Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kaliaa said:
Again, how can any Catholic in good conscience support Hillary Clinton?

There are some things in this church which are not up for rebranding, debate or reinterpreting. Abortion and gay “marriage” are two of them.

HIllary Clinton is strongly in favor of both. As president this is what she would work for. This rules out any choice but voting for another candidate or not voting at all. It is really that simple.

It doesn’t matter what other good she might do. Being in favor of murder negates all the rest. Doing grave evil for some intended good is still grave evil. The end does NOT justify the means.

Hillary is a no go.
Click to expand...
How could any Catholic support TRUMP in good conscience? :confused:
 
Crossbones said:
I think 99.9% of the population knows that “take them out” in this context means kill them and since the killing would not be justified because they are not combatants, it would be murder. It’s really very straight forward.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t.

Noncombatants are often killed in wars, and while they should be spared, if possible, it is very often impossible in war to avoid noncombatant casualties. The target is the enemy, not the bystander.

That’s not the same thing as murder, in which one deliberately targets an innocent person without just cause or excuse for doing so.

Of course, the Democrat candidate does exactly that in promoting abortion on demand. That’s not to mention, of course, the indiscriminate bombing in Libya and Serbia of which Hillary Clinton was so proud and in which she was a joint perpetrator. In neither did the U.S. know who they were targeting. In the case of Serbia, one of the “hits” was on the Chinese embassy, it was so indiscriminate.
 
estesbob said:
I dont-but i dont put that at the same level as supporting unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand
Click to expand...
You don’t have to vote for either you know. There are other options here. Why doesn’t anyone here get that. Vote 3rd party, write in or don’t vote. It’s not rocket science here.
 
Convert_in_99 said:
There is no delimma here. Vote 3rd party, write in a vote or simply don’t vote. I feel like I keep typing this over and over. It’s not hard people! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Those who wish to support abortion on demand can do that, whether one types it over and over or not. And, yes, it is not hard. But then supporting evil is oftentimes not at all hard.
 
Bottom line, my priest said you have to vote for whoever is against abortion.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Those who wish to support abortion on demand can do that, whether one types it over and over or not. And, yes, it is not hard. But then supporting evil is oftentimes not at all hard.
Click to expand...
How is 3rd party voting supporting abortion? :confused:
 
Ridgerunner said:
Upon what, exactly, would the Catholic refuse to do it?
Click to expand...
He is pro-choice, pro-war, pro-torture and innocent killing of refugees and the families of terrorists. He will destroy anyone who isn’t wealthy. The middle class will suffer greatly under him. The poor will become poorer and the rich richer.

Hilary cannot be supported either.

There is no moral choice for the Christian besides 3rd party, write in or not voting.
 
Convert_in_99 said:
He is pro-choice, pro-war, pro-torture and innocent killing of refugees and the families of terrorists. He will destroy anyone who isn’t wealthy. The middle class will suffer greatly under him. The poor will become poorer and the rich richer.

Hilary cannot be supported either.

There is no moral choice for the Christian besides 3rd party, write in or not voting.
Click to expand...
Leader of Pro-Life Women’s Group Says Pro-Life Voters Should Support Trump, Here’s Why

lifenews.com/2016/05/09/leader-of-pro-life-womens-group-says-pro-life-voters-should-support-trump-heres-why/
 
Convert_in_99 said:
How is 3rd party voting supporting abortion? :confused:
Click to expand...
Voting third party in this system is like voting for yourself. No chance the candidate will win. If one would otherwise vote against the abortion-on-demand candidate (Clinton) then his failure to do so is an aid to her election and therefore supportive of abortion on demand.

Not to be unpleasant with this, but I personally refuse to fail to oppose abortion on demand. I realize voting for some third party might be more emotionally satisfying than voting for Trump, but voting third party would be to please me, not to fight the evil of abortion.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Leader of Pro-Life Women’s Group Says Pro-Life Voters Should Support Trump, Here’s Why

lifenews.com/2016/05/09/leader-of-pro-life-womens-group-says-pro-life-voters-should-support-trump-heres-why/
Click to expand...
Trump has been SO pro-choice in the past, how can we be sure he’s not claiming a newfound prolife stance simply to win votes?

You can’t pick and choose who to hurt and kill. Both mainstream candidates support the hurting and killing of innocent people. Voting for either candidate will be supporting a pro-choice, pro-death culture. We can’t as Christians support the culture of death in any way.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Voting third party in this system is like voting for yourself. No chance the candidate will win. If one would otherwise vote against the abortion-on-demand candidate (Clinton) then his failure to do so is an aid to her election and therefore supportive of abortion on demand.

Not to be unpleasant with this, but I personally refuse to fail to oppose abortion on demand. I realize voting for some third party might be more emotionally satisfying than voting for Trump, but voting third party would be to please me, not to fight the evil of abortion.
Click to expand...
But Trump was a former abortion supporter! Who’s to say he isn’t still and is just lying to get votes? How do we know he’s truly converted. Most of his other stances point to him favoring the hurting and killing of innocent people. No way am I supporting that.
 
jeffrey_erwin said:
**Characterizing any US politician as “vehemently pro-abortion” is not correct. **
Click to expand...
Sure it is. Hillary Clinton is virulently pro-abortion. She wants to remove every regulation or restriction of it and make it funded by taxpayer dollars. She gladly accepts the Margaret Sanger Award for her unwavering support of having babies killed.
Some US politicians recognise the fact that tragedy of pregnancy termination is sometimes medically necessary.
Click to expand...
All pregnancies terminate. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific instead of hiding behind deceptive language? Are you claiming it is ever necessary to direct intend the killing of a child in the womb? Because if you were proclaiming such falsehood, you would be wrong.
The problem is not with these politicians, but rather with doctors who prescribe abortion at the request of the patient when it is not medically necessary.
Click to expand...
Abortion is never medically necessary.
Mrs. Clinton is not “vehemently pro-abortion.” Such a statement is really just slander.
Click to expand...
No, it is telling the truth about Hillary. If this offends you, you should stop supporting her.
 
jtauke said:
Yeah he did. I’m interested to see how one tries to whitewash the below quote.

“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families,” Trump said.
Click to expand...
Maya Angelou said something the to the effect of, “When a person shows you who they are, believe them.”

Perhaps instead of all this parsing and reinterpreting of Trumps statements, we should just listen to his words. For instance “you have to take out their families” has very clear and obvious meaning in the American English. Mr Trump claims to be a “great” communicator, therefore I’ll assume he meant exactly what he said.

Although I’m not a Catholic, I won’t be voting for either candidate this year.
 
Ridgerunner said:
No it isn’t.

Noncombatants are often killed in wars, and while they should be spared, if possible, it is very often impossible in war to avoid noncombatant casualties. The target is the enemy, not the bystander.

That’s not the same thing as murder, in which one deliberately targets an innocent person without just cause or excuse for doing so.

Of course, the Democrat candidate does exactly that in promoting abortion on demand. That’s not to mention, of course, the indiscriminate bombing in Libya and Serbia of which Hillary Clinton was so proud and in which she was a joint perpetrator. In neither did the U.S. know who they were targeting. In the case of Serbia, one of the “hits” was on the Chinese embassy, it was so indiscriminate.
Click to expand...
This is deliberately targeting a non-combatant without just cause. That’s a war crime and that’s murder.
 
punisherthunder said:
Bottom line, my priest said you have to vote for whoever is against abortion.
Click to expand...
Did you ask your priest about torture or murdering innocent people that happen to be related to terrorists? I’m curious what he would say.
 
zz912 said:
Sure it is. Hillary Clinton is virulently pro-abortion.

Abortion is never medically necessary.
Click to expand...
The medical community disagrees with you:

usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/

**To be “virulently pro-abortion” would mean that one wants all pregnant women to have an abortion. That may be the case in China, but it is just not true here in the USA.
Mrs. Clinton would be just as happy if not a single woman in the USA ever got an abortion.
She recognises that this regrettable procedure is sometimes medically necessary.
It is not her fault if some women misuse the procedure as a kind of birth control. **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top