What do we dare to discuss, what do Priests dare to preach?
#21
(06-08-2015, 02:27 PM)Southerncaliforniaguy Wrote: The abortion posts that people found offensive had to do with politicians.  I argued that Ron Paul was prolife and Mitt Romney's position was prochoice.  Mitt Romney's position is the Mormon Churches position -- that abortion should be legal for cases of rape, incest, or threat to the women's physical or mental health. Ron Paul wanted to let the individual states vote on whether to keep it legal or not. Romney's position is actually more liberal than "Roe V Wade" -- which is worded almost exactly the same -- because "Roe V Wade" only allowed for abortion up to a certain term in the pregnancy.  So people argued with me that Romney's position, and "Roe V Wade", was really prolife  -- because they did not support abortion for convenience.  They argued that Ron Paul was actually the prochoicer.

And I would argue that since Ron Paul's position is simply a 'states rights' position, returning control of abortion to the states, and thus, guaranteeing that states like California, Massachusetts, and New York will remain baby killing centres, regardless of the rationalisation,  Romney's position is actually 'more pro-life' than Paul's. However, being pro-life is like being pregnant, you either is or you ain't and I know of no US politician who is pro-life, since being pro-life, for a Catholic, includes opposing not only abortion, but artificial birth control, cloning, in vitro conception, etc.

And, BTW, your little one has a great birthday! He shares it with my nephew, my great-nephew, and me!

Reply
#22
(08-06-2015, 01:57 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: And I would argue that since Ron Paul's position is simply a 'states rights' position, returning control of abortion to the states, and thus, guaranteeing that states like California, Massachusetts, and New York will remain baby killing centres, regardless of the rationalisation,  Romney's position is actually 'more pro-life' than Paul's. However, being pro-life is like being pregnant, you either is or you ain't and I know of no US politician who is pro-life, since being pro-life, for a Catholic, includes opposing not only abortion, but artificial birth control, cloning, in vitro conception, etc.

And, BTW, your little one has a great birthday! He shares it with my nephew, my great-nephew, and me!

Homicide laws belong to the States according to the Founders' view of the Constitution, the view that Ron Paul goes by. I think he's right. And I also believe he is 100% pro-life, as am I.

Would you, for ex., want the U.N. or the French Government enforcing abortion laws over here (assuming the laws outlawed abortion)? That's the situation in question. We're supposed to be a country that honors the Rule of Law. It's the tossing aside of the Constition, the usurpation of States' rights, that have led to the situation we're in now, when the Federal Government can tell Hoosier (folks from Indiana, for non-Yanks) how to run their businesses, schools, etc. Subsidiarity is a very important Catholic principle, and there's no reason whatsoever why States can't enforce sane laws regarding abortion. In fact, it'd give the so-called "Fly-Over States," like the one I live in, a fighting chance to outlaw abortion in their States. Otherwise, it's the Fed against us all.
Reply
#23
(08-08-2015, 11:36 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: And I also believe he is 100% pro-life, as am I.

So, I take it that you agree with Dr Paul that, "The morning-after pill is a birth control pill," he said. "If people have reservations about abortion, the abortion is the issue, it isn't the birth control pill. It isn't the instrument. You don't not allow surgical instruments if they're used for certain things."?

And if a rape victim doesn't have time to get the PlanB 'morning after pill' to abort any possible child conceived, "No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen," thereby carrying out the abortion.

He's also admitted that he prescribed lots of ABC when he was practising, and joked, "I was also putting myself out of business, all this birth control," in an interview on 20 March 2012 while running for President. "They had less babies."

I'm sorry, I'm pro-life, and as I said,  being pro-life is like being pregnant, either you is or you ain't and I know of no US politician who is pro-life.

And on the subsidiarity point, so if a smaller governmental unit should decide to outlaw homeschooling that would be fine? My understanding of subsidiarity has always been that it is to allow the smaller unit to make its own decisions within the confines of Divine and natural law. You and I both know there's not a snowball's chance in hell of most of the blue States outlawing abortion, so the only way to put a stop to it is to fight it on the federal level.
Reply
#24
Vox, I'm sorry. That was a low blow. I know you don't agree with Dr Paul's acceptance of artificial birth control and 'limited' abortion. Like most people, if you like a politician's positions and he lies like a politician and says he's 'pro-life' you don't look too deeply into his position on life issues.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)