Voting as a Catholic is CONFUSING!
#31
(10-11-2012, 08:24 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: How do we win?

Well, public opinion needs to be on the side of life.  And that needs to happen one person at a time.  We need to chip away at the selfishness that causes people to choose the death penality for their children so that they may live the way they choose.  We need to chip away at the same selfishness that causes people to contracept.  By word and by example, we need to make the traditional family something that is valued once again.

Because when public opinion stands up for something, the candidates follow.

Wise words, OC.  But how do we do it when the entire culture is so manifestly against us?
Reply
#32
(10-12-2012, 12:42 AM)Adeodatus01 Wrote:
(10-11-2012, 11:29 PM)MorganHiver Wrote: I am so confused and heart broken. I really do not understand how people can still follow Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince. Especially now with instant access to information. No wonder why Obama and other political powers want the internet regulated.

As an aside, I think everyone who has some reason to consider political, historical and social matters ought to read it. It's absolutely essential.

I second this motion. 
Reply
#33
(10-12-2012, 12:23 AM)m.PR Wrote:                

(10-11-2012, 08:45 PM)Thomas58 Wrote: This economy is a mixed economy; half Socialist, half Capitalist. The trend is not towards more freedom, the trend is towards always more and more government control and intervention into people's lives.

Well, a functioning capitalist economy requires government intervention. The textbook example is antitrust law -  monopolies are a distortion of the market and they must be broken up.

The capitalism / socialism binary doesn't seem quite right.

Well, Libertarians would make the argument for a Laissez Faire economy; something I don't completely agree with.

Monopolies are very hard to come by in a competitive free market. Most of the monopolies that exist or that ever existed were set up or protected by government: notice the Post Office (which is yet once more broke), utility companies, phone and cable TV companies, etc. So in reality it is not the free market which creates most of the monopolies, but rather, government intervention into the free market that creates them.
Reply
#34
(10-12-2012, 09:22 AM)Thomas58 Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 12:23 AM)m.PR Wrote:                

(10-11-2012, 08:45 PM)Thomas58 Wrote: This economy is a mixed economy; half Socialist, half Capitalist. The trend is not towards more freedom, the trend is towards always more and more government control and intervention into people's lives.

Well, a functioning capitalist economy requires government intervention. The textbook example is antitrust law -  monopolies are a distortion of the market and they must be broken up.

The capitalism / socialism binary doesn't seem quite right.

Well, Libertarians would make the argument for a Laissez Faire economy; something I don't completely agree with.

Monopolies are very hard to come by in a competitive free market. Most of the monopolies that exist or that ever existed were set up or protected by government: notice the Post Office (which is yet once more broke), utility companies, phone and cable TV companies, etc. So in reality it is not the free market which creates most of the monopolies, but rather, government intervention into the free market that creates them.

Well said.
Reply
#35
(10-12-2012, 02:57 AM)MorganHiver Wrote: What's more evil? Abortion or allowing those suffering to continue to suffer and eventually die?
Abortion is by far the most evil of intrinsic evils, primarily because unbaptised infants are being murdered and do not have a chance of the Beatific vision in heaven with God.
[that we know of]
Reply
#36
(10-12-2012, 02:57 AM)MorganHiver Wrote: What's more evil? Abortion or allowing those suffering to continue to suffer and eventually die?
Abortion is by far the most evil of intrinsic evils, primarily because unbaptised infants are being murdered and do not have a chance of the Beatific vision in heaven with God.
[that we know of]
Reply
#37
(10-12-2012, 09:37 AM)Old Salt Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 02:57 AM)MorganHiver Wrote: What's more evil? Abortion or allowing those suffering to continue to suffer and eventually die?
Abortion is by far the most evil of intrinsic evils, primarily because unbaptised infants are being murdered and do not have a chance of the Beatific vision in heaven with God.
[that we know of]

I would say nuclear war is worse than abortion because it kills both born and unborn indiscriminately, as well as killing future generations yet unborn. It is an attack on humanity and creation, itself.
Reply
#38
(10-12-2012, 12:23 AM)m.PR Wrote:
(10-11-2012, 10:49 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
Paul Ryan Wrote:"I'm proud of my record," Ryan said. "Mitt Romney is going to be president and the president sets policy. His policy is exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. I'm comfortable with it because it's a good step in the right direction."

He repeated this - paraphrased - tonight in the debate. It is weak. It would be better for him to say openly that he disagrees with Romney on this issue. But, it's not wrong. Because,

(1) Never has he said that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape or incest, or in any case whatsoever. He says that that would be his running mate's policy, and that it is better than nothing. So he passes the orthodoxy test.

(2) Whether Romney supports the rape-and-incest exception matters very little because there will not be a chance to criminalize abortion in the next four years.

(3) Compromise, when you are the one fighting for change, is a smart thing. Take Don't Ask Don't Tell: a compromise in 1993, a triumph in 2011 for the homosexual activists. And, 99 babies murdered is an advance over 100 babies murdered (and the drop would be more significant), jarring as that sounds.

Ryan's approach IS wrong because it causes public scandal. He publicly touts himself as a devout Catholic, and because he is generally seen as "pro-life" and attends Mass on Sundays, many conservative Catholics see him as the real deal. However, by not taking a firm stance against the rape/incest exemption (which the bishops are not taking him to task for), he creates the impression that this is an acceptable position to hold for an orthodox Catholic. This is scandalous, and it does direct harm to the Faith.
Reply
#39
(10-12-2012, 11:07 AM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 09:37 AM)Old Salt Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 02:57 AM)MorganHiver Wrote: What's more evil? Abortion or allowing those suffering to continue to suffer and eventually die?
Abortion is by far the most evil of intrinsic evils, primarily because unbaptised infants are being murdered and do not have a chance of the Beatific vision in heaven with God.
[that we know of]

I would say nuclear war is worse than abortion because it kills both born and unborn indiscriminately, as well as killing future generations yet unborn. It is an attack on humanity and creation, itself.
Incorrect.
Abortion is aimed primarily at unborn unbatised infants.

Nuclear war, as horrendous as it is, is aimed primarily at those who have been born and had a chance of recieving Baptism.

In addition to that over 100 million unbaptised infants have been killed by abortion, while the number killed by NW is significantly lower.
Reply
#40
(10-12-2012, 11:40 AM)Old Salt Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 11:07 AM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 09:37 AM)Old Salt Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 02:57 AM)MorganHiver Wrote: What's more evil? Abortion or allowing those suffering to continue to suffer and eventually die?
Abortion is by far the most evil of intrinsic evils, primarily because unbaptised infants are being murdered and do not have a chance of the Beatific vision in heaven with God.
[that we know of]

I would say nuclear war is worse than abortion because it kills both born and unborn indiscriminately, as well as killing future generations yet unborn. It is an attack on humanity and creation, itself.
Incorrect.
Abortion is aimed primarily at unborn unbatised infants.

Nuclear war, as horrendous as it is, is aimed primarily at those who have been born and had a chance of recieving Baptism.

In addition to that over 100 million unbaptised infants have been killed by abortion, while the number killed by NW is significantly lower.

Nuclear war does not discriminate against born and unborn. It kills every pregnant woman including their unborn children.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)