Pope warns Catholic politicians who back abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom317
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bones_IV said:
After 34 years all pro-lifers have to celebrate is a Supreme Court decision that literally invites the pro-abortion side to come back and challenge them again.
Click to expand...
I have a question for you Bones. Would there be anything to celebrate if the democrats had nominated the latest judges to the supreme court?
 
Tom317 said:
How about this: Legislators who happen to be Catholic should always follow their conscience, which by Church mandate must be well formed in the Roman Catholic faith, and anyone who dissents with formal Church teachings has a poorly formed conscience.
Click to expand...
That’s an example of the reasonong a Cathlic legislator might use, and which might be used by Catholics who want him to vote a certain way. It would probably be effective with some legislators. And if his votes didn’t reflect the desire of his constituents, they would probably elect someone who did.
 
dmelosi said:
Do you think it was a bad ruling?
Click to expand...
Makes me wonder if you actually read the case. I think you are misrepresenting what the case is actually saying. Not a single abortion will be stopped.
 
dmelosi said:
I have a question for you Bones. Would there be anything to celebrate if the democrats had nominated the latest judges to the supreme court?
Click to expand...
I have yet to see any evidence that the Republican party is pro-life. Unless I missed something. They don’t even take a stance on the plan B pill.
 
Brendan said:
Or more inclinded to vote for Catholics. 👍

It would mean more honest politicians, after all, a politician who says they are Catholic and that they support abortion is lying about one of them.
Click to expand...
Voters are not inclined to vote for someone who chooses to represent views that are not their own. If the voters in a district agreed with the pope, then the legislator would be voting according to their desires. If they didn’t agree with the pope, then the voters would probably kick him out.

It would also be very hard for an honest Catholic candidate to get elected if the opposition could simply paint him as the tool of Rome. Ths has not been a problem in American politics for a while. But if the pope gives a directive, and the Catholic legislator follows it, there is a good case the Catholic can be shown to have more loyalty to the pope than his constituents. Voters don’t like that.

If Catholic politicians voted with the Chruch, it is quite likely there would not be very many left, and the guys who replaced them would vote for exactly what the Church opposes. It’s a very interesting political and religious situation.
 
GreenJeans said:
Voters are not inclined to vote for someone who chooses to represent views that are not their own. If the voters in a district agreed with the pope, then the legislator would be voting according to their desires. If they didn’t agree with the pope, then the voters would probably kick him out.

It would also be very hard for an honest Catholic candidate to get elected if the opposition could simply paint him as the tool of Rome. Ths has not been a problem in American politics for a while. But if the pope gives a directive, and the Catholic legislator follows it, there is a good case the Catholic can be shown to have more loyalty to the pope than his constituents. Voters don’t like that.

If Catholic politicians voted with the Chruch, it is quite likely there would not be very many left, and the guys who replaced them would vote for exactly what the Church opposes. It’s a very interesting political and religious situation.
Click to expand...
Greenjeans, abortion is a crime, and democracies cannot survive when innocent children are killed under the cover of law. Just look at what’s happening in Great Britian.
 
bones_IV said:
Makes me wonder if you actually read the case. I think you are misrepresenting what the case is actually saying. Not a single abortion will be stopped.
Click to expand...
WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a law that banned a type of late-term abortion, a ruling that could portend enormous social, legal and political implications for the divisive issue.
The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic. It sends a possible signal of the court’s willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

So if I read your comments correctly, you think that was a bad ruling? You are really making light of the ruling. Even if you are a hardcore democrat, how can you not cheer this, instead of saying it means little?
 
bones_IV said:
Greenjeans, abortion is a crime, and democracies cannot survive when innocent children are killed under the cover of law. Just look at what’s happening in Great Britian.
Click to expand...
Could you clarify this? What is happening in Great Britain that you are referring to?
 
bones_IV said:
Greenjeans, abortion is a crime, and democracies cannot survive when innocent children are killed under the cover of law. Just look at what’s happening in Great Britian.
Click to expand...
Well, abortion is not a crime under our law, and we really don’t know what the effect of abortion is on the survival of a democracy. In any case, this is not what determines if a politician remains in office; the voters do that.

In very general terms, we can say the legislators reflect the attitudes of the population. One can complains at length about the politicians, but they are simply implementing what the majority of the people want.
 
GreenJeans said:
Well, abortion is not a crime under our law, and we really don’t know what the effect of abortion is on the survival of a democracy. In any case, this is not what determines if a politician remains in office; the voters do that.

In very general terms, we can say the legislators reflect the attitudes of the population. One can complains at length about the politicians, but they are simply implementing what the majority of the people want.
Click to expand...
That is not always the case.

The majority of Americans – in poll after poll – want illegal immigration stopped. Neither party is going to do this.

Sometimes politicians do what they want to do.
 
GreenJeans said:
Well, abortion is not a crime under our law, and we really don’t know what the effect of abortion is on the survival of a democracy. In any case, this is not what determines if a politician remains in office; the voters do that.

In very general terms, we can say the legislators reflect the attitudes of the population. One can complains at length about the politicians, but they are simply implementing what the majority of the people want.
Click to expand...
Abortion was focred down out throats by a Liberal Suprem Court and in no way refelcts the will of the people. It would tak a 2/3 majority of overturn it.
 
dmelosi said:
WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a law that banned a type of late-term abortion, a ruling that could portend enormous social, legal and political implications for the divisive issue.
The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic. It sends a possible signal of the court’s willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

So if I read your comments correctly, you think that was a bad ruling? You are really making light of the ruling. Even if you are a hardcore democrat, how can you not cheer this, instead of saying it means little?
Click to expand...
Let’s stop blathering and spouting off about how many Catholic justices there are on the Supreme Court. There needs to be more focus on what they didn’t do. Do you feel it best to ignore what the decision said? As Denver’s Rev. Bob Enyart recently pointed out, tens of millions of dollars have been raised to defend this faulty law and during those 10 years, millions of preborn children have been killed by acts of abortion. Even now, with the Supreme Court having ruled the partial birth abortion law constitutional, the hard truth is that not a single abortion will be stopped.
 
bones_IV said:
I have yet to see any evidence that the Republican party is pro-life. Unless I missed something. They don’t even take a stance on the plan B pill.
Click to expand...
Do these direct quotes mean anything to you?

Quoted from the democratic platform

**Pursue embryonic stem cell research **

Pres. Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve & Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses-from Alzheimer’s to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson’s. We will pursue this research under the strictest ethical guidelines, but we will not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human suffering.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.29
**Support right to choose even if mother cannot pay **

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36

Now quoted from the Republican platform.

**Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment **

We say the unborn child has a fundamental right to life. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life.
Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000
**Alternatives like adoption, instead of punitive action **

Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services.
Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000 How can this be any more clear?
 
bones_IV said:
Let’s stop blathering and spouting off about how many Catholic justices there are on the Supreme Court. There needs to be more focus on what they didn’t do. Do you feel it best to ignore what the decision said? As Denver’s Rev. Bob Enyart recently pointed out, tens of millions of dollars have been raised to defend this faulty law and during those 10 years, millions of preborn children have been killed by acts of abortion. Even now, with the Supreme Court having ruled the partial birth abortion law constitutional, the hard truth is that not a single abortion will be stopped.
Click to expand...
Bones, I am not blathering about anything, you asked me if I knew what the ruling did. I pasted that into my post.

I have no doubt that you are very pro life, but it sure appears that your democratic roots run so deep that you cannot even admit that the ruling was a good thing.
 
dmelosi said:
Do these direct quotes mean anything to you?

Quoted from the democratic platform

**Pursue embryonic stem cell research **

Pres. Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve & Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses-from Alzheimer’s to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson’s. We will pursue this research under the strictest ethical guidelines, but we will not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human suffering.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.29
**Support right to choose even if mother cannot pay **

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36

Now quoted from the Republican platform.

**Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment **

We say the unborn child has a fundamental right to life. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life.
Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000
**Alternatives like adoption, instead of punitive action **

Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services.

Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000 How can this be any more clear?
Click to expand...
Like I said before the word prolife has lost it’s meaning. The desicion is crafted with faulty language. The Republican Party has payed lip service the pro-lifers. More should have have done. The Democrats are pro-abortion no exceptions. The Republicans are pro-life with exceptions.
 
Peter_DiMitri said:
That is not always the case.

The majority of Americans – in poll after poll – want illegal immigration stopped. Neither party is going to do this.

Sometimes politicians do what they want to do.
Click to expand...
I agree it is not always the case. And the case you cite is internal to the US. How do you think Catholic politicians would fare if it could be shown they take orders from the pope?
 
dmelosi said:
Bones, I am not blathering about anything, you asked me if I knew what the ruling did. I pasted that into my post.

I have no doubt that you are very pro life, but it sure appears that your democratic roots run so deep that you cannot even admit that the ruling was a good thing.
Click to expand...
I do not put my salvation in partisan politics thank you. Eliminating Partial Birth Abortion will not save lives. That baby will still be killed. Just a diferent procedule will be used. This speaks volumes about the Republican party. The left’s exaggeration and fanatism will be their undoing.
 
bones_IV said:
Like I said before the word prolife has lost it’s meaning. The desicion is crafted with faulty language. The Republican Party has payed lip service the pro-lifers. More should have have done. The Democrats are pro-abortion no exceptions. The Republicans are pro-life with exceptions.
Click to expand...
Like I said earlier…to better define what we are talking about

pro life = anti abortion
pro choice = pro abortion

Pro life has been “morphed” into meaning all other life issues.

Are you a lifelong democrat?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top