Trump’s March for Life Message

  • Thread starter Thread starter TTLE127
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@Aquinas11

What exactly are you trying to prove/convince us of in this thread? That the death penalty is fine? That the unborn are worth more than prisoners innocent or not? Or that Trump is really pro-life and you are finding ways to defend Trump?

I’m confused on what you are trying to get at here. We both agree abortion is terrible evil, the worst evil of all evils. You agree there are other evils correct? But you aren’t agreeing with any other evils
 
Last edited:
GospelOfMatthew said:
We both agree abortion is terrible evil, the worst evil of all evils.
Click to expand...
If its the “worst evil of all evils” then posts like the one below wouldn’t suggest its equal to anything under an “umbrella” of pro-life issues, and falsely suggesting we can’t vote for pro-abortion or anti-abortion candidates, which is contradictory to Church teaching.
GospelOfMatthew said:
But yes, we basically can’t vote for either Rs or Ds to be honest if we are taking pro-life as the entire umbrella.
Click to expand...
 
Ranked choice is the most ideal but already about 50% of the population doesn’t vote presidentially now and even less congressionally. These people won’t understand ranked choice or won’t want to. Actually had a class last year where we talked about how effective ranked choice would actually be electorally. Answer is it’s most ideal but in practice it always has horrible turnout. It would need widespread educational efforts to understand it
 
We can’t vote for a politician who supports abortion, that is a grave sin, end of story.

We can vote for politicians who support the death penalty and other issues that aren’t entirely “pro-life”. But this is up to our personal discretion which I have said in many posts.

If someone wants to vote based on the entire umbrella of pro life, including death penalty and all the others already mentioned, nearly no politician can be voted for. But we are only required to not vote for those who support abortion

What is the issue? I feel as if you are intentionally nit-picking things out of context to prove your point. So what is your point? That I’m wrong for supporting life in all cases? Be clear on what your point is
 
Last edited:
After seeing the issues that come with ranked choice voting in countries like France, I’m a bit skeptical of the idea. The issue I see is that only about of 1/3 the French electorate actually voted for Macron due to the nature of the ranked choice system.
 
GospelOfMatthew said:
If someone wants to vote based on the entire umbrella of pro life, including death penalty and all the others already mentioned, nearly no politician can be voted for.
Click to expand...
Right and I don’t believe that conclusion can be coherently reached with fully informed conscience while simultaneously contending that abortion is “the worst evil of all evils”. We clearly disagree which is fine.
 
Last edited:
Id say 60,000,000 murders is a pretty big evil, quite genocidal. Perhaps you are saying we can’t quantity the evil in one vs the evil in another. We can, I say we can’t vote the lesser of two evils but we can still quantity what evil is greater. 60M murders is a greater evil than the death penalty which is thousands but not millions. But we can’t quantity this on the macro scale of voting, only the micro out of own discretion. But we can agree to disagree
 
Last edited:
GospelOfMatthew said:
Perhaps you are saying we can’t quantity the evil in one vs the evil in another.
Click to expand...
No we agree on this - that abortion is greatest evil and can be quantified. I think we’d probably disagree on quantifying evil of death penalty as I would only count those wrongly convicted who are killed. But we’d both arrive at same conclusion - abortion far and away the greatest evil.
GospelOfMatthew said:
I say we can’t vote the lesser of two evils…we can’t quantity this on the macro scale of voting,
Click to expand...
Ok I see what you’re getting at - that you can’t vote for anything you perceive as evil/opposing a pro life issue.

Reason I disagree with that is that I see each non-vote for pro-life candidate as an effective vote for pro-abortion candidate, since now the pro-abortion candidate needs one less vote to win that he would have needed had the pro-life candidate received a vote. And since abortion is far and away greatest moral evil (just based on scale of numbers you accurately cited), that’s a definite no go.

But I see your approach too and important thing is we’re both not voting for pro-abortion candidates.
 
Last edited:
I see where you’re coming from as well. Obviously I disagree, but I have a better understanding of your rationale. I do agree that we can’t support candidates who are ok with abortion, and that’s why I won’t whenever the next election comes up. But I won’t back someone that is pro-life and pro death penalty either, but we’ll agree to disagree there.
 
OnAJourney said:
I do agree that we can’t support candidates who are ok with abortion, and that’s why I won’t whenever the next election comes up
Click to expand...
Yeah the big point is we all agree on this and are united. I wish everyone was and millions of innocents would be saved.
 
That’s why I was saying in a separate thread from this I believe the pro-life movement has more work to do. There is room for improvement in outreach and messaging. And we shouldn’t be condescending or mean spirited when trying to reach out to other people. Sometimes the pro-life movement makes that mistake and it does set things back and leaves people with a sour taste
 
Aquinas11 said:
  • Many “parents” who say they are parents at the border aren’t the kids parents, but instead are trafficking them.
Click to expand...
How many is many?
I doubt very much that the people who are lamenting child separation are so intent on criticizing Trump that they’re willing to let traffickers get away with their crime.

Let’s say: “Even one trafficked child is too many.” Let’s also say, “Separating even one child is too many.”

By the way, what’s the definition being used for trafficking? Is it trafficking in the sense that we all know is abhorrent? Or does it include people who are paid by the child’s family to get the child across the border to family members residing in the US?
 
Dont want to derail thread with this issue and all questions you’ve asked. PM me if want to discuss or probably best to open new thread.
 
Last edited:
Patriot? When the coast guard isn’t getting paid and ICE is arresting veterans? When the generals are dropping him left and right?
 
Voter turnout turnout well may improve once ranked choice voting proves less futile than our current system.

But it’s also another issue altogether. Voting is becoming increasingly more restrictive. Polls also need to be accessible. We have mail-in voting in Oregon and one of the highest turn-out rates nationally.

This topic is derailing the thread, however. On life issues, I look at the actions of elected officials, not their words. Trump has yet to impress me on this front.
 
I would like to add to the conversation of death penalty being pro-life, I wouldn’t support the death penalty of Hitler if he was arrested and stood trial as opposed to shooting himself. I wouldn’t support the death penalty for the terrible Hutu extremist group in the Rwandan Genocide (a particular interest of mine is this genocide).

If I was even consider supporting the death penalty it would be if we are talking about a prisoner who might kill other inmates or the guards or is a risk to escape and kill civilians. BUT, my concern here is the safety of others, not killing this person because he/she has no value or worth. I believe everyone, the worst murderer or the holiest person has worth not deserves death. Also, considering how strong our prisons are due to new innovation, security, and weaponry, the inevitability someone escapes is very low and if such a risk to others in the prison is there, the innate would face additional security and privatization measures.

So my point is, in theory I could see a situation where the death penalty is needed but in actuality this situation will never happen. This is also the view JPII had, he conceded in theory it is possible a situation needs it but in actuality it would never be needed.

Thus, by this logic, I oppose the death penalty in every case. Pope Francis codified this belief of JPII. If by some crazy odds this situation is necessary (which myself and JPII see as impossible), the action of death would have to be ordered to the preservation of life not ordered to punishment.
Curious as to what others think on this. @Aquinas11 @OnAJourney
 
Last edited:
I think if it’s implemented it will have a massive downtick in turnout but after it is normalized, the turnout might bounce back. Turnout is very low in part because people think their vote doesn’t matter, voter ID discriminating against the poor, and not enough efforts to help those who can’t make the pools for a variety of reasons, work, travel, money… in effect this a modern-age poll tax.

But no need to derail the thread, I’ll put my nerdy Political Science knowledge to the side 🤓
 
GospelOfMatthew said:
I think if it’s implemented it will have a massive downtick in turnout but after it is normalized, the turnout might bounce back.
Click to expand...
Have we seen how it’s panned out in Maine, yet? TPTB weren’t happy when voters passed it by the ballot.

Actually, the issue is relevant to the thread. It may make it easier to get some pro-lifers who also stand for other facets of Catholic Social Teaching. That’s a tall order these days!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top