what do we do if the extremely pro-choice presidential candidate wins the election?

[livingwordunity]

we had the most pro-life President in American history, but were still unable to get Roe v. Wade overturned.

That’s because Obama got elected just before that could happen. And then he put two solidly Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justices on the Court which will probably be there for the next 40 years. These could have been two Pro-Life Supreme Court Justices which would have been enough to tip the scales of the Supreme Court to the Pro-Life side. Now, according to Obama, this election could mean another opportunity to add more Supreme Court Justices. If Obama wins and adds more Pro-Abortion activist judges to the Supreme Court it will most likely be check mate, end game for any hope of the Supreme Court overturning Roe VS Wade at least for the next 40 years. That’s why we can’t afford another 4 years of Obama.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

We work on other fronts such as the Personhood Amendment.

Personhood USA

This would mean that unborn babies are given all the protections of the law, which means they cannot be murdered without it being considered a crime.

We participate in 40 Days for Life.

40 Days for Life

Pray and fast, especially in front of abortion clinics. So far, in the current 40 Days campaign, 576 babies are known to have been saved, and potentially many more that we don’t know about (the mothers simply drove by or changed their minds because people were praying in front of the abortion clinic).

We lobby for laws like the Texas Ultrasound Law, which mandates that PP and other abortion providers give women the option to see their ultrasound, which has always been denied to mothers. Granted, PP still uses deception - the ultrasounds can be focused away from the baby, blurred, etc. but it puts a crimp in their bottom line, and gives us one more tool to keep some babies from being killed.

We pray, and understand that God has a purpose to everything He does.

:grouphug:

 

[Della]

That is very easy for a finacially secure individual to say and a very conservative individual.
But I am not finacially secure, in fact I am quite poor since I had a dibillitating stroke nearly 8 years ago and am no longer able to work, drive, walk unassisted or even bathe and dress myself without a lot of help.

Given the choice between starvation or death from another stroke. or being a “slave” and survieving I would choose this so called “slavery” any time.

I think some people are selfish and don’t really care about the welfare of others .

I way end up dead anyway since texas has chipped away at medicaid til little is left, so the rich will have to pay less taxes and buy new gas guzzlers every year.

Of course, you are disabled, so you need assistance and should get it. I’m talking about people who could otherwise work who don’t and aren’t encouraged to get training nor provided with it. This is not about class warfare, which doesn’t exist, but think of all the taxes to help YOU that would be collected if those currently on welfare who could be working were contributing THEIR “fair share”. You could take the total income of all the “rich” in this country and still not meet the federal deficit nor pay for medcaid or any other program BECAUSE of those who are able to work who live off welfare are sucking the coffers dry. And trust me, I’m far from “well off”. We live from paycheck to paycheck, have a under water mortgage and are just barely keeping up. We could have thrown in the towel and simply let the government take care of us, but we have too much dignity to do that and we believe if we are able to work, we ought to work.

 

[andrewstx]

Of course, you are disabled, so you need assistance and should get it. I’m talking about people who could otherwise work who don’t and aren’t encouraged to get training nor provided with it. This is not about class warfare, which doesn’t exist, but think of all the taxes to help YOU that would be collected if those currently on welfare who could be working were contributing THEIR “fair share”. You could take the total income of all the “rich” in this country and still not meet the federal deficit nor pay for medcaid or any other program BECAUSE of those who are able to work who live off welfare are sucking the coffers dry. And trust me, I’m far from “well off”. We live from paycheck to paycheck, have a under water mortgage and are just barely keeping up. We could have thrown in the towel and simply let the government take care of us, but we have too much dignity to do that and we believe if we are able to work, we ought to work.

I understand what you are saying, and would work if I could. My life is not easy or pleasent. It mostly consists of tv and working with my roses from a wheelchair and trying to concentrate enough to read.

I just don’t “get” the idea the right has of people getting rich from public assistance. I am most certrianly not rich from my less than $700 month SSI check, and in reality “welfare Caddilacs” don’t exist. Until I moved to a trailer house in the country I had an 8 room house inherited from my yia yia (grandmother) falling apart and too big to keep clean. The house tho nice at one time is in a bad neioghborhood with drugdealers to the right and a HUD house on the left.

The HUD house was inhabited by a very large “family” the children dress in rags because it’s all they can afford. They drove no Caddillac.

The idea of people enduring such a life out of their will seems preposterous to me.

 

[Della]

I understand what you are saying, and would work if I could. My life is not easy or pleasent. It mostly consists of tv and working with my roses from a wheelchair and trying to concentrate enough to read.

I just don’t “get” the idea the right has of people getting rich from public assistance. I am most certrianly not rich from my less than $700 month SSI check, and in reality “welfare Caddilacs” don’t exist. Until I moved to a trailer house in the country I had an 8 room house inherited from my yia yia (grandmother) falling apart and too big to keep clean. The house tho nice at one time is in a bad neioghborhood with drugdealers to the right and a HUD house on the left.

The HUD house was inhabited by a very large “family” the children dress in rags because it’s all they can afford. They drove no Caddillac.

The idea of people enduring such a life out of their will seems preposterous to me.

No one gets rich from welfare. I’m not making that claim at all. What I’m saying is we cannot go on supporting people who can work because the country is trillions in debt. I don’t have any stereotypes in mind here and I don’t believe in classifying people. All I’m saying is that not everyone on welfare needs to be there. Why are those people on welfare? Because their parents (more likely unwed mother) was and they know no other life.

I remember reading about a woman who got out of the welfare cycle who went back to her old neighborhood to start a community garden. People showed up but just stood around with the tools in their hands because they’d never done any kind of work and had no idea what to do. She had to tell them how to do everything.

Another instance a program was started to get street people job training and off the streets. That failed because they had no work ethic and couldn’t understand why they should work when they could live off charity and welfare.

People get trapped in a mind set of being cared for and so lose incentive to work–it’s a foreign concept for them. And forget about creativity–it’s completely a no starter for such folks. I blame a welfare system that punishes families instead of supporting them, of keeping people in generational poverty. It has to stop.

 

[ProVobis]

1. OR we need a Constitutional Amendment that will define life in such a way as to outlaw abortion. But that’s a fantasy right now. You don’t propose a Constitutional Amendment when you know it will get shot down terribly. You need a 2/3rd or 3/4 majority to pass the amendment, depending on whether you go by legislature or states. You MIGHT, with God’s grace, have a bare majority right now, but nowhere near enough to pass such a thing. So if it were to be proposed, you’d only have a major setback to the Pro-Life movement as it was defeated.

There’s another way and it doesn’t involve Congress at all. A Constitutional Amendment may be added or changed by a constitutional convention proposed by 2/3 of the states. They have to come up with something viable, of course, and then it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. You probably won’t hear this proposal from the politicians, though. It has to be a grass-roots movement and there’s nothing Congress can do about it at all.

But if the Congressional method is chosen, a 2/3rds majority in both chambers would be required WITHOUT A PRESIDENTIAL SIGNATURE before it gets sent to the states for ratification.

 

[andrewstx]

No one gets rich from welfare. I’m not making that claim at all. What I’m saying is we cannot go on supporting people who can work because the country is trillions in debt. I don’t have any stereotypes in mind here and I don’t believe in classifying people. All I’m saying is that not everyone on welfare needs to be there. Why are those people on welfare? Because their parents (more likely unwed mother) was and they know no other life.

I remember reading about a woman who got out of the welfare cycle who went back to her old neighborhood to start a community garden. People showed up but just stood around with the tools in their hands because they’d never done any kind of work and had no idea what to do. She had to tell them how to do everything.

Another instance a program was started to get street people job training and off the streets. That failed because they had no work ethic and couldn’t understand why they should work when they could live off charity and welfare.

People get trapped in a mind set of being cared for and so lose incentive to work–it’s a foreign concept for them. And forget about creativity–it’s completely a no starter for such folks. I blame a welfare system that punishes families instead of supporting them, of keeping people in generational poverty. It has to stop.

On that I can agree, there is a dignity to work that many don’t understand. And there are some capable of work on public assistance.

 

[ringil]

I know just how you feel. My dh has threatened to move us to another country, but, of course, this isn’t possible and wouldn’t solve anything.

If the pro-death (I have to call it what it is) candidate wins we need to redouble our efforts at getting other Catholics on board. There’s a huge split between pro-life and social justice Catholics in the USA, sad to say. The SJCs believe they have to support the candidate that throws the most money in the direction of welfare programs. They won’t hear that such programs only enslave people and give the government undue power. You can tell which part I take, as much as I hate having to take sides. If only they would see that being pro-life is being socially responsible and just. But, too many of our Chruch leaders tied themselves into supporting candidates and programs support by the pro-death faction, overlooking their stance in order to get short term benefits for programs they liked. But it was all a deception, as many of our Church leaders are finallly realizing–too late, if the pro-death candidates win. More and more of our freedoms will be eaten away and we’ll become a nanny state, beholden to government for everything. That kind of government simply doesn’t work–it leaves no incentive for creativity and productivity, but people want to be taken care of rather than work for anything these days, it seems.

I completely reject the spirit, premises, and thrust of your post.

I find it disturbing and cold-hearted.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No one gets rich from welfare. I’m not making that claim at all. What I’m saying is we cannot go on supporting people who can work because the country is trillions in debt. I don’t have any stereotypes in mind here and I don’t believe in classifying people. All I’m saying is that not everyone on welfare needs to be there. Why are those people on welfare? Because their parents (more likely unwed mother) was and they know no other life.

I remember reading about a woman who got out of the welfare cycle who went back to her old neighborhood to start a community garden. People showed up but just stood around with the tools in their hands because they’d never done any kind of work and had no idea what to do. She had to tell them how to do everything.

Another instance a program was started to get street people job training and off the streets. That failed because they had no work ethic and couldn’t understand why they should work when they could live off charity and welfare.

People get trapped in a mind set of being cared for and so lose incentive to work–it’s a foreign concept for them. And forget about creativity–it’s completely a no starter for such folks. I blame a welfare system that punishes families instead of supporting them, of keeping people in generational poverty. It has to stop.

But Della, those who support Obama because they think he is a “social justice” person, are mistaken. Obama has lined many a wealthy person’s pocket and pretends that Obamacare will benefit the middle class (which it doesn’t). But when it comes to the truly poor, this administration has done nothing but hurt them.

 

[Ridgerunner]

On that I can agree, there is a dignity to work that many don’t understand. And there are some capable of work on public assistance.

Possibly this has some relevance. I know a number of people who are associated with the workers’ compensation world. Many, perhaps most companies offer “light duty” or 'modified work" during the healing process.

Why do they do that? Because people who are not working at all often become “deconditioned”, both physically and mentally, and being at the workplace, even with light duty, helps prevent that.

One really does need to wonder how many of the Obama unemployed have become, or are becoming “deconditioned”.

Gettng a little closer to the topic, though, it seems to me that if Obama is re-elected, perhaps one of the best things to do is to impress better ways of thinking on young people; e.g, getting them to understand precisely how and why the populace got so off-kilter that it voted him in in the first place. It is important that they understand how truly in the wrong this man and his supporters, particularly in the media, are.

 

[ProVobis]

We work on other fronts such as the Personhood Amendment.

Personhood USA

This would mean that unborn babies are given all the protections of the law, which means they cannot be murdered without it being considered a crime.

I believe 3/4 of the states are needed to ratify the Amendment, not 2/3rds. However, it is possible, as I noted above, that 2/3 rds of the states could initiate the process WITHOUT ANY ACTION BY CONGRESS. In other words, we are not entirely at the mercy of the Federal Government in this regard.

 

[Della]

I completely reject the spirit, premises, and thrust of your post.

I find it disturbing and cold-hearted.

Please read all my posts before deciding what I mean. Thank you.

 

[crenfro]

Thank you so much for saying this. Is very comforting. God bless you.

Our salvation is not dependent on the outcome of temporal elections and we can never sit on any laurels because the work of bringing the light of Christ to the world is never complete until He Himself completes it at the end of the age.

 

[zenith15]

Posted at the top of this forum in the sticky notes section by moderators:

"The only forum where discussions of current news events, including news events in the political realm, is allowed at CAF is in the World News sub-forum of the In the News forum.

Please do not discuss politics, candidates or political parties in this forum.

To start a thread in the World News sub-forum, find a news article on the subject of interest and reference the article in the first post.

More information is posted at the top of the World News sub-forum.

Thank you for your cooperation."

And yet these threads seem to be popping up everywhere.

 

[Joe_5859]

Posted at the top of this forum in the sticky notes section by moderators:

"The only forum where discussions of current news events, including news events in the political realm, is allowed at CAF is in the World News sub-forum of the In the News forum.

Please do not discuss politics, candidates or political parties in this forum.

To start a thread in the World News sub-forum, find a news article on the subject of interest and reference the article in the first post.

More information is posted at the top of the World News sub-forum.

Thank you for your cooperation."

And yet these threads seem to be popping up everywhere.

Of course, the final decision is up to the moderator, but I don’t think this thread need be interpreted as political. One of the candidates is self-professedly pro-choice. There is a possibility he will win. Talking about what we might do if that happens seems like a legitimate social justice discussion.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Hello.

I hope this is the right section for me to put this post.

I keep wondering, what happens, what do we do as Catholics, if the more pro-life presidential candidate doesn’t win – (but I hope and pray he does) – what do people attempting to be faithful Catholics do?

I feel like maybe I’m not relying on God as much as I should be by worrying about this so much.

Any useful comments, insights, comforting thoughts are very welcome.

Please pray for me.

If you make your political decision based on some dead babies then you have a shallow point of view.

 

[Della]

If you make your political decision based on some dead babies then you have a shallow point of view.

“Some dead babies”? Really? Wow!

 

[zenith15]

Of course, the final decision is up to the moderator, but I don’t think this thread need be interpreted as political. One of the candidates is self-professedly pro-choice. There is a possibility he will win. Talking about what we might do if that happens seems like a legitimate social justice discussion.

It says “Please do not discuss politics, candidates or political parties in this forum.”

Talking about the candidates would seem to be in violation of that rule.

 

[Burdensome1]

Did I miss something? Why did the Catholic person say it was wrong to base our politics on dead babies?

Why shouldn’t I base my political decisions on good and evil? I’m confused by that post and it makes me sad.

 

[Della]

Well, the OP’s question is more than academic now. God help us. I don’t think Catholics who voted for the most pro-death president in American history know what they’ve unleased. As a lame duck he’ll mandate whatever he pleases with no one to tell him no, no one to stop him. We’ll see what the decision to elect him in spite of Church teaching will reap–it won’t be good.