www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Test of Fire: Election 2012

ERIE BYZ

President Bush and the Republican Congress DID pass anti abortion laws

President Bush also prevented tax payer dollars funding abortion

THE FIRST ACT OF OBAMA - Executive order to nullify all the Pro Life work Bush had done

Obamacare through the HHS Mandate FUNDS ABORTION THROUGH TAXPAYER DOLLARS (despite all the so called Catholic politicians promises to prevent that from happening - Mr Stupak)

Need I say more.

Also - I am sick and tired of having to placate PRO ABORTS

I call child sexual abuse = child sexual abuse

I call abortion = killing a child

As for the gravity - have you ever looked at a woman for more than 5 seconds on the beach?

Compare that to chopping up a fetus sucking the parts out and then counting them to make sure you've killed the baby properly.

Let's examine exactly what Abortion is. Let's look at the gruesome facts. The actual procedure. Tell me if anyone with any sense of decency can do that.

I had a woman "unfriend" me once from facebook because she did not like my Pro Life views - she stated that she did not want to even think about think about gruesome nature of abortion.

Instead of talking about "Constitutional Rights" - try to defend and watch an actual procedure being done and see if you feel good about that.

If you are Catholic you must not vote for Abortionists in the same way you csnnot murder someone or encourage/enable murder.

We Catholics have aided and abetted the greatest single human rights violation of all time - STOP THE MURDER OF THE INNOCENTS - YOUR BROTHERS BLOOD IS CRYING OUT FROM THE GROUND!

One more thing

How in the hell did "REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE" come to be equal to ABORTION ON DEMAND - PAID FOR BY TAXPAYER DOLLARS ?

Since when are we saying that someone who needs hormone therapy (through contraceptive birth control pills) equal to ABORTION ON DEMAND - AS SOON AS YOU ARE MENSTRUATING

This is OBAMACARE people!

The political environment can help or hinder the conversion of hearts. I prefer to take half a loaf now in anticipation of the rest of the loaf later, than to stick to my principles and go away with no loaf at all. I think strategically, others seem to think either tactically or eschew reality in favor of some sort of non-consequentialist nirvana.

utroque -

So what you are saying is - as long as I don't commit a murder - I don't care what others do to my brothers and sisters.

That is the argument you are making about the HHS mandate

Stuart is not quite correct. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 ordered district federal courts to appoint marshals to apprehend fugitive slaves to enforce article IV, Section 2 paragraph 3 of the US Constitution. It gave teeth to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. It did not require citizens to actively aid in the return of escaped slaves nor did it drag people, against their wills, into the system. Citizens were only required not to impede these marshals in carrying out of their duty. He is right to say that it did galvanize the anti-slavery movement in the North, but there was no anti-slavery consensus on the federal level until the North became the Union, and then...wham, the South got it. Slavery was finally abolished by the 13th amendment in 1865 when the South was nearly defeated.

I do not find this to be a good comparison with the Affordable Healthcare mandate. There is simply no medical or legal consensus about the morality of abortion and contraception, even though the Catholic Church considers them intrinsically evil.

[quote]Now, the PPACA mandate does the same thing--one way or another, it drags people into the business of providing contraception and abortion. [quote]

The mandate no more drags people into the “business” anymore than wearing calico made with cotton picked by slaves and manufactured in northern mills dragged Mahitabel into the slave trade. What say you of the mill owners and their poor female workers?

[quote]One would have to be willfully blind or morally obtuse not to see that this is merely substituting indirect for direct payments, and thus, as morally dubious as the original mandate. [quote]

I’m afraid the morally dubious is our Christian lot in, what I consider, largely a pagan land despite what Glen Beckians think. This is not so different from the lot of Christians in the pagan Roman Empire for some 275 years. May we eat meat sacrificed to Idols? To be a good Christian citizen in this multifaceted world has always been somewhat of a balancing act. If our Catholic and other religiously sponsored institutions want to receive federal funding and hire non believers they have to make some compromises. Of course, they are free to go the hard way, and turn down both.

I hope you like rotten bread.

That is not what I am saying. I am outraged and care deeply every time a murder is committed. I have the law on my side and murderers get their just due if caught and found guilty. Unfortunately, the law in this country and most countries of this world do not consider abortion at least within the first trimester to be murder as do you and I. We do not have the law on our side. In fact, our government prohibits laws that restrict abortion within the first trimester and defends the right of a woman to obtain one whether we like it or not. I may cry and care, which I do, but that is not going to change things until there is a national consensus. I have more hope , and I ought to, for Orthodox/Catholic unity. Outside of that, I have little trust for princes or the sons of men in whom...."

utroque

ARE YOU AGAINST ABORTION?

Let me rephrase that ...

Shall we simply sit idly by while this moral outrage is going on - or do something?

It took massive political upheaval to enforce Civil Rights Laws of this land -

Now we have a choice - beyond voting for the lesser of evils

We can stand and fight an unjust law - with pain - with suffering - by FIGHTING IT!

I hope all who read this stand up to defend their helpless brothers and sisters being senselessly murdered in cold blood under the guise of LAW

Yes, I am. If you're asking me to take extreme measures , like harassing women and abortionists coming from abortion clinics; no, I will not. Extreme measures, in my experience, have a tendency to turn off the very people you are trying to influence and often attract the lunatic fringe who might take measures that I find very frightening. Witness bombings and shootings at abortion clinics and elsewhere. I have lesbian neighbors. Am I supposed to shun them and harass them because I find their lifestyle reprehensible? Cui Bono? No, I treat them kindly as I do the neighbors on the other side of my house. The US has defined pluralism. We need to get use to it.

It may be better than NO bread which is you choice if I'm reading your rightly.

Why would any decent person vote for Obama or the Democrats? Why would anyone avoid voting at all when they could vote against those who support baby killing? Take a look at this.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ca...talks-of-the-ugly-black-babies-he-aborts

Peaceful fighting only.

Fighting unjust laws - lawfully.

I am not against people - any people - gay, straight

I am FOR ALL people - including fetuses

I have organized and participated in prayer vigils in from of abortion clinics. I have never seen anyone come close to violence except those who harass the protesters.

what I have seen firsthand is the boyfriends who drive their girlfriends up to "take care of the problem" and just drop them off - cowardice - they leave the girl alone not wanting to face the gruesome procedure.


Peace to you brother ...

You're not.

You and Stuart are advocating the perpetuation of the lesser of two evils by claiming that a little bit of evil is better than a lot.

I'm pointing out that the lesser of two evils is still, in fact, evil, and that by doing so you only cement this dichotomy in perpetuity, guaranteeing that we'll never see anything better and that things will continue to get worse.

I will only put my vote, which has been earned through the shedding of much blood, behind a candidate worthy of that sacrifice, and of principles and intentions which aren't "half-way" evil.

Take a look at our representatives and let me know how you think the lesser of two evils is working out. It's not like I'm the one making the audatious claims, you are the one that needs to defend maintaining the status quo.

As for Stuart's false dilemma, he knows better. There's nothing utopian about seeing Romney and Obama as two sides of the same coin. I've voted for plenty of candidates, mainstream and not, that I felt would do an excellent job and that share a large part of my values and concerns. That can be said for neither of the remaining candidates for president.

So, to answer your bread question - I am saying that the ONLY way to a full loaf is to demand a full loaf. If you end up with a bit less than full, fine, but you'll never get more than half if that's all you expect and in fact, all that you advocate for. If every Christian refused to compromise and voted on a common minimum criteria, we'd have one hell of a candidate on our hands.

What I do wish for in a utopian sense would be for more of a parliamentary style of government where 2 parties, neither of which are capable or interested in the best interests of the country, would not have a death grip on power. You wouldn't have to hold your nose when you voted nearly as often.

In short, it's really a matter of degrees.

With Romney, "half a loaf" is a generous assignment of bread anyways. He was pro-abortion until less than a decade ago, for crying out loud.

I'd rather not have to take a shower after leaving the voting booth. Maybe that *is* utopian these days.