Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Oct 15th 2012 new
(Quote) Jim-624621 said: The social issues "Catholics" are going to vote for the world view definition of social justice (as ...
(Quote) Jim-624621 said: The social issues "Catholics" are going to vote for the world view definition of social justice (as Obama defines it), and not for pro-life candidates. To them, saving the forests and the spotted owl is more important than saving a human life.
--hide--
2.bp.blogspot.com
LOCKED
Oct 15th 2012 new
(Quote) Cathy-620979 said: . But it is not an electoral issue.
(Quote) Cathy-620979 said:

. But it is not an electoral issue.

--hide--
Wrong. Romney's election will have direct immediate functional impact on stopping abortions.

"But by executive order, not by legislation, he would reinstate the so-called Mexico City policy that bans U.S. foreign aid dollars from being used to do abortions, he said, the newspaper reported.

Romney has repeatedly indicated he would restore the Mexico City Policy, an executive order pro-life presidents have used to ensure taxpayer funds in the foreign aid budget don't go to groups that perform or promote abortions in other nations.

Earlier this year, looking specifically at the kinds of policies Romney said he would institute as president, he continued: I will reinstate the Mexico City Policy. I'll cut off funding for the United Nations Population Fund, which supports Chinas abhorrent one child policy. Ill ensure that abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood get no taxpayer dollars."

www.lifenews.com

___________________________________________________________________________________

"Romney said he would govern as a pro-life president, de-fund the nations largest abortion company, and reinstate a policy preventing taxpayer funding of international abortion promotion efforts on the part of Planned Parenthood."

"The actions I'll take immediately is to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. It will not be part of my budget. And also I've indicated that I will reverse the Mexico City position of the president. I will reinstate the Mexico City policy which keeps us from using foreign aid for abortions oversea"

www.lifenews.com
LOCKED
Oct 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Shannan-733493 said: To clarify--I am referring to a previous post that called the woman who started this thread ugly and a...
(Quote) Shannan-733493 said: To clarify--I am referring to a previous post that called the woman who started this thread ugly and at worst evil for supporting a different political candidate than she. I find that to be completely inappropriate for a Christian website.

My diocese fully supports people informing themselves on the candidates and voting their consciences. I listened to Cardinal Dolan say the same thing on the radio the other day. There is not only one choice for Catholics. You may disagree but it is really disturbing to see the vitriol spewed here against people who support the democratic ticket.
--hide--



I don't think it's vitriol being spewed. I think most of the comments include sources of Catholic teaching, stated with great passion, to defend the right to life of the unborn.


I think also, that your interpretation of the Catholic Bishops' language leaning so heavily on the vague implication of the word "BECAUSE", reminds me of the loophole logic someone once used to say about the meaning of what "IS" is. The obvious intent of the teaching respects life and it is non-negotiable. The democratic platform does not respect the life of the unborn. That's not vitriol: that's FACT supported by Catholic teaching.

LOCKED
Oct 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Mary-486033 said: Wrong. Romney's election will have direct immediate functional impact on stopping abortions. ...
(Quote) Mary-486033 said: Wrong. Romney's election will have direct immediate functional impact on stopping abortions.

"But by executive order, not by legislation, he would reinstate the so-called Mexico City policy that bans U.S. foreign aid dollars from being used to do abortions, he said, the newspaper reported.

Romney has repeatedly indicated he would restore the Mexico City Policy, an executive order pro-life presidents have used to ensure taxpayer funds in the foreign aid budget don't go to groups that perform or promote abortions in other nations.

Earlier this year, looking specifically at the kinds of policies Romney said he would institute as president, he continued: I will reinstate the Mexico City Policy. I'll cut off funding for the United Nations Population Fund, which supports Chinas abhorrent one child policy. Ill ensure that abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood get no taxpayer dollars."

www.lifenews.com

___________________________________________________________________________________

"Romney said he would govern as a pro-life president, de-fund the nations largest abortion company, and reinstate a policy preventing taxpayer funding of international abortion promotion efforts on the part of Planned Parenthood."

"The actions I'll take immediately is to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. It will not be part of my budget. And also I've indicated that I will reverse the Mexico City position of the president. I will reinstate the Mexico City policy which keeps us from using foreign aid for abortions oversea"

www.lifenews.com
--hide--


The Mexico City Policy has never been a act of legislature, but one by Executive Order. President Bush used an Executive Order to execute the ban and Obama subsequently rescinded President Bush's order with one of his own. Under a Romney administration and a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress, it would likely become law.


May on the side of having the same access to abortion as they have to an OnDemand movie are crying that Romney will seek to have Roe v. Wade overturned through his likely appointees to the Supreme Court. There is good reason to believe that is true. However, what the pro-abortion crowd is intentionally omitting from their argument is that a Supreme Court overturn of Roe v. Wade would only rescind the legal protections affordede by the federal law, not the legality of the medical procedure. Rescinding the federal law only takes the federal government out of the abortion business and restores the jurisdiction and enforcement of the law to the states, where it had been prior to Roe v. Wade and where it has always belonged. Obviously, the Planned Parenthood crowd wants no part in this because no federal law equals no federal dollars.


theheart

LOCKED
Oct 15th 2012 new

Continuing from Cathy's message...

Not to mention the pro-abortion and pro-contraception policies that the U.S. currently funds and promotes, through the United Nations, in (mostly poorer) countries around the world. This is seldom in the news, but it is very real. The U.S. and U.N. puts all kinds of pressure on other nations to accept these policies in order to receive certain aid or other support.... taking advantage of poor nations that really do need other help from the U.S.

This was de-funded under Bush, but reinstated under Obama.

The U.N. is very heavily and directly involved in population control.

---------------



Here is one source article (from 2002), explaining Bush's defunding of this program:

www.pop.org

----------------



Here is an excellent, detailed and rather scary chart with "World Abortion Policies" (at the bottom) (published by the U.N.) which shows "government support for family planning" in many, many countries. "Family planning" includes, among other things, abortions and contraception.

www.un.org

---------------

Another article... "Former diplomat slams UN support for abortion" (2011)

www.thelifeinstitute.net


----------------

To support Obama, when there are other choices, is to support these programs overseas.




Ed

LOCKED
Oct 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Just curious, which attack on whom are you referring to?
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:


Just curious, which attack on whom are you referring to?

--hide--
If you can't stand the heat ??? Then stay out of the kitchen ??? The nickname for this room is the war room you know what I mean???

LOCKED
Oct 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Shannan-733493 said: With all due respect, Elizabeth, I disagree. I respect and applaud the fervency of your beliefs, but b...
(Quote) Shannan-733493 said: With all due respect, Elizabeth, I disagree. I respect and applaud the fervency of your beliefs, but believe that the political reality is much more complex. I don't believe that voting for one side means being on the side of good, and voting for the other side being on the side of evil.

And for the record, I do not disagree with the church's position on abortion. But if Mitt Romney is sworn in as president in January 2013, abortion will not end overnight. So it is just not true that the lives of millions of unborn children hinges on voting against Obama. Romney is someone who has changed his political views so many times, it is impossible to know what he really believes or would do as president. But let's assume that he will try to appoint Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade. He may or may not get to appoint Supreme Court justices, depending on deaths and retirements of the sitting justices If he does, the people he appoints may or may not vote to overturn Roe versus Wade, no matter what Romney believed when he appointed them. If Roe vs. Wade gets overturned, the question of the legality of abortion would be left up to individual states. Some states would outlaw it, others would not. Women with more resources could travel to the states that allow it, just like before Roe v. Wade. So many abortions would still take place.

Even if EVERY state outlawed abortion, abortions would still take place. Desperate women would turn to back-alley abortionists or attempt do-it-yourself abortions and many would end up dying or infertile as a result. This is what happened before Roe vs. Wade.

Far FEWER abortions would take place if we have a system of affordable health care and so couples who do not follow Catholic teaching (and never will no matter who is elected or whether the HHS mandate is upheld or withdrawn) have access to contraception. I do not want to live in a society where any church would attempt to outlaw contraception for couples who do not share the same views. The church's teaching on contraception is beautiful, but I don't support mandating it on all of society. And if that were to happen, it would surely lead to MORE abortion, which I think most of us would agree would be a terrible thing.

I fundamentally disagree that this election is a simple matter of black and white. And I'm not even touching the social justice, environmental, and the dignity and rights of worker issues that are also at stake in this election.

You may think I am misguided, and feel free to pray for my soul (I need all of the help I can get!). But I hope that we can all be way more civil on these forums in the future, and respect the right of each person to educate himself or herself and vote his or her conscience.
--hide--



Shannan, If you think you know what you have read, on what the USCCB said about forming a proper conscience, Then I dare you to watch this show from EWTN and if you have the same thought's as you have shown after watching this , then There is no changing your mind.You want to believe what you want to and not even the Pope could change your mind then. This show is what the Catholic Church believes and it is fully explained on forming a conscience. I myself don't think you, Cathy or clarence will even watch it, But you will continue to argue your point anyhow. God bless and help alll of you.

LOCKED
Oct 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Thomas-699657 said: Shannan, If you think you know what you have read, on what the USCCB said about form...
(Quote) Thomas-699657 said:




Shannan, If you think you know what you have read, on what the USCCB said about forming a proper conscience, Then I dare you to watch this show from EWTN and if you have the same thought's as you have shown after watching this , then There is no changing your mind.You want to believe what you want to and not even the Pope could change your mind then. This show is what the Catholic Church believes and it is fully explained on forming a conscience. I myself don't think you, Cathy or clarence will even watch it, But you will continue to argue your point anyhow. God bless and help alll of you.

--hide--
Here is the link sorry it did not work the first time. www.youtube.com

LOCKED
Oct 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Shannan-733493 said: With all due respect, Elizabeth, I disagree. I respect and applaud the fervency of your beliefs, but b...
(Quote) Shannan-733493 said: With all due respect, Elizabeth, I disagree. I respect and applaud the fervency of your beliefs, but believe that the political reality is much more complex. I don't believe that voting for one side means being on the side of good, and voting for the other side being on the side of evil.

And for the record, I do not disagree with the church's position on abortion. But if Mitt Romney is sworn in as president in January 2013, abortion will not end overnight. So it is just not true that the lives of millions of unborn children hinges on voting against Obama. Romney is someone who has changed his political views so many times, it is impossible to know what he really believes or would do as president. But let's assume that he will try to appoint Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade. He may or may not get to appoint Supreme Court justices, depending on deaths and retirements of the sitting justices If he does, the people he appoints may or may not vote to overturn Roe versus Wade, no matter what Romney believed when he appointed them. If Roe vs. Wade gets overturned, the question of the legality of abortion would be left up to individual states. Some states would outlaw it, others would not. Women with more resources could travel to the states that allow it, just like before Roe v. Wade. So many abortions would still take place.

Even if EVERY state outlawed abortion, abortions would still take place. Desperate women would turn to back-alley abortionists or attempt do-it-yourself abortions and many would end up dying or infertile as a result. This is what happened before Roe vs. Wade.

Far FEWER abortions would take place if we have a system of affordable health care and so couples who do not follow Catholic teaching (and never will no matter who is elected or whether the HHS mandate is upheld or withdrawn) have access to contraception. I do not want to live in a society where any church would attempt to outlaw contraception for couples who do not share the same views. The church's teaching on contraception is beautiful, but I don't support mandating it on all of society. And if that were to happen, it would surely lead to MORE abortion, which I think most of us would agree would be a terrible thing.

I fundamentally disagree that this election is a simple matter of black and white. And I'm not even touching the social justice, environmental, and the dignity and rights of worker issues that are also at stake in this election.

You may think I am misguided, and feel free to pray for my soul (I need all of the help I can get!). But I hope that we can all be way more civil on these forums in the future, and respect the right of each person to educate himself or herself and vote his or her conscience.
--hide--


Very well said...your wrote everything I am too lazy to! Thank you Shannan.

LOCKED
Oct 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Shannan-733493 said: With all due respect, Elizabeth, I disagree. I respect and applaud the fervency of your beliefs, but b...
(Quote) Shannan-733493 said: With all due respect, Elizabeth, I disagree. I respect and applaud the fervency of your beliefs, but believe that the political reality is much more complex. I don't believe that voting for one side means being on the side of good, and voting for the other side being on the side of evil.

And for the record, I do not disagree with the church's position on abortion. But if Mitt Romney is sworn in as president in January 2013, abortion will not end overnight. So it is just not true that the lives of millions of unborn children hinges on voting against Obama. Romney is someone who has changed his political views so many times, it is impossible to know what he really believes or would do as president. But let's assume that he will try to appoint Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade. He may or may not get to appoint Supreme Court justices, depending on deaths and retirements of the sitting justices If he does, the people he appoints may or may not vote to overturn Roe versus Wade, no matter what Romney believed when he appointed them. If Roe vs. Wade gets overturned, the question of the legality of abortion would be left up to individual states. Some states would outlaw it, others would not. Women with more resources could travel to the states that allow it, just like before Roe v. Wade. So many abortions would still take place.

Even if EVERY state outlawed abortion, abortions would still take place. Desperate women would turn to back-alley abortionists or attempt do-it-yourself abortions and many would end up dying or infertile as a result. This is what happened before Roe vs. Wade.

Far FEWER abortions would take place if we have a system of affordable health care and so couples who do not follow Catholic teaching (and never will no matter who is elected or whether the HHS mandate is upheld or withdrawn) have access to contraception. I do not want to live in a society where any church would attempt to outlaw contraception for couples who do not share the same views. The church's teaching on contraception is beautiful, but I don't support mandating it on all of society. And if that were to happen, it would surely lead to MORE abortion, which I think most of us would agree would be a terrible thing.

I fundamentally disagree that this election is a simple matter of black and white. And I'm not even touching the social justice, environmental, and the dignity and rights of worker issues that are also at stake in this election.

You may think I am misguided, and feel free to pray for my soul (I need all of the help I can get!). But I hope that we can all be way more civil on these forums in the future, and respect the right of each person to educate himself or herself and vote his or her conscience.
--hide--
Though I agree with much of what you have said I have to say that I don't see that President Obama has done much for the rights of workers. He promised to renegotiate NAFTA and I seen no effort to do that. Obamacare is a sell out to the insurance industry. GMO foods still don't have to be labeled. Were still wasting American lives and money in Afghanistan. These are just a few things of the top of my head that don't square with him being for the workers or for the enviornment or peace. So he his just a Republican who is for abortion and gay rights. So I might as well vote for Romney.

LOCKED
Posts 161 - 170 of 200