Unofficial Election Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter PaulinVA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StudentMI said:
Lack of health care coverage can kill a child. Consider a family where the child has cancer.
Click to expand...
The cancer may kill the child; but he will not be torn, limb from limb by a scalpel or suction device.
 
OraLabora said:
The Church in no way teaches it is necessary to sacrifice one’s life or a family member’s for the greater good.
Click to expand...
I’m not seeing an argument that those living outside of the womb must necessarily sacrifice their lives.
However, when people vote for pro-abortion candidates in the hope of extending their lives, it seem to me that they are quite willing to sanction the deliberatte taking of life in the hope of scoring a few more weeks, months or years this side of judgement.
 
F_Marturana said:
Neither candidate for president has the power to make abortion laws stricter.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this F Murturana,
Over the past few presidencies, we have seen Presidents using executive orders to push policies which they sense might not be easily pushed through the legislative process.
Until the executive branch is curbed in this regard, I would anticipate the possibility that Presidents from either party may try to use executive orders to either increase or decrease the practice of abortion -at either the domestic or international scale.
This may, eventually, be limited or curtailed by the judiciary, but that would be after the fact.
 
There are 6 Republican appointees on the high court, and one thing they have in common is that the tend to be conservative when it comes to the Constitution. I do not see any of them backing a federal intrusion into the election process of the state. If there are clear federal voting rights violations, then they will act.
 
pnewton said:
There are 6 Republican appointees on the high court, and one thing they have in common is that the tend to be conservative when it comes to the Constitution. I do not see any of them backing a federal intrusion into the election process of the state. If there are clear federal voting rights violations, then they will act.
Click to expand...
In all the pre-election cases, the conservative justices all voted to uphold the existing state election laws. I see no reason that will change, which means that there is no chance of the Supreme Court “saving” Trump.
 
If somebody directly kills another through dismemberment, that is very different from not having $ 50,000 dollars a week available for cutting edge cancer treatments.
In both cases,a death may occur. In one case, a person is deliberately killed.
 
The Article you posted offers a context in which healthcare can be understood as a right. IT notes: " From this perspective, one can meaningfully speak of a right to health care. The tradition understands health care as a right because it safeguards human life and dignity."
Health care as provided in Canada and as offered in Obamacare, by porviding for abortion, does not safeguard human life. Rather it enables 9and, some might argue, supports) human sacrifice for the sake of the common good of those left after others are aborted.
I would contend that that sort of medical system, could not be properly referred to, in the Catholic context, as healthcare. I would further argue, that, as a Catholics, I ought to oppose the creation of such a system in the United States.

Article linkhttps://www.chausa.org/publications/health-progress/article/march-april-2010/ethics—catholics-understand-health-care-as-a-right
 
Last edited:
jeannetherese said:
it seem to me that they are quite willing to sanction the deliberatte taking of life in the hope of scoring a few more weeks, months or years this side of judgement.
Click to expand...
You are completely baseless and uncharitable in assuming this. It’s not as if voting Trump would end abortion tomorrow or even in 4 years.
 
OraLabora said:
You are completely baseless and uncharitable in assuming this. It’s not as if voting Trump would end abortion tomorrow or even in 4 years.
Click to expand...
So, he defunded American monies to International Planned Parenthood. Isn’t saving a few lives worth something? Or does it have to be an absolute ban on all abortions? And then, what’s the logic? To vote for pro-abortion politicians? Doesn’t make sense?


Again, Catholics I thought are called not to enable through voting, the act of abortion.
 
Last edited:
I stand by my predictions. Trump won this election by a landslide, and the courts will hold that up.
Click to expand...
If anything, I appreciate that you stick by your convictions, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against them. That’s pretty powerful.

It looks like Biden will win on the first count by more than just a slim margin. Assuming he does I can’t see Trump winning. The best he could hope for is a recount on some states, and the chances of multiple states being off by thousands of votes in their counts seems unlikely. It’s very unlikely some grand election rigging conspiracy will be found out.
 
jeannetherese said:
I’m not seeing an argument that those living outside of the womb must necessarily sacrifice their lives.
However, when people vote for pro-abortion candidates in the hope of extending their lives, it seem to me that they are quite willing to sanction the deliberatte taking of life in the hope of scoring a few more weeks, months or years this side of judgement.
Click to expand...
See, this is actually correct.

I don’t see how those who say, “yeah, I’ll vote for some politician who supports abortion because I think the other guy is so bad”, okay, they are making a choice to enable abortion, simple as. They may have their proportional reason.

That does not mean they are using the correct theology.

They should own up to it, they are saying, I will vote for the pro-abortion politician because proportional reasons have more importance.

The Catholic Answers tract on this has been posted twice. I won’t post it again.

You are absolutely correct, they are aiding the act of abortion.
 
I didn’t say anything about “cutting edge cancer treatments.” I also wasn’t specifically talking about healthcare. It’s just absurd to claim that denying someone the means to live is not killing them.
 
I just meant that my intention was to point out the faulty logic. It’s a bad argument whether or not everyone deserves access to healthcare.
 
PaulinVA said:
It’s a Trumster talking point that there is massive fraud. There just seems to be massive voting against Trump. We are just waiting to see if it’s in the right states.
Click to expand...
As for me, I do not think there is a massive voter fraud. What I see is that this is a razor thin in for Biden, and due to the small edge. What percentage of voter fraud was the cause of it? Mind you, this can also be for Trump. So he will have to loose those ballots.

Some people have been recorded and or come forward with allegations of violating voter rules. That means that some people voted do not count because others have fraud their vote.

Meaning. Lets say, I voter for X, but there is a person who changes votes or finds ballots to fill out and makes five different votes. My vote is surpassed by the other person actions.

Now, how hard is it to “Catch” this frauds? Very hard. So, it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
I would be interested in a more detailed argument, if you would be willing to share.
It seems to em that we were discussing the difference between killing and failing to prolong a life with abortion as an example of killing and not providing a life prolonging medical treatment as failing to prolong a life.
My logic may be faulty, but I do not see where it is at fault and am curious as to what I am missing.
Thanks so much.
jt
 
jeannetherese said:
and not providing a life prolonging medical treatment as failing to prolong a life.
Click to expand...
No. Denying medical treatment is failing to provide the necessities of life. It is more or less equivalent to denying someone food or drink. The rapidity of death from failing to provide medical care can vary from minutes to months to years, depending on the disease and available treatments. I’m talking here of serious ailments, not a cold or flu in an otherwise healthy person.

Take someone with Hodgkin’s disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system that primarily affects young adults. Untreated, it kills in months. Treated, the patient can live for many years, up to a normal lifespan. It is one of the most successfully treated cancers.

So if someone is denied or cannot access health care due to government policies, it is tantamount to a death sentence to someone with Hodgkin’s disease. Moreover someone who cannot afford to go to a doctor may be diagnosed at a late stage that makes treatment less effective.

I don’t get that folks don’t get that for many, health care is absolutely a necessity of life.
 
We also have a serious problem in this country with the unaffordability of lifesaving treatments. Type 1 diabetics not able to afford insulin, severe asthmatics not able to afford inhalers, etc. which often lead to death. They can’t go to the ER every time they need a daily insulin or inhaler!

So often I’ve heard people say we have healthcare available to everyone because they can go to the ER. Sorry, the ER doesn’t do rounds of chemo. The costs of medicines alone denies many from basic healthcare.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top