J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Oh,the irony!
- Status
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Let’s take these one at a time:
Abortion,for a Catholuc,regardless of one’s political affiliation,this is a grave intrinsic evil
Euthansia,again anotherr grave intrinsic evil
SSMarriage,Goes against God’s natural law
Invitro fertilization,again takes God out of the procreative act…notice a pattern here?
Stem cell research,cloning,taking God out again…
These shouldn’t even be up for debate,thesecaren’t Dem or Rep issues,these are issues that are in direct defiance of our faith.
One’s political affiliation should reflect their faith,not the other way around.
G
gracepoole
Guest
I’m not sure what to say here. We’ve already established that multiple intrinsic evils exist. I’ve asked a question about why five of them are separated from the rest and you’ve responded by explaining they’re intrinsic evils.
Ah! And here we agree.
I
ishii
Guest
You lost me on your “white lies” comment. Could you explain further?
And the gravity of abortion - and whether a candidate is for it or against it (the right to have one I mean) is far more important that any “factors” than lead to poverty that I can think of, in my opinion. I mean, are children working in coal mines now? Are people starving in this country? No, generally the poorer you go the more obesity becomes a problem. Please explain which poverty “factor” rises to the level of moral gravity of abortion, and urgency - otherwise, your argument makes no sense at all.
Ishii
Mark121359
Well-known member
I have never heard anyone on here state that the GOP is perfect. But they’re not hostile towards religion. There is no one more hostile towards religion than progressive governments. Just take a look at some of the things going on in Canada., and indeed throughout the world. I’ll provide the links if you’d like. Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Pastor Stephen Boissoin, and Catholic bishop of Calgary, Fred Henry to name just three who have felt the full weight of secular progressive government. Same here. Who…other than progressives, are behind the HHS mandate? There is something that is becoming more and more clear to me. And that is that progressive Catholics could care less about this mandate. Why? Because like Nancy Pelosi and other Catholics who describe themselves as “progressive,” they’re believers in a women’s right to choose, contraceptives, so-called SSM etc. etc. etc. In other words…everything that our Faith is vehemently opposed to! Because they themselves are perfectly fine with requiring employers to provide employees access to no co-pay sterilization procedures and contraceptive drugs, including some drugs that can cause abortions. EWTN is one of those caught up in this. Imagine that, EWTN, founded by Mother Angelica, having to provide their employees with contraceptives and abortifacient services! So I challenge you progressive Catholics; back your claims up with facts that conservatives come even close to being as hostile towards the Catholic faith as progressives do. And meanwhile I’ll provide you with one link after another that proves just how hostile progressives have become!
Peace, Mark
Peace, Mark
I
ishii
Guest
But a million are aborted each year. What worker conditions rise to that level of moral gravity and urgency? Its not like we are talking about Bangladesh style sweat shops in Bloomington Indiana, are we?I am aware of what intrinsic means in relation to evil. But as I just pointed out in my last post, “degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit,” for example, are also intrinsically evil. And such conditions are directly connected with poverty.
But I’m happy to satisfy your curiosity about when I’d bring up poverty.
Ishii
S
SaintAugustine
Guest
Okay. God bless you in your journey.
S
SaintAugustine
Guest
Exactly. I didn’t highlight that in my response to gracepoole because neither of the major political parties support “degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit.”
G
gracepoole
Guest
Nearly three million American children were living in extreme poverty in 2011. And that’s just children, just extreme poverty, and just America.This is where prudential judgment comes in. I imagine there are many who disagree with this claim.Exactly. I didn’t highlight that in my response to gracepoole because neither of the major political parties support “degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit.”
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Yes,now if only this were acted out in the voting booth,we most likely wouldn’t even be having this debate,I’m not sure what to say here. We’ve already established that multiple intrinsic evils exist. I’ve asked a question about why five of them are separated from the rest and you’ve responded by explaining they’re intrinsic evils.
Ah! And here we agree.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Nailed it!
P
ProVobis
Guest
No need for that. They became and have remained hostile ever since Roe vs Wade. I think most of us have experienced first-hand how protective of their “rights” they are, some in not-so-subtle ways.
Roe vs Wade was the game changer. Before that, marching for abortion rights was hardly unheard of. And many, if not most, were shocked with that ruling.
But I’m sure you know all that.
M
Mulligan2
Guest
The so-called 5 non-negotiables was completely de-bunked here: reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2006/10/proliferation-of-catholic-voting.html
I
ishii
Guest
Nice liberal Catholic blog you linked to - which approves of a different set of non-negotiables - in which the killing of a million unborn babies per year is lumped in with… jobs, the environment, minimum wage and discrimination, among others. In other words, for the liberal, abortion is just another issue, along side of " equality for women", etc.
Folks, this link sums up very nicely the mindset of the liberal catholic, and the logic they use to justify voting for a pro-abortion Democrat. Very illustrative.
Nice try, Mulligan.
Ishii
M
Mulligan2
Guest
Your reply was one of the arguments that was debunked in the article.
Nice try, Ishii
Mulligan
I
ishii
Guest
Oh please. Where is this extreme poverty in America, gracepoole? And what definition of extreme poverty are you using? Here is a definition I found:
“a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information"
Poverty in America? Yes. Extreme poverty? No. Now, why would you make such a claim about extreme poverty? I think if there was such poverty in the US, it would be a grave issue and we would look to our leaders to help provide a solution. But since there isn’t such poverty, then I have to say that poverty isn’t as grave an issue as abortion. What I’m finding, gracepoole is that you seem to be exaggerating the severity of other issues in order to take away from the singular moral gravity that is abortion in America.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
Perhaps you could debunk the argument for all of us here?
Mulligan, I wouldn’t take much stock in a “catholic” voting guide that lumps in abortion with “the environment and equality” as a grave issue. The article, far from debunking anything, serves as exhibit A of liberal catholic non-logic.
Ishii
G
gracepoole
Guest
I
ishii
Guest
Enjoy what? gracepoole, to prove that there is indeed extreme poverty in the US, (again extreme poverty defined as: “a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information” ), you will have to do more than link to a liberal/left article from the U of Michigan which defines extreme poverty as " households that report $2 or less per person per day" Report?
Some thoughts from Thomas Sowell for you to consider, gracepoole:
"*80 percent of “poor” households have air-conditioning today, which less than half the population of America had in 1970. Nearly three-quarters of households in poverty own a motor vehicle, and nearly one-third own more than one motor vehicle.
Virtually everyone living in “poverty,” as defined by the government, has color television, and most have cable TV or satellite TV. More than three-quarters have either a VCR or a DVD player, and nearly nine-tenths have a microwave oven*."
Thomas Sowell also notes:
“that at one time poverty had a more concrete definition, such as, not having enough food to eat, nor clothing to wear or shelter to protect oneself from the elements. Now, as he so clearly points out, poverty can be assigned a dollar value by bureaucrats, seeking to maintain their positions, which may or may not have any relevance to reality.” (my bold italics)
townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/08/03/misleading_words_part_ii/page/full
blastingzone.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/thomas-sowell-on-poverty/
the government: “continues to promote poverty in our country by allowing the poor to be comfortable enough in their poverty, so as to preclude themselves from working harder to achieve success.”
gracepoole, there is poverty in America. To the extent that it has increased, it is the fault of liberal/left programs which have served to keep poor people in a never ending cycle of poverty. But to suggest that there is the kind of abject, extreme poverty, in order to make the false point that poverty in America is as grave an issue as that of a million aborted every day, is wrong, and frankly an insult to those around the globe truly living in extreme poverty.
Ishii
Mark121359
Well-known member
National Poverty Center correct? From their website; NPC activities are currently supported with funding from the Ford Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Russell Sage Foundation
1.) The Ford Foundation = extremely liberal blog.eagleforum.org/2013/09/the-ford-foundations-liberal-agenda.html
2.) ***John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation = extremely liberal ***capitalresearch.org/2005/09/the-macarthur-foundation-a-donor-without-a-cause-spawns-a-foundation-with-an-agenda/
3.) Russell Sage Foundation = extremely liberal swans.com/library/art15/barker37.html
So yes, by all means let’s trust the NPC’s data!
Peace, Mark
- Status