Pro-Life Catholics, how do you respond to this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jimbo said:
That’s fair. No, I hadn’t heard that. That is terrible and should be stopped.
Click to expand...
There are probably millions of people in the US who drink from the toilet every day. Except it’s a toilet/sink combo. Something like this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Or these.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

It’s not a big deal. It’s done in places where space and safety are an important factor for consideration.
 
Last edited:
This is one of those things that drive me nuts. Truth is out there. But What is the truth?

If it is a toilet sink combination as you picture, then ‘drinking out of the toilet’ isn’t a big deal. It’s just a vanity around two separate water sources.

But if it is ‘cup your hands out of the toilet bowl’ then that is a serious problem.

I also get frustrated in that I hear the refugees/illegals are in cages and being separated. But then when hotel chains are hired to help… they get threatened with boycotts.


"The latest evidence comes from the threats of boycotts levied against the nation’s major hotel chains for housing detained asylum seekers at the government’s request.

Border and immigration officials have been using hotels to temporarily house the detainees while they await processing. It is explained by the agencies as a more humane way to keep families together and out of the packed detention centers on the border."

Is there a good source of truth on this?

We as a nation A) Have a right to protect and defend our borders and B) have a responsibility to treat those coming across decently and with dignity.
 
The good news is that working for good is something that is not restricted. We can make a world where abortion is unthinkable AND a world where we serve the least of these in poverty at the same time!!
 
TheLittleLady said:
Would you REALLY want to drink from a sink that is contaminated with fecal matter?
Click to expand...
In prisons, inmates are responsible for cleaning their own cells. So if they’re drinking from a sink contaminated with fecal matter, who’s fault is that?

I don’t know about other people, but I clean my toilet pretty much every day. I clean my sink less frequently, but I wipe it out pretty much every day as well.

But any place where you have a high density of people, you’re going to have a more frequent cleaning schedule to keep germs from being passed around.

I suppose if someone has the maintenance schedule for the detention centers, that would be useful…
 
midori said:
In prisons, inmates are responsible for cleaning their own cells. So if they’re drinking from a sink contaminated with fecal matter, who’s fault is that?
Click to expand...
Many of those toilets don’t have closing lids. Did you read her article? Martha Stewart herself couldn’t stop the germs from spreading from flushing a toilet without a lid.
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
Okay. Maybe this is a semantics issue. Maybe it is “natural” that so many are living in poverty. In a similar way sexual promiscuity, thieving , selfishness, is “natural”. I like to think we are called to higher things than “natural”.
Click to expand...
It seems that you think I’m committing the naturalistic fallacy. I am not. I said “natural state,” not “good state.” It’s absurd to think that my post suggested that we should be satisfied with nature. In nature, man 1 whacks man 2 over the head with a stick if he wants man 2’s woman. Of course we shouldn’t be satisfied with that type of arrangement, and it’s frankly insulting that you attributed that type of reasoning to me.

I was making a distinction between two types of things being discussed. Poverty is a state, one that is intrinsically amoral. Poverty is neither a virtue nor a sin, as it is a state that can perfectly well be beyond one’s control. Certain actions that cause poverty are sins, but poverty itself is simply a state of material scarcity.

Abortion, on the other hand, is a conscious action. Actions are a different class of things than states and are not intrinsically amoral. Abortion is the action of killing a baby. That action is inherently immoral.
 
Catholics are not one-issue voters. Other issues are also of great importance (and I’d say non-negotiable), namely marriage, education, criminal justice reform, immigration, and the environment. But some issues are more important. I think someone being pro-life (against abortion and euthanasia) is better than someone’s stance on poor stance on immigration. I consider both when voting, but hold more weight toward one. The most important thing is to vote your conscience and vote Catholic. And we should be continually teaching ourselves the truth to better form our conscience and judgement.
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
Voting for a party that supports inequality on the vast levels that we are discussing is very much a conscious action.
Click to expand...
This refutes exactly which statement I’ve made?

There’s a weird tendency in this thread to attribute to me positions I haven’t taken and then argue against them as if I had.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Always a useful PSA.

So, that should solve the crisis now. People shouldn’t cross the border illegally, not because there are rules and laws, and not because of the coyotes, and not because they might drown in the river, and not because they might die in the desert, and not because they might get shot by gang members as they walk thousands of miles through other countries… but because the holding facilities don’t have toilet lids.

And so now that’s off the table… we can protect the unborn, wherever they may be, and the other poor, and the other disadvantaged, as we find ourselves able to help. 💙 Rather than waiting for other people to make a difference.
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
Voting for a party that supports inequality on the vast levels that we are discussing is very much a conscious action.
Click to expand...
Which party are you calling out?

Both parties have cooperated in a massive social welfare system. One party espouses more personal responsibility as an effective means to combat poverty, along with more local initiatives (Catholic principle of subsidiarity).
The other party favors more government control of those initiatives.
In any case, both parties cooperate in a massive social welfare initiative. Fair enough. Human beings frequently disagree on the best way to do something.

Only one party favors allowing the slaughter of innocent human beings as part of it’s platform.

What else you want to talk about in this regard?
You ought to take note that if a party tolerates and or promotes the right to kill innocent human beings, all the other rights you might want to talk about are meaningless.

Does that make any sense? If you don’t have a human being, you don’t have human rights.
Because human rights are not for
Cats
and not for
my dead gramma
and not for
trees.
Human rights are proper to living human beings.

So talk about human rights without the right of everyone to live is kinda…absurd.
We shouldn’t have an ill society right? Shouldn’t we be sane?
Does that make sense?
 
Last edited:
What is that thing climbing out of the toilet? It looks like something from Alien.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
One should always choose the lesser of two evils. And it just so happens that it is quite difficult to find something morally worse than an abortion, because it is nothing less than killing an innocent person. Mistreating the poor or the immigrant is terrible, yes, but it generally doesn’t involve straight-up murder, and therefore abortion is still worse. So if one has to choose between a candidate that defends mistreating poors, and anoter that defends abortion, then one has to choose the first in order to avoid the other.
 
Last edited:
Short of voting for a candidate who openly advocates starting a nuclear war, I can’t think of any issue that could match the scale of abortion. Experts estimate that tens of thousands will die in the next year due to insufficient healthcare; abortion kills that many in a week or two. Abortion kills as many in a day or so as gun homicides kill in a year. If you’re not willing to address 90% of the problem, you can’t even put a dent in the problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top