Trump’s March for Life Message

  • Thread starter Thread starter TTLE127
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If he gave an address to biggest Pro-Life event that no other POTUS did in 45 years , that allegation holds no water.- this logic fails, one can give an address and can be the first POTUS in 45 years to do so and still not be invested.

e.g Hillary seemed to be friends with Mother Teresa’s. Does this mean that she is firmly invested in caring for poor like Mother Teresa did? How many FLOTUS were friends with Mother Teresa - a champion of poor?

Something which POTUS is really invested is building a wall and he says it will prevent shedding of American blood and thus enforced a shutdown but every day 900+ babies are killed by PP and his govt is still funding them 500m?
Actions speak louder than words

Being better than the past POTUSes does not mean he is invested in PRO-LIFE
 
Last edited:
I feel your pain, but it’s hard to vote on the abortion issue. In the U.S., at least, both political parties have been lording that one over Americans for nearly 50 years trying to score votes without any meaningful change on the issue. I consider other things that kill people, particularly war, and cast my votes based on whom I project will be responsible for a lower body count. What a macabre system we live in!
 
Committing a murder does not justify the state or us as Christians to murder someone in return. The state is playing God when it decides who will be sent to death. And we’re not even talking about those wrongly convicted that end up being executed. How can we in good conscience as Christians support that?
 
Another moral relativism of comparing murdering babies with protecting children.

The “child separation policy” is designed to protect innocent children. Many “parents” who say they are parents at the border aren’t the kids parents, but instead are trafficking them. Hence that policy is designed to verify the parents are who they say they are, for the protection of the children. You can’t assume every person who says they are a parent is a parent.
 
gospel of mathew has not compared child separation to abortion in fact he/she has earlier stated that abortion is the greatest evil somewhere in this thread
 
OnAJourney said:
The state is playing God when it decides who will be sent to death.
Click to expand...
The STate doesn’t “decide” who is sent to death, the perpetrator does when he/she knowingly commits a capital offense.

1911 Cathecism supported death penalty and wasn’t until 2018 that it changed, so this is very recent and controversial. Night and day from abortion which has always been condemned by Church.
 
abinjoy said:
gospel of mathew has not compared child separation to abortion
Click to expand...
yes compared them both as “evils” - one is “gravest evil” but “there are other evils also”. They are being compared as in genus of evils.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it does. Because the wrongly convicted can also be sent to death row and some have been killed by the state for crimes they didn’t do
 
Thou shalt not kill is not something we can just apply to abortion but then act like it doesn’t apply to the death penalty.
 
OnAJourney said:
Yes, it does. Because the wrongly convicted can also be sent to death row and some have been killed by the state for crimes they didn’t do
Click to expand...
No because you specifically qualified your post to exclude wrongly convicted
OnAJourney said:
The state is playing God when it decides who will be sent to death. And we’re not even talking about those wrongly convicted that end up being executed.
Click to expand...
 
My point is that it doesn’t matter. The wrongly convicted die at the hands of the state, and those who are guilty of crimes still have lives. We are better people and Christians for not killing those convicted of crimes. And ultimately God has to decide their fate.
 
OnAJourney said:
Thou shalt not kill is not something we can just apply to abortion but then act like it doesn’t apply to the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Aquinas has good argument on this:

" For those who have been appropriately appointed, there is no sin in administering punishment. For those who refuse to obey God’s laws, it is correct for society to rebuke them with civil and criminal sanctions. No one sins working for justice, within the law. Actions that are necessary to preserve the good of society are not inherently evil. The common good of the whole society is greater and better than the good of any particular person. “The life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men.” This is likened to the physician who must amputate a diseased limb, or a cancer, for the good of the whole person. He based this on I Corinthians 5, 6: “You know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump of dough?” and I Corinthians 5, 13: “Put away the evil one from among yourselves”; Romans 13,4: “[it is said of earthly power that]
he bears not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil”; I Peter 2, 13-14: “Be subjected therefore to every human creature for God’s sake: whether to be on the king as excelling, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of good.” He believed these passages superseded the text of Exodus 20,13: “Thou shall not kill.” This is mentioned again in Matthew 5,21. Also, it is argued that Matthew 13, 30: “Suffer both the weeds and the wheat to grow until the harvest.” The harvest was interpreted as meaning the end of the world. This is explained by Matthew 13,38-40.[14]
Click to expand...
 
You can’t separate the wrongly convicted from actually guilty murderers. Because both have been convicted by a jury of their peers and both are in the same exact place. We live in a very flawed world and I’m sorry but I do not think the ends justify the means.
 
Last edited:
Jesus never said society has no right to impose capital punishment. If he did, our 1911 Cathecism wouldn’t have permitted it.
 
no by “applying my logic” you’d have to

(1) Find Aquinas language supporting abortion
(2) Then say Jesus never said abortion not permitted, to refute the “is Aquinas > Jesus?” question

Can you quote Aquinas supporting abortion?
 
Last edited:
Im not sure the lower body count method is a good one. That’s implying both politicians are evils and you chose the lesser evil. But in this case you still chose evil which isn’t good.

But yes I agree with you, it’s very hard and there are many issues to consider. I talk to my priest about it, maybe you want to also? 🙂
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top