Why Catholics Should Vote for Trump article

  • Thread starter Thread starter Limoncello4021
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
farronwolf said:
What politicians have performed or received abortions? Do you have a list so I am certain not to vote for them?
Click to expand...
Fake question, as you know.

As you also know, Biden supports abortion on demand in our laws. He also supports getting rid of the Hyde Amendment so public funds will be spent on abortions. He also intends to require Catholic charities to be complicit in providing abortifacients to their workers. he also intends to spend taxpayer money paying for abortions overseas.

He and his supporters don’t have to hold the knife to be guilty of abortion, any more than the CEO of I.G. Farben had to pour the Zyklon B into the “showers” himself to be complicit in the Holocaust.
farronwolf said:
A political figure having a stance that something remain legal is not the same as perpetrating it.
Click to expand...
Wrong, of course. Those political leaders who supported slavery remaining legal were perpetrators of slavery even if they never owned a slave or intended to.
 
Rau said:
Have you compared US military spending versus other big military spenders? US well in the lead!
Click to expand...
I have always found this argument extremely annoying. Much of our military spending covers the military needs of other nations, most notably European nations.

They spend less because we are spending more.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Fake question, as you know.
Click to expand...
Certainly not a fake question.

Now we are back to the slavery issue. I will ask what was required to end slavery as has been asked multiple times.

Answer, the Constitution was amended granting rights.

Question, what is needed to give the unborn rights. Answer, the Constitution must be amended.

Question, how much of a push for such amendment is being sought? Answer, not much lately.

Federal elected officials take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not to support and defend what they wish the Constitution says.

Nothing says they can’t try to change the Constitution, and there certainly is spelled out how they go about it.
 
Last edited:
farronwolf said:
Question, what is needed to give the unborn rights. Answer, the Constitution must be amended.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. One decision of the Supreme Court could do it.
farronwolf said:
Question, how much of a push for such amendment is being sought? Answer, not much lately.
Click to expand...
Probably because it’s politically impossible. The Dems have easily enough votes to block it. The “have to amend the constitution” argument a) assumes abortion rights are in the constitution, which even Ginsburg said they’re not, and b) is a Democrat red herring to prevent prolife people from seeking means that can actually work.
 
So you are saying the Court can give rights which are not stated in the Constitution?

Ginsburg argued that equal protection and privacy rights allow for the woman to make the decision.

The amending the Constitution, is based on the fact that rights of the unborn are not stated in the Constitution, which is in fact the case. It assumes nothing.
 
farronwolf said:
So you are saying the Court can give rights which are not stated in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
The right to life is already in the Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that it “intended” something it did not say. That rationale could be used to justify anything at all.
farronwolf said:
Ginsburg argued that equal protection and privacy rights allow for the woman to make the decision.
Click to expand...
She criticized the “privacy” argument used by the Court. Her position was more “equal protection”. Here’s what she said in her senate hearing: “If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.”

“It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling,” Ginsburg told Senators during her four days of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
 
Umm, not so much the 5th, not so much the 6th, and not even the 14th.

See in the Constitution, person, means someone who has been born.

As in say it’s usage in Article 2 where one has to be 35 years of age to be President. It doesn’t mean that one has to be 35 years after conception, it is 35 years after birth.

All the reading of the word person in the Constitution, it is someone who has been born. Are persons conceived in the US citizens? Nope, persons born in the US are citizens.
 
I think you’re begging the question. But in any event, neither of us is a constitutional scholar and we were speculating on whether there would be anything in the constitution better than the “right of privacy” the Supreme Court teased out of a mythological “penumbra” of the Constitution. I think a better argument can be made, and has been made, for a right to life than something from a “penumbra”.
 
Annie said:
I have always found this argument extremely annoying. Much of our military spending covers the military needs of other nations, most notably European nations.
Click to expand...
The US military spend is not altruistic. The US is pretty focused on what’s good for the US.
 
farronwolf said:
See in the Constitution, person, means someone who has been born.
Click to expand...
That’s probably right. Who would have thought it would be necessary to specify the very limited and ordinary right in which the unborn stand in need…the right not to be killed.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
40.png
farronwolf:
See in the Constitution, person, means someone who has been born.
Click to expand...
That’s probably right. Who would have thought it would be necessary to specify the very limited and ordinary right in which the unborn stand in need…the right not to be killed.
Click to expand...
Well you can blame the founding fathers which comprised white males for that, since the only persons who had full rights when the Constitution was written were basically white males.
 
I’m thinking of voting third party, specifically the Solidarity party.

Pro-life but not ignoring the needs of the disadvantaged and poor.

I am fed up with both parties.
 
Last edited:
Sarcelle said:
I’m thinking of voting third party, specifically the Solidarity part.

Pro-life but not ignoring the needs of the disadvantaged and poor.

I am fed up with both parties.
Click to expand...
Trump is technically not a republican. Judge by the fruits of his presidency.
 
Yeah, I’m trying to decide between him and the Solidarity party candidate.

I like Trump’s tough stand on China.

I am not voting for Biden. That much is decided.
 
Last edited:
For progressive Catholics it’s all about the trappings of religion and not about the doctrine. Because the doctrine is clear cut. There is no wiggle room.
The greatest antipathy doctrinal Catholics receive is received from progressive Catholics. Because to them doctrinal Catholics stand witness to their rejection of the doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top