Who will you be supporting in the U.S. presidential election with our Catholic values in mind?

Status
Not open for further replies.
godisgood77 said:
Well we’re all entitled to believe what we will. That doesn’t change what the Church teaches though. The Church has come to a deeper understanding of the inviolability of the human person… they did so in 2018. Human understanding is constantly evolving and learning… the death penalty is now inadmissible based on that deeper understanding
Click to expand...
You seem to be saying the Church was wrong about an intrinsic evil for 2000 years and changed in 2018, and out of nowhere; as if none of the stated premises had anything to do with the change. Since Pope Francis did state that there is no need to protect society with the death penalty, one simply cannot assume that had nothing to do with his decision, particularly since that was also the rationale in Pope John Paul IIs conclusion as well.

Is it possible that somehow in the first half of the 21st Century, suddenly we became to a better understanding of the inviolability of the human person, and based simply on a human decision alone, than all the saints, theologians and popes of 20 centuries had?

That is simply beyond rationality. Is it really possible that in centuries past when there was no way to prevent a vicious psychopath from murdering at will other than to execute him, a better understanding of the inviolability of the human person would have dictated that people simply allow him to go about his life of killing? That makes no sense but makes a mockery of the inviolability of the lives of innocent victims.

And so, when Pope Francis adds to his formulation that it is now possible to prevent killers from killing, are we to think that’s just meaningless babbling from him? When Pope JPII’s statement was prefaced in the very same sentence that it’s now possible to prevent killers from killing, are we to take that as meaningless and imagine that he simply received infused knowledge denied to the Church for 2000 years?

It can’t be.
It makes no sense at all unless we further assume both were proceeding on the belief that it’s possible in modern society to provide adequate security. And so it is, if sufficient resources are devoted to it.
 
Many, many of the mothers are, themselves, victims. Almost no woman who has an abortion is without some person who encourages the act or even threatens her if she doesn’t do it. That’s why women have never been prosecuted in this country for having abortions. That’s also why, incidentally, homes for women in danger of abortion require very good security from the boyfriends and the pimps and the dealers and the many people who try to get them to abort. I have heard testimony from some of them to that effect myself.

“Prosecuting the women” is a liberal red herring that nobody is promoting and never did.

Dems who appoint pro-abortion judges, who provide taxpayer money for them, who mandate the provision of abortifacients are, indeed, aiding in the killing of babies. They’re part of the chain of causation and so are the people who support and vote for them.
 
farronwolf said:
What President has ever stopped an abortion or ever performed an abortion?
Click to expand...
Well you had the wife of a president, and the runner up of the last election who gave glowing praise of the queen of Planned Parenthood! The biggest butcher shop in history. Most despicable speech I ever heard.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Many, many of the mothers are, themselves, victims. Almost no woman who has an abortion is without some person who encourages the act or even threatens her if she doesn’t do it.
Click to expand...
And you found this information where? Please give us all the factual source of said statement.
 
If I give glowing praise of the Houston Astros to win the World Series have I done anything win the World Series.

Let me think. Umm no.
 
farronwolf said:
If I give glowing praise of the Houston Astros to win the World Series have I done anything win the World Series.

Let me think. Umm no.
Click to expand...
If, over time, you contribute money and influence to them so they can buy good players, you have.
 
So they are basing their information on the people that seek help from their organization, not from people who don’t seek their help.

I am almost certain that the types of women who are seeking their help fit into the description you referred to, but don’t think that is a representative sample of the nearly million women who seek abortions annually.
 
Every president, including Trump, who has reinstated the Mexico City policy, has prevented abortions being paid for by U.S taxpayers. Every president, all Democrats, who has eliminated the Mexico City policy, has supported foreign abortions.
 
I’m not sure what “inadmissible” means. But the Church surely considers abortion inadmissible, as well as same sex marriage.
 
The Church considers abortion an intricsic evil: always evil under any conditions.

This is not the case with capital punishment, which is called inadmissible, not even evil.
 
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
farronwolf:
And you found this information where? Please give us all the factual source of said statement.
Click to expand...
Women at LifeHouse operated by Catholic Charities of Southern Missouri, mainly.
Click to expand...
Information that you get from LifeHouse regarding women forced by men to get abortions only shows that there are some women who are forced to have abortions. It does not address the many many women who decide all on their own to have an abortion because LifeHouse would never encounter them and therefore would have no way of knowing how many of them there are. Why would you not prosecute them? And if you are blaming the men in the lives, why not prosecute those men? It seems the only people you are willing to blame are the Democrats, when they don’t force anyone to have an abortion. It looks more and more like the emphasis on abortion is largely to accomplish other Republican goals, like lower taxes, less regulation, etc.
 
Last edited:
Is this where we pretend that legislation and policy has no effect or connection to abortion outcomes and therefore politicians are never culpable for their words and actions? And then use this to justify supporting politicians who support abortion but will enact other social legislation and policy that one prefers and then give the politician credit for…their policy positions…that they can’t be held responsible for…🤔
 
Ridgerunner said:
Many, many of the mothers are, themselves, victims. Almost no woman who has an abortion is without some person who encourages the act or even threatens her if she doesn’t do it. That’s why women have never been prosecuted in this country for having abortions. That’s also why, incidentally, homes for women in danger of abortion require very good security from the boyfriends and the pimps and the dealers and the many people who try to get them to abort. I have heard testimony from some of them to that effect myself.
Click to expand...
One of the saddest interviews I ever heard was with a girl who said that when she (as a teenager) realized she was pregnant, she had everyone in her life say they would be there for her to have an abortion. But not a single person offered to be there for her to have the child.
 
Ridgerunner said:
If, over time, you contribute money and influence to them so they can buy good players, you have.
Click to expand...
This raises and interesting question of what is the best way to save children. In a pluralistic society where the value of religious faith is declining people are increasingly polarized, penal solutions to abortion may not be the best way to combat it. I do not want to get into the false dichotomy of saying we should fight only on one front, so of course we should fight politically to stop abortion. However, I do see that fight as absolute. If the fight to stop abortion political costs ground in public opinion, which I see as the ultimate way to lower abortion, then I might not choose to vote for one I see as a greater detriment to stopping abortion.

Let me give one extreme example. Let us say that an anti-abortionist radical, one who has a reputation of violence against facilities and people in the abortion industry, were to run in for office, he would be the most anti-abortion candidate, but his election would harm the image of the pro-life movement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top