D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Do you find it enlightening that 2 people running in one party are the two most liberal in that party.
Deacon Ed B
Deacon Ed B
- Status
J
Jeff_KC
Guest
Agreed.
But if it is because the candidate’s overall policy is more life affirming in its totality; engaging in diplomacy and making every effort to find non-lethal solutions to problems, truly caring about the least of our brethren and their health care, food and shelter, looking at this world we are blessed with as a truly living system which deserves care and respect, not counting the killing of thousands of innocent civilians and the destruction of entire societies as a necessary step in the pursuit of democracy, I propose it is a well thought out choice.
I also believe there are other choices that are different, but no less well thought out. They simply start from a different perspective.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
I know the radio tells you that they are but they’re not. There are two candidates who were eliminated who are far, far more liberal.
P
ProVobis
Guest
“If it seems that many on here tend to agree with the policies of the republican party on the war, helping those in need, etc, it is because that most tend to believe those that are against murder on demand.”
On the contrary, you have many warmongers in the Democratic Party as well. Forget what they say. Look at their voting records. Look at LBJ and WJC. On the other hand, who pulled the troops out of Vietnam? Nixon, a Republican. Yes, and wasn’t he the same President who had appointed one or two of the justices who voted for Roe vs. Wade? Or am I wrong on this?
On the contrary, you have many warmongers in the Democratic Party as well. Forget what they say. Look at their voting records. Look at LBJ and WJC. On the other hand, who pulled the troops out of Vietnam? Nixon, a Republican. Yes, and wasn’t he the same President who had appointed one or two of the justices who voted for Roe vs. Wade? Or am I wrong on this?
I
Insight
Guest
Hi,
I believe that Dr. Dobson has the right strategy. There are 77 million Roman Catholics in the United States. If all these Roman Catholics agreed to vote Pro-Life, both parties (Republican & Democrat) would be forced to run Pro-Life candidates.
God Bless
I believe that Dr. Dobson has the right strategy. There are 77 million Roman Catholics in the United States. If all these Roman Catholics agreed to vote Pro-Life, both parties (Republican & Democrat) would be forced to run Pro-Life candidates.
God Bless
F
Fitswimmer
Guest
I’ve been voting for “pro life” candidates for YEARS-and what I’ve seen is more death. I have become convinced that the “pro life” mantra sold by these candidates is nothing more than pandering.
Pre-emptive war and a culture of war is NOT pro life. The death penalty is NOT pro life. Policies that make CEO’s 400 times richer than workers on the line are NOT pro life. Policies that leave people homeless and without healthcare are NOT pro life.
Abortion will end in this country when women themselves see that it is the taking of a life. Legislation won’t do it. If we as Catholics really want to end abortion, we should stop working for legislation and start working WITH the women most likely to abort and helping them find ways to solve the problems that led them to choose abortion. Not condemning them, not demonizing them-but LOVING them and helping them. It’s going to take time, because you can’t change minds quickly-but it will be more lasting.
D
dmelosi
Guest
Abortion is legal because of the democrats ONLY accepting pro choice supreme court nominees.
I have never seen a democrat on here condemn the platform of the democratic party platform, which states very clearly that it will accept anything less than abortion on demand.
Why do you state that people condemn and don’t help, that you seem to pull out of the air.
What about the over 900,000 people that sadaam was responsible for killing? Do you think he was magically going to stop that? Do the people’s lives of another country count?
B
BamaRider
Guest
So overtly supporting, voting, and putting into office candidates that want unfettered, abortion on demand is?
Since you want National Healthcare, govt rules on how much people can make, homes for everybody, and terroists free to run amuck, there’s a little island off the coast of Florida, that has ALL that- its called CUBA. In Castro’s world, everyone has “free” healthcare, nobody gets rich on the backs of “the workers,” need a abortion? No problem just walk in and order one up, and a govt doc takes care of it, no charge. I know you’re sincere about your vision for America, so I suggest going down there and checking out what it woule be like.
All that stuff you want has been tried, it NEVER works, but people keep insisting on giving it another chance. All socialims does is spread misery evenly LOL.
You are more anti one party then pro life. One party works hard, to pormote pro choice, that make it no secret. And it is not true the other party has sat idly by. They have blocked pro choice attempts in many places. For instance laws passed wanting parental permission for abortion on minors have ALL come out of ONE party, and the other has done all they could to defeat such laws, and that battle still wages today. The party you support will NOT even hear of a 14 year old girl needing parental permission for abortion, they support, and work to deafeat all such laws, and in some places had them struck down, or their lawmakers never let the law out of the committee. The reason no great progress has been made is the country is divided 50-50 on the issue. But you take one battle at a time.
I hope you change your mind, and join us to defeat this scourage. I agree we need to change the hearts of women, that is gonna be hard to do when all around them abortion on demand is the norm, but yes, we need to try.
E
Ender
Guest
So, because the pro life side has not succeeded, your solution is to support the pro death side? Interesting tactic.
These claims show a failure to make the distinction between life and death issues and quality of life issues as well as an inability to recognize that prudential issues present us with practical choices, not moral ones. If a policy is designed to make people homeless, it is sinful, but if it is designed to aid people and ends up making them homeless it is foolish, not evil.
Most of the disputes between Democrats and Republicans are about which methods will work; it is not, as is thoughtlessly assumed, between one party that is compassionate and another that is greedy and indifferent. CEO salaries, immigration, health care, homelessness, poverty, crime, et al are such prudential issues and the Church has no position on what approaches will best resolve them; she simply says that it is society’s responsibility to address them as best it can so there is no moral basis to claim that one party is preferable to the other because of these issues.
On the issues of life and death, however, the Church does take a very strong stand and on these issues there is a valid claim to a moral distinction between the two parties as one party is on the right side of all of them and the other party is all in the wrong.
Ah. Above you dismissed Republicans because they haven’t succeeded in outlawing abortion and here you claim that succeeding in that task is not even important. So, if you think now that changing people’s minds is the most important task, how do you do it by rejecting those people who have chosen to do just that and choosing those who reject your position?
Ender
F
Flashman
Guest
Because CNN has successfully brainwashed Americans into believing that this is an un-just war…
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Ah, if only Catholics would vote that way. But they do not. Too many are more caught up in a particular political party than in Church teaching.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Hi Mary,
I am a Catholic first and mostly Republican second. The idea that there is a party that would unite all Catholics is a pipe dream, and it is not because people are “more caught up in a particular political party than in Church teaching.”
There are two reasons it won’t happen:
- Some Catholics (especially Democrats) put life issues as a secondary issue. It would be nice if abortion didn’t happen, but it’s not important enough to do anything about it now. They rationalize this in a variety of ways.
*]Doesn’t need to be illegal…we’ll just educate people
*]Not enough people are pro-life anyway, so why waste time on that issue.
*]Pro-life personally, but everyone should have a choice on whether or not to kill their unborn child (I won’t use the word “murder” because they don’t like that term…too confrontational).- The Church does not tell us how to handle Social Teaching from a governmental standpoint. Conservatives believe in minimal government involvement, whereas Liberals believe the government should take a larger role.
Now, that said, explain to me what the magical Catholic Third Party would believe in that would unite us all?
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Thank you for a well reasoned, thought out response.
Deacon Ed B
Deacon Ed B
P
ProVobis
Guest
“Abortion is legal because of the democrats ONLY accepting pro choice supreme court nominees.”
I don’t think this is the only reason. In the last 40 years, only 12 of them involved a Democrat occupying the White House. You would think that more headway into Roe vs Wade would have been made if indeed Republicans were enthusiastic about their pro-life positions.
I don’t think this is the only reason. In the last 40 years, only 12 of them involved a Democrat occupying the White House. You would think that more headway into Roe vs Wade would have been made if indeed Republicans were enthusiastic about their pro-life positions.
R
rlg94086
Guest
This has been covered *ad nauseum. *Republicans are not a monolithic group. While the majority are pro-life, there is still a substantial group that are not. IOW…there has not been a large enough majority of pro-life Republicans (along with the very, very few pro-life Democrats) to pass anything more than the partial-birth ban. Add to that the unpredictability of some justices, and you have the state we are in…pro-lifers abandoning the only majority pro-life party because it’s not “good enough” and handing everything over to the pro-choice party.
F
Ferdy_000
Guest
I Wholly agree! I wouldn’t want voting for “abortion” on my conscience when I go before the Judge. I have a lot else to worry about already. It seems like the pickens is slim though, but I don’t know if it’s right to not vote for the " lesser evil " candidate? I’m looking for a solution though other than not voting altogether. Need a direction, so we should fast and pray on this one consistently until November, or at least that’s what I plan to do
F
Flashman
Guest
Fasting and praying is good!
Just 2 or 3 months ago we looked like we were going to be faced with two pro-abortion candidates in Nov. in Guliani and Clinton and look how things changed!!!
Just 2 or 3 months ago we looked like we were going to be faced with two pro-abortion candidates in Nov. in Guliani and Clinton and look how things changed!!!
F
Ferdy_000
Guest
Fasting and praying is good!
Just 2 or 3 months ago we looked like we were going to be faced with two pro-abortion candidates in Nov. in Guliani and Clinton and look how things changed!!!
Brother, but still i think the worst is yet to come 
We just got to keep our heads, and pray . God will figure a way out. Anyway, if this country ever became one-sided , for abortion, then it’s time for this cowboy to head out of here and find a new hacienda ! :crying:
R
rlg94086
Guest
That’s what we need! Positive thinking!
Welcome to the CAF, Ferdy.
B
boppaid
Guest
Because I haven’t seen enough lives saved yet from them. I was talking lives, because I often hear how many babies are killed in abortion. Bush didn’t save that many…especially in relation to those killed in the war he started.
Because I didn’t vote for Sadaam, and neither did my country. Sadaam didn’t declare war on the US. He was a bad man, no doubt. But since when did the US go to war with every 'bad man" who led a nation? And his people, the soldiers and civilians, were they all “bad men” too?
Why do you neglect the fact that we went to war to get these weapons, yet when we got there, there were none?
I really don’t want to derail the thread into a “war thread”, since the topic is not the validity of this war, but rather, abortion. I merely compared the deaths Bush saved with the deaths Bush cost.
- Status