Why Catholics Should Vote for Trump article

  • Thread starter Thread starter Limoncello4021
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nothing that I can think of. I’m curious what Dobby comes up with.

The military is a noble profession and we cannot live without them. That said, I think there is a concept where career officers (particularly high ranking ones) come to regard themselves as infallible and entitled to automatic deference. Some of these generals are as deeply embedded in the deep state as are anyone else…

…And it must gall the heck out of some of them that they must take orders from a civilian, usually with no military experience.

What we’re seeing is far from the worst that’s happened. Look at what happened in 1951: A 5-star general (MacArthur; who by all accounts had the largest ego in human history) got sacked by a short little haberdasher from Missouri, who spoke so softly people often strained to hear him (named Harry Truman). That’s one of the absolutely greatest things about America: The highest ranking generals & admirals answer to a civilian.
 
Last edited:
I don’t so much as vote “for” someone, I vote against most likely.

I won’t have voting for partial birth abortions, infanticide on my conscience and unfortunately, one party has incredibly sunk that low. They seems to really just represent Planned Parenthood, period. No separation in organization to party. Planned Parenthood IS the Democrat party. Debunk that.

When you have North Minneapolis or Chicago or other cities in the US and your platform says life is disposable, plan on seeing these problems remain for another 55 years. New York City shootings sky rocketing, again, a city known for its high abortion rate.
 
Last edited:
VonDerTann said:
–Kind of agree, but it’s complex.

I say this because there are a million resources but some on the left always want more. It’s like my argument that for some, you can never be “pro-life enough.” For some, you can never do enough for a pregnant woman.

I remember engaging a woman once on a pro-abortion website. She wanted all sorts of “resources,” but after some back and forth, it became clear that what she was advocating for was essentially a free, paid-off home and enough money that she never had to work again, basically as payment for bearing and raising a child she clearly didn’t want. That sort of attitude is counterproductive: I’m all for giving resources, but for some (perhaps many?) it’s never enough. I posit that when someone is as demanding as she was, they don’t really want “resources,” so much as they want a life/lifestyle they don’t have. Then, when this lifestyle isn’t handed to them, they scream that pro-lifers are hypocritical, don’t really care, etc.
Click to expand...
I certainly agree with you that many Americans are totally unrealistic about government aid. (Have you ever seen the show "Finian’s Rainbow?
)

I’m guessing you agree with me that there are women, even if given the free paid off home and a million dollars a year for the rest of her life, would still choose to abort.

BUT…I think it’s reasonable to pay for pre-natal care–after all, the unborn child is a human being and therefore should be entitled to the same benefits that a born human being currently receives in the U.S. (Medicaid and other government aid programs).

AND considering that even women with insurance end up getting billed several thousand dollars or more for the birth of their child, even though hospitals now generally provide LESS services for a woman who has given birth I’m sure that many poor women with no insurance are rightfully concerned about paying healthcare bills.

I think that paying for better care for pregnant women, and the expenses of their birth and hospital stay, and very importantly, educating BIG TIME the value of nursing and helping a new mom to get a good start to breastfeeding, would be, as President Trump would say, “HUUUUGGGE!” A very very prolife law!

To me, this IS pro-life and it’s Christian–taking care of expectant and nursing mothers and their children through their early years. No wonder the secular media and the Democratic Party is anti-life–they don’t see Christians setting the example of providing for the needs (not the wants like a million dollars!) of expectant mothers and their babies!

Of course, there are plenty of Christians and Christian organizations that DO help out with these needs–there is a “Mother House” in Northern Illinois near our city that a group of what are called “The Blue Nuns” runs.

But I think that it’s reasonable to pay for these expenses, and not just for the sake of the Lord Jesus. Our nation has a hegative population growth and we simply NEED MORE PEOPLE to keep our nation thriving.
 
Last edited:
Peeps said:
there are women, even if given the free paid off home and a million dollars a year for the rest of her life, would still choose to abort.
Click to expand...
–Agreed.

As to the government paying for pre-natal care…hmm, I’m not sure. I’m generally against “government paying for X,” whatever X is, since “the government” equals “the taxpayers.” The government is overstretched as it is. I’m at least open to whether what you’re proposing would in fact lower abortions, and if so I’d be more on board with it. As to whether it would reduce abortions like 5%; 25%; or 1%, I don’t know if there’s any way to tell.

EDITING TO ADD: I suppose it comes down to what causes most abortions. Is the cost of prenatal care 1 factor? I think cost (pre or post natal) is a large factor. Pre-natal alone? I’m not really sure.
 
Last edited:
Peeps said:
But I think that it’s reasonable to pay for these expenses, and not just for the sake of the Lord Jesus. Our nation has a hegative population growth and we simply NEED MORE PEOPLE to keep our nation thriving.
Click to expand...
It has to be in a family setting.
 
Peeps said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Like I said many times, support paid pre-natal and delivery services to all pregnant women, regardless of anything else, like ability to pay.
Click to expand...
Have bills come up in Congress that President Trump has not supported, or has vetoed when Congress passed the bills and brought them to him to sign? Can you list any of them? I am not aware of any bills regarding pre-natal care and delivery services that a Democratic House has passed and sent to a Republican Senate that have made it to the President’s desk, but then, a lot of this kind of politics is never reported in the media that I read and listen to. (I read the local paper and listen to NBC news on TV–and that’s pretty much it. I also get pro-life newsletters from a couple of organizations, but I easily could have missed these Congressional upsdates).

Please let me know. I agree with you that a pro-life President should support this. For a long time, I have believed even if we do not have a national system of healthcare, that at least pre-natal care and delivery services should be paid for for ALL women, rich or poor, by the federal government for the good our country, as we have been in a population decline for decades now, and because every life is precious and we need their presence in our country to help continue to make America strong and a good place to live.
Click to expand...
I am so glad to hear you support universal pre-natal and delivery services. I don’t know why that support is so rare among the most conservative. Usually I get arguments about why it won’t work or is too expensive or it is not needed. So thank you again.

As for the role of the President, I think it is fair to expect the President to state publicly what sort of legislation he would like to see brought before him for his signature. He certainly has had no difficulty making those wishes known for many other issues that are dear to his heart. I have to assume that his silence on this issue indicates that he either does does not care one way or the other, or maybe even that he would veto such legislation if brought before him. I am afraid that is one question we will never see answered.
 
Peeps said:
But I think that it’s reasonable to pay for these expenses, and not just for the sake of the Lord Jesus. Our nation has a hegative population growth and we simply NEED MORE PEOPLE to keep our nation thriving.
Click to expand...
This sounds good in theory but if the government has to pay these expenses for each and every woman, then the government and not the woman, will decide the standard of care. I’m not sure I would be comfortable with that.

Also, the pro-abort crowd always accuses the pro-lifers of only caring about children until birth and then they forget about them, (not true). Once the gov’t is paying for everything pre-natal, birth and delivery, then they will want the first year covered and so on. Before we know it, we are marching towards gov’t run healthcare for all.
 
Last edited:
VonDerTann said:
I suppose it comes down to what causes most abortions. Is the cost of prenatal care 1 factor? I think cost (pre or post natal) is a large factor. Pre-natal alone? I’m not really sure.
Click to expand...
Agree. Oftentimes, it’s the responsibility of raising a child that a woman or the child’s father doesn’t feel ready for or she wants to finish school and get her career off the ground and it’s not a convenient time. Other reasons are that it’s a result of a hook-up in which she doesn’t really know the father and can’t see how she can raise a child with or without this person.
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth3 said:
So it’s your opinion that we are dead last by your analysis of the numbers and you feel it’s normal to question leadership on that analysis without taking other reasons into account.
Click to expand...
I believe in taking other reasons into account. Nonetheless, I can question leadership. I am not going to repost my reasoning. I do not believe in going in circles over generalities.
buffalo said:
CINO’s , ,
Click to expand...
Elizabeth3 said:
They are CINO’S…
Click to expand...
No true Scotsman fallacy. The Church defines who is Catholic, not you two. CINO, RINO, DINO, etc., are all examples of illogical rhetoric which appeals only to those holding identical opinions, and the stupid.

This is a fallacy used all over the political and ideological spectrum.
 
Last edited:
Here’s a study that have looked into these reasons. Number 1 is not financially prepared. It’s a shame that our low unemployment rate was ruined due to the lockdown. On the strong economic front that we’ve had until then, that reason alone may produce a reduction in abortions.


(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
pnewton said:
No true Scotsman fallacy. The Church defines who is Catholic, not you two. CINO, RINO, DINO, etc., are all examples of illogical rhetoric which appeals only to those holding identical opinions, and the stupid.
Click to expand...
OK, I will go with heretics.
 
buffalo said:
OK, I will go with heretics.
Click to expand...
No more intelligent. You either have no idea what the word means, or you are a deliberately misusing the word. . . . Yet this would not make you a Catholic in Name Only for usurping this word to political ends or rejecting what the Church teaches about it.
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth3 said:
Before we know it, we are marching towards gov’t run healthcare for all.
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t object for government paid healthcare. If She did, then she would object to every other country that has it.

Our US model is that most people insured are insured through their jobs.
 
pnewton said:
No more intelligent. You either have no idea what the word means, or you are a deliberately misusing the word; ignorant, or dishonest.
Click to expand...

Definition of heretic​

1 religion : a person who differs in opinion from established religious dogma (see dogma sense 2) especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who refuses to acknowledge or accept a revealed truth The church regards them as heretics.

2 : one who differs in opinion from an accepted belief or doctrine : nonconformist
 
pnewton said:
As a Catholic, I thought we were using the Church’s definition.
Click to expand...
Commonly refers to a doctrinal belief held in opposition to the recognized standards of an established system of thought. Theologically it means an opinion at variance with the authorized teachings of any church, notably the Christian, and especially when this promotes separation from the main body of faithful believers.

In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.

Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith. (Etym. Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice, sect, heresy.)


Is Joe Biden a heretic? Pelosi? Cuomo? Do I need to list the dems?
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
I believe in taking other reasons into account. Nonetheless, I can question leadership. I am not going to repost my reasoning. I do not believe in going in circles over generalities.
Click to expand...
But the question at hand wasn’t about questioning leadership. It was about making definitive statements that we would have had a quantifiable difference in deaths if we had only done this or that policy. I was simply asking on what data are you basing this theory. If it’s on hard numbers from one data set, I don’t think anyone can make that statement with certainty. We can look at data on a chart all day long but until we can interpret the data correctly, we can come to wildly wrong conclusions.

Nevertheless, I agree that going in circles is useless and of course you can interpret the data however you want personally.
pnewton said:
No true Scotsman fallacy. The Church defines who is Catholic, not you two. CINO, RINO, DINO, etc., are all examples of illogical rhetoric which appeals only to those holding identical opinions, and the stupid.
Click to expand...
I don’t see it that way at all. There are plenty of Catholics that claim to be Catholic but they disagree with Church teaching and live and legislate accordingly. IOW, their faith doesn’t inform their decisions. They decide what parts of the faith they agree/disagree with. They may be Catholic in the formal sense of belonging to a parish and not being ex-communicated, but they don’t seem to have a rightly formed conscience on which they base decisions. I don’t buy the “I wouldn’t personally do it but I’m not going to vote that other’s shouldn’t” line."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top