

 

[wynnejj]

But we don’t vote for parties. Parties put up individual nominees. Romney once said he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy. If one truly believed Romney to be ‘lying’, or pandering to a bloc of voters, then it seems reasonable that one would understand people looking to issues that could be expected to change.

So sayeth the brother to the prodigal son. No one believes that he could possibly honor his commitment as he professes, even though he is not so much converted as weighing his position in the world.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But you’re still not looking at this part of Jim’s point:

while preferring a candidate who says he is pro-abortion and there is no doubt that he means it and intends to back it up with action.

Even if Romney lies about a lot, we know Obama is not lying about his support of abortion.

I understood it, and may have misrepresented my understanding. If one is lying, he could very well be lying about the other issues. We can’t ignore the other issues completely, and they have to ‘move up’ in consideration if a candidate is deemed to be lying about the major issues.

 

[Mickey]

we know Obama is not lying about his support of abortion.

We know that he will definitely champion every pro-abortion issue that crosses his desk. It is very sad.

 

[Lucky7]

I understood it, and may have misrepresented my understanding. If one is lying, he could very well be lying about the other issues. We can’t ignore the other issues completely, and they have to ‘move up’ in consideration if a candidate is deemed to be lying about the major issues.

Well, you’re talking to someone who thinks most of what most politicians say is hogwash. Sometimes we can verify by past actions though.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, you’re talking to someone who thinks most of what most politicians say is hogwash. Sometimes we can verify by past actions though.

You know what you have with 50 politicians at the bottom of the ocean?

A good start…

 

[JMJSHJ]

This is the thing: I could totally understand conservatives bellyaching about voters voting for a candidate who is pro-choice, over one who is completely pro-life and committed to putting strong limitations on abortion. But that’s not what we had. We had a pro-choice candidate on one side, and a personally-pro-life candidate who said he wasn’t going to do anything about the legality and availablility of abortion. So for me as a voter, the abortion issue was off the table. The only sensible thing to look at after that was the welfare of our already-born. While both candidates had a plan for that, I chose the one whose plan might cause the least amount of damage to our citizens and I stand by that decision. Everyone has to own their own decisions. Whoever doesn’t like it can just deal with it. They have their own vote to cast.

If this is the case, then are you saying that if say Santorum were the Republican nominee who’s pro life credentials are far superlative than Romney you would have voted for the Republicans?