Pro-life Democrats hail Minnesota primary win

[Frank92]

You elect a Republican and the abortion statistics will likely stay the same. If you are interested in stopping women for having abortions, you would want to do what works, and not what doesn’t work.

If it is a matter of improving the ecnonmy, as long as Dems dont invite crises, Trump has shown to be the best economy president of our life times. Far and away.

That rating comes form the National Right Life, which is not an authorized arm of the Catholic Church, but is an advocacy organization independent of the Catholic Church. A Catholic believer is not bound to take them at their word.

We are keeping track of their record. They are a watchdog group who is creditable. The Catholic Church is not a political watchdog group. This is like saying you dont trust earthquake data from a scientific firm specializing in it because the Catholic Church did not report it. Strange.

I cant express to you enough how dangerous this behavior you are deminstrating, using the church as a stick to reach the ends of the Democratic Party, is to your soul. I cant plead with you enough, stop this behavior. Your soul is not worth spreading propaganda for the democratic party.

. . . . I would like you to read the following prayer.

Angel of God, my guardian dear, To whom God’s love commits me here, Ever this day, be at my side, To light and guard, Rule and guide. St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world, seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

 

[Frank92]

I couldn’t agree more.

So we can murder someone who is financially inconvenient ProVobis?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Regardless of what the physical form of the church does, it CAN NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, validly preach the violation of Natural Law.

Nor does it.

Realizing that your nay vote wil result in the DIRECT, NOT INDIRECT, murder of another human being

I dispute that. We have seen 47 years of voting for Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents, all the while with abortion legal. We have not seen more abortions when a Democrat is elected, nor have we seen fewer abortions when a Republican is elected. So it is a reasonable assumption that the same would be true this election. In fact, this President has already had 4 years to prove how he could stop abortions and he hasn’t. I doubt that he really cares about abortion, regardless of the lip service he pays to the issue. So I do not agree that voting for a Democrat is going to cause, either directly or indirectly, any more abortions that we would have if the Republican were elected.

it is a matter of voting in favaor of laws that make the culture of abortion more accessible, accepted, and even less restricted.

This may or may not affect the number of abortions. It is debatable. I already said what I would do to reduce abortions, and it is not to vote for Trump. I think my proposal would be more effective.

Everyone, regardless of their position in life, has been a financial burden to someone.

Reducing abortions is more important than adherence to libertarian ideals.

The other problem with this thought is that no one will want to work in an industry that you dont get paid for.

Which industry do you mean? The health care industry? No, they will be paid by the government benefit for pregnant women.

If it is a matter of improving the ecnonmy,

No, it is not about improving the economy. It is about reducing abortions.

We are keeping track of their record.

Who is “we”?

They are a watchdog group who is creditable.

That is a matter of opinion.

This is like saying you dont trust earthquake data from a scientific firm specializing in it because the Catholic Church did not report it.

What the Catholic Church does not do is teach me that it is a sin to distrust earthquake data. Yet you would have me believe that the Church does teach that it is a sin to distrust ratings from the National Right to Life Committee. That is strange.

The father of lies guides your speech.

I suggest you read the FAQ’s for this forum. In particular, Conduct Rule #1 includes:

“Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks,”

Do you really think telling me that the Father of Lies guides my speech is polite and free of personal attacks?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

ProVobis:

I couldn’t agree more.

So we can murder someone who is financially inconvenient ProVobis?

What ProVobis was agreeing with is the proposal that would prevent that murder. In no way does it excuse the murder.

 

[Frank92]

This may or may not affect the number of abortions. It is debatable. I already said what I would do to reduce abortions, and it is not to vote for Trump. I think my proposal would be more effective.

This is the classic marxist fallacy that the world would be better if we fixed all of the problems and elminiated poverty. Not possible in this world. Catch all systems dont work, because in your effort to catch all, you will always end up crushing more people than you help. The soviet union proved that. The sin of communism is that it relegates to man what only Lord Jesus Christ can accomplish, the elimination of suffering.

There is no economy you can create, or situation you can create, that will solve the economy, and therefore, eliminate abortions because of financial equality.

You can not eliminate abortion by electing officials who want to continue it. You start by electing officials who will pass legislation for it to end. Will it end? Probably not. But it definitely wont end if you elect officials who want to continue it, and in many cases, want to increase it. Just like in the soviet union where by the fall of the societ union, abortions outnumbered live births. Who can forget Bernie Sander’s wild, bloodthirsty bolshevick statements. He is someone who wants to increase for “population control”. This is straight from the mouth of satan folks.

What the Catholic Church does not do is teach me that it is a sin to distrust earthquake data. Yet you would have me believe that the Church does teach that it is a sin to distrust ratings from the National Right to Life Committee. That is strange.

I dont think you even know what you are saying here. EDIT: Oh, now I see what you are saying. You are falsely accusing me of claiming that the NRLC scorecard is a matter of faith and morals. Gosh. Its quite clear what I am saying. Not every piece of data, regardless of the data, is required to be approved by the Catholic church. Your insinuation was that you dont trust NRLC because it is not a Catholic group. Which is like saying you dont trust the weather channel to tell you the weather because it is not part of the catholic church, or an earthquake agency to give you earthquake updates because it is not part of the catholic church. This analogy I am giving, unfortunately, was the basis for your argument as to why you could not trust NRLC ratings. Which, again, is very strange.

Do you really think telling me that the Father of Lies guides my speech is polite and free of personal attacks?

You started the lie. I addressed it. I am disagreeing with you in a respectuful manner. You are interpreting disagreement as disrespect.

 

[Frank92]

What ProVobis was agreeing with is the proposal that would prevent that murder. In no way does it excuse the murder.

He didn’t say that. I would like to hear him answer the question. You are giving him an opinion. Let him speak or himself.

 

[Frank92]

You are misrepresenting the Democrat’s position. Their ultimate aim is to use it for population control. They want to increase it. So you are not going to end something by trying to implement policies that will increase it becuase you want to increase it. The democrat’s forbearers, the societ union, proved that. More abortions than live births by the fall of the soviet union.

. . . . Its high time Catholics wake up. . . .

 

[ProVobis]

Thank you Leaf.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

This may or may not affect the number of abortions. It is debatable. I already said what I would do to reduce abortions, and it is not to vote for Trump. I think my proposal would be more effective.

This is the classic marxist fallacy that the world would be better if we fixed all of the problems and elminiated poverty.

That was not my argument.

There is no economy you can create, or situation you can create, that will solve the economy, and therefore, eliminate abortions because of financial equality.

Nor can you eliminate abortions by making it illegal. But I think you can substantially reduce them right now, even before Roe v. Wade is overturned, by giving women more positive incentive to carry their baby to term. In any case, it is my opinion, and I am entitled to hold it, just as you are entitled to hold the contrary.

You can not eliminate abortion by electing officials who want to continue it.

No, but you can substantially reduce it by winning the hearts and minds of the women who make these awful decisions.

You start by electing officials who will pass legislation for it to end.

We have done that. We have not seen any reduction due to their being in office.

Just like in the soviet union where by the fall of the societ union, abortions outnumbered live births.

Abortions have been steadily decreasing in the US, and it has nothing to do with who is elected.

Who can forget Bernie Sander’s wild, bloodthirsty bolshevick statements. He is someone who wants to increase for “population control”.

Bernie is not on the ballot for me.

 

[Frank92]

We have done that. We have not seen any reduction due to their being in office.

No. We have not done that by virtue of there still being abortion.

Nor can you eliminate abortions by making it illegal. But I think you can substantially reduce them right now, even before Roe v. Wade is overturned, by giving women more positive incentive to carry their baby to term. In any case, it is my opinion, and I am entitled to hold it, just as you are entitled to hold the contrary.

True, you will never stop murder. BUt it is obvious that it should be against the law. Just like abortion. Because it is murder. Just as when someone who murders is then subject to litigation for justice, so to should it be when one murders a child in the womb. Justice demands it to be so. No, you are not entitled to hold an opinion of this magnitude wrong.

Nor can you eliminate abortions by making it illegal.

BUt it is obvious that it should be against the law. Just like abortion. Because it is murder. Just as when someone who murders is then subject to litigation for justice, so to should it be when one murders a child in the womb. Justice demands it to be so.

 

[Wampa]

Well, this has been interesting. I didn’t expect to come back and find a brand new member telling longtime CAF veterans they need to delete their posts because they disagree. Between that and the over-the-top rhetoric, I suspect you won’t be around here long.

Anyway, I’m glad some people saw some value in the article. As someone who hasn’t voted for a Democrat in 28 years, I still find Democrats who are any percent prolife to be better than 0% prolife.

This “Democrats must be 100% or it’s worthless” argument seems to be the flip side of the equally silly argument we see here on CAF that prolife Republicans aren’t actually prolife at all if they support any abortions exceptions whatsoever (typically used to claim that President Trump is not prolife).

 

[Frank92]

Well, this has been interesting. I didn’t expect to come back and find a brand new member telling longtime CAF veterans they need to delete their posts because they disagree. Between that and the over-the-top rhetoric, I suspect you won’t be around here long.

I did not see the part where it said it was a DNC forum. I just thought it was a Catholic forum. Its a shame you feel the administrators won’'t tolerate other views, especially correct views. I hope you are wrong.

This “Democrats must be 100% or it’s worthless” argument

You clearly dont want to understand what I am writing. I am saying that the VERY few who have the 50 percent or whatever, like this peterson guy, are still actually towing the party line (abortion, unrestricted). The votes that they are allowed to vote life on are either inconsequential or they know that the life bill will die anyway and it wont ever come to reality. Its just a resume padder for them to trick life voters into voting democrat. These congressman, the very few democratic congressman who are allowed to do this, are in swing states/districts. They still ultimately have to tow the party line though. They will never vote in favor of life in significant legislation that could actually pass. In other words, for this Peterson guy, that 42% he voted Choice on was the stuff that could have had significant impact for life.

In other words, those folks are running the table on y’all.

 

[silentwitness]

I would love for the whole Democratic Party to be pro Life but let’s face it; if it was it would no longer be the modern Democratic Party.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I would love for the whole Democratic Party to be pro Life but let’s face it; if it was it would no longer be the modern Democratic Party.

There are many values of the modern Democratic Party that have nothing to do with abortion. So, as unlikely as it seems, I could envision a time when the Democratic Party is generally pro-life on the abortion issue. They are already pro-life on a lot of other issues, so it is not that much of a stretch. All it would take is a realization by the American public in general that a baby before it is born is still a precious human baby. Once that happens, the party is likely to change its position. Unfortunately, that is not the current belief among the majority of the American public.

 

[Wampa]

I did not see the part where it said it was a DNC forum. I just thought it was a Catholic forum. Its a shame you feel the administrators won’'t tolerate other views, especially correct views. I hope you are wrong.

I’ve been here for 16 years and I’ve seen the pattern more than 100 times. Message board moderation actually has little to do with the views themselves and everything to do with how you treat and interact with others.

Edit: I now see that you’re suspended for a month. Like I said, we forum veterans can see it coming when we see the scorched-earth rhetoric, especially from a newbie who hasn’t even taken the care to sit back and get a feel for the community before going after others. When your suspension ends, consider a change in style if you want to stick around. It’s worthwhile IMO.