Unofficial Election Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter PaulinVA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Victoria33 said:
But you are promoting the idea of enabling the termination of life.
Click to expand...
No I am not. I am saying that given that abortion will take years to solve through the courts, there may be proportionate reasons to vote for the pro-choice candidate in this election cycle. I am being pragmatic, you are behind ideological.

What would you do in the hypothetical case that the anti-abortion promises to go to war and the pro-abortion candidate promises peace!

Simplistic solutions to complex issues don’t solve anything.

That is utter nonsense. Just look at the infant mortality rate alone without health care and tell me it’s not essential to life.
 
This is an insane position, and not one that I think is actually supported by the Catholic Church, but I think it sums up the “logic” of a lot of pro-life people.

Denying someone the means to live doesn’t seem that different to killing them. If someone is denied access to healthcare and they die from a preventable cause, it’s hard to see how they weren’t effectively killed.
 
Humanity is still surviving despite all of the abortions that are happening. By that logic I guess it doesn’t matter, and so should be allowed to continue.
 
Healthcare is often a necessity for survival. If someone is starving and another person has an excess of food, do you think the person with food is obligated to feed the starving person?
 
OraLabora said:
No I am not. I am saying that given that abortion will take years to solve through the courts, there may be proportionate reasons to vote for the pro-choice candidate in this election cycle. I am being pragmatic, you are behind ideological.

What would you do in the hypothetical case that the anti-abortion promises to go to war and the pro-abortion candidate promises peace!

Simplistic solutions to complex issues don’t solve anything.
Click to expand...
It’s not all in the Courts, the Democrats like Trudeau are for funding abortion in the 3rd world, talking about racism. Trump defunded such. It’s just beyond court cases.

And why talk about it would take years, you have advocated against Trump.


As voters, we can fight for the unborn or we can make excuses.
What would you do in the hypothetical case that the anti-abortion promises to go to war and the pro-abortion candidate promises peace!
Click to expand...
You know what Cardinal Ratzinger spoke about? The tyranny (or dictatorhsip) of relativism. These issues are all over the place.

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

I will go with the best that I can understand it, Vatican teaching, the Magisterium.


Respectfully, I am done here. Except if there are issues with no back up at all, I will say so.

Pope Benedict was correct, we are using relativist arguments.
 
It may have been when the medical of avoiding the death had not been discovered. And that is still the case for many diseases.

But to deny the necessities of life, including health care, is homicide pure and simple.

In fact I find your attitude downright chilling.

And most certainly not what the Church teaches. Pro-life, for the Church, is a package deal. Thus the reason she allows one to vote for a pro-abortion (or pro-euthanasia or pro-capital punishment) candidate for proportionate reasons.

Flagged. Extremely uncharitable to say I’m justifying sin when arguing a point about what the Church actually allows. You are impugning my conscience.
 
Last edited:
I find it hard to think you really believe this. If someone is not given adequate healthcare then they could die when otherwise they might live.
 
By having 10% of children not make it to adolescence. By having 10% of women die giving birth. By having an average life expectancy 30 years less than today.

Humanity has developed the means to improve those outcomes. God, through His Church, expects us to make those means available to all through affordable health care, which might mean free for the working poor, the unemployed, etc., and a reasonable proportion of income for the rest.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
I find it hard to think you really believe this. If someone is not given adequate healthcare then they could die when otherwise they might live.
Click to expand...
I understand both points that you and (name removed by moderator) are making. Here is how I understand his point.

If healthcare is a right. Then by law a doctor is obligated to provide the service to everyone. Thus, the doctor can not say no. Why? Because it is my right. You are a doctor, and that makes you work for me.

This is why people say, healthcare is not a right.

On the other hand, people do have the right to get healthcare. Blocking a person from receiving medical care is cruel and can result in death.

The problem is the understanding of a right, and of what is healthcare.

A woman wants an abortion and a Doctor refuses. Who is protected? Is the abortion a right? Is the doctor oblige to end the life of a baby in the womb?

This is complex, due to semantics.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely bone-chilling argument. I’m done with you. I’ll let others take you on before my anger gets the best of me and I say something uncharitable.
 
Jesus alone is the one that sits on the throne of judgement.
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Rockoh22 said:
If healthcare is a right. Then by law a doctor is obligated to provide the service to everyone. Thus, the doctor can not say no. Why? Because it is my right. You are a doctor, and that makes you work for me.
Click to expand...
A doctor cannot deny health care in an emergency. She can however manage her patient load to what she can manage
Rockoh22 said:
A woman wants an abortion and a Doctor refuses. Who is protected? Is the abortion a right? Is the doctor oblige to end the life of a baby in the womb?
Click to expand...
The argument has been settled in Canada. A doctor can refuse to perform an abortion, assuming the doctor has that ability (not all do), but must refer the patient to a colleague who can.
 
You said what he was doing was sin, based on your opinions and beyond Church teaching. The Church teaching on conscience is explicitly applied to how we vote. Our own conscience is not something we can use as a standard for others, as it too may be faulty, in this case, it seems to be missing that very teaching on individual conscience.

No. You lack the ecclesial authority to define sin for others beyond what the Church has defined. Be your own pope if you must, that is sort of what conscience is.
 
Last edited:
If healthcare is a right. Then by law a doctor is obligated to provide the service to everyone. Thus, the doctor can not say no. Why? Because it is my right. You are a doctor, and that makes you work for me.
Click to expand...
This still applies to food, water or housing if we assume that those things are “rights.” Everything an individual needs is likely going to be the product of human labour. You could say that food cannot be a right, because it forces the farmer and retailer to provide it.

I’m not really big on the topic of individual rights, I don’t think it makes much sense really. Still I don’t see how the argument of “personal liberty”, works, because everything is a product of human labour, so to say anyone has a right to anything is to basically say that someone needs to produce it for them.
 
Last edited:
OraLabora said:
A doctor cannot deny health care in an emergency. She can however manage her patient load to what she can manage
Click to expand...
Ah, yes I believe this is even part of the hipo something oath doctors take. However, this is not about that, because that is already law. It is about general healthcare. And to that, what constitutes as healthcare.

There are many people that say abortion is a right. And as a right, and you are a doctor, can you see the legal challenges. Laws do change.

Not only that. prominent people say that sex changing surgery is life saving. Now as a doctor are you obligated to do that surgery?

I do agree that if you are going to be a doctor, you must provide life saving healthcare to everyone that you come across, it is your duty and obligation. But at what point is the duty of a Doctor, not obligated? That is the argument.

We already have life-giving services mandated.
 
I absolutely do not. Flagged again. Stop saying falsehoods, and stop impugning my character.

A reminder to all: I was adopted as an infant in 1958, having been born to an unwed teenager.

I completely agree with the Church’s stand on abortion, and her protection of life from conception until natural death. All life. I also agree with her stand on voting for proportionate reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top