Will All Of You Pro-romney People Apologize When...

[dUSt]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351737464' post='2501731']
You're missing out. There's a lot of good [s]gold[/s] [b]posts from the user known as Freedom [/b]buried here.
[/quote]
Fixed.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1351750668' post='2501893']
Exactly. And that would not be an abortion. That would be the very, very unfortunate side effect of a life saving treatment for the mother. Ergo, abortion is still not okay. Ever.
[/quote]
I think Joe Biden said that when he said it was okay for a mother who feared for her life and health and should be free from any Government intervention when choosing to terminate a pregnancy. She should be free from any Government constraints in forming her conscience and effectively making a choice. It's not abortion.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351752267' post='2501909']
Fixed.
[/quote]

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351774974' post='2501982']

I think Joe Biden said that when he said it was okay for a mother who feared for her life and health and should be free from any Government intervention when choosing to terminate a pregnancy. She should be free from any Government constraints in forming her conscience and effectively making a choice. It's not abortion.
[/quote]
Except what I am talking about is when the death of the baby actually IS the side effect, not when an abortion is the treatment. For example, when a fallopian tube must be removed from a woman with an ectopic pregnancy (okay by the Church) vs aborting a baby because the mother's heart is over stressed (not okay).

[havok579257]

i guess i want to ask but who exactly was a pro-life candidate in this election cycle. Not Santorum, GIngrich, Paul or Romney or Obama

[Aloysius]

Ron Paul was extremely pro-life. His sanctity of life act coupled with the We the People act were the most efficient way forward towards illegalizing abortion, he supported defining personhood as beginning at conception at a Federal Level and therefore providing constitutional protections to the right to life for all unborn children. On other life issues such as war and the death penalty, he was also perfectly in line with the Church's stance. And on all of this he had a consistent record to back it up; sure, he wasn't always standing up for the pointless side-issue legislation that was designed to do nothing effective on the abortion issue (for example: the recent gender-selective abortion ban, which amounted to nothing more than a gimmick and would have stopped exactly zero abortions). When he did get flack from some of the libertarians in his base, it was mostly over this, the fact that he was pro-life; but actually I think he had a profound impact on many of the people that entered into the political process in favor of the pro-life issue, at least from all the Ron Paul supporters I've met.

Santorum was much better than Romney in this regard as well, so was Gingrich actually. They both had their own issues on the life front but were also much better than Romney on the issue, by a huge margin. I didn't like those two for wholly other reasons and I didn't feel they were nearly as pro-life as Ron Paul or nearly as sincere and trustworthy, but they were leaps and bounds better than Romney on the abortion issue.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1351834265' post='2502758']
i guess i want to ask but who exactly was a pro-life candidate in this election cycle. Not Santorum, GIngrich, Paul or Romney or Obama
[/quote]
Newt is pro-life, so far as I know. He's just not very well informed (though he recanted).

I know the priest who brought him into the Church. The priest is pretty tough and wouldn't have let any stupid comments go without confronting the guy. I think he's honestly pro-life, but there might be other issues to him besides that.

I think Rick Santorum is also pro-life, though his issue was that he believes in torture.

[havok579257]

pro-life is just not about abortion. its about abortion, contraception, death penalty when used for revenge(which for the most part is how its used in america), war, pre-emptive strikes, killing non combatants in wartime and so on.

these men were better than romney but they were not pro-life. they were more pro-life then romney just like romney is more pro-life than obama. none are truely pro-life.

[kujo]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1351836842' post='2502798']
pro-life is just not about abortion. its about abortion, contraception, death penalty when used for revenge(which for the most part is how its used in america), war, pre-emptive strikes, killing non combatants in wartime and so on.

these men were better than romney but they were not pro-life. they were more pro-life then romney just like romney is more pro-life than obama. none are truely pro-life.
[/quote]

I'd add quality of life things like health care, doing sensible things to curtail the effects of global climate change that we exacerbate with our pollution, etc.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1351836842' post='2502798']
pro-life is just not about abortion. its about abortion, contraception, death penalty when used for revenge(which for the most part is how its used in america), war, pre-emptive strikes, killing non combatants in wartime and so on.

these men were better than romney but they were not pro-life. they were more pro-life then romney just like romney is more pro-life than obama. none are truely pro-life.
[/quote]
Technically it's "just war." So far as I know, the only thing that they'd be guilty of doing is trying to go to war preemptively without cause. But again, you have that in there. Non-combatants is an issue, but it's a prudential call, so long as you aren't looking to perform carpet bombing or to use A-bombs/H-bombs, chemical warheads, etc. Looting and pillaging is out of the question too...

The death penalty is linked with the pro-life cause, and unjust use of capital punishment might fit into it, but it's more of a witness to the sanctity of life than an actual part of the pro-life cause itself. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict speak of it in this light, saying that the death penalty can cause harm to the pro-life cause, which I think is included in your caveat. In this case the death penalty has been left to the jurisdiction of the states and I don't remember it being addressed, though I didn't watch a single debate...

So far as I know, both men are against contraception, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's good to rid America of it at this point. We want it to be gone, but...

Also, euthanasia and cloning fit into these categories. I'm not sure how Santorum or Gingrich went against the pro-life cause directly. With war there is a lot of room for discrepancy. Essentially as long as a person isn't a war-mongerer or trying to kill innocent people then we have a lot of room for discussion.

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351837293' post='2502802']
I'd add quality of life things like health care, doing sensible things to curtail the effects of global climate change that we exacerbate with our pollution, etc.
[/quote]
These are about quality of life, which cannot be confused with the basic right to life itself. Certainly they are involved, but they aren't directly equivalent.

[havok579257]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351837293' post='2502802']
I'd add quality of life things like health care, doing sensible things to curtail the effects of global climate change that we exacerbate with our pollution, etc.
[/quote]

i wouldn't call them pro-life issues. moral issues absolutely but not pro-life issues. if we start adding care for the enviornment as pro-life issues then you can almost add everything under the sun as a pro-life issues. pro-life deals with human lives directly.

[havok579257]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351837382' post='2502803']
Technically it's "just war." So far as I know, the only thing that they'd be guilty of doing is trying to go to war preemptively without cause. But again, you have that in there. Non-combatants is an issue, but it's a prudential call, so long as you aren't looking to perform carpet bombing or to use A-bombs/H-bombs, chemical warheads, etc. Looting and pillaging is out of the question too...

The death penalty is linked with the pro-life cause, and unjust use of capital punishment might fit into it, but it's more of a witness to the sanctity of life than an actual part of the pro-life cause itself. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict speak of it in this light, saying that the death penalty can cause harm to the pro-life cause, which I think is included in your caveat. In this case the death penalty has been left to the jurisdiction of the states and I don't remember it being addressed, though I didn't watch a single debate...

So far as I know, both men are against contraception, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's good to rid America of it at this point. We want it to be gone, but...

Also, euthanasia and cloning fit into these categories. I'm not sure how Santorum or Gingrich went against the pro-life cause directly. With war there is a lot of room for discrepancy. Essentially as long as a person isn't a war-mongerer or trying to kill innocent people then we have a lot of room for discussion.


These are about quality of life, which cannot be confused with the basic right to life itself. Certainly they are involved, but they aren't directly equivalent.
[/quote]

i wanted santorum to win the primaries, i thought he was the best choice although his philosiphy on pre-emptive strikes and the middle east are not moral.

also using drones as obama does is definatly not pro-life. innocent people are being killed to get at enemies. this is not moral. innocents dying in war time is one thing. targeting areas you know have innocents in them to get at an enemy is morally wrong.

[kujo]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1351837429' post='2502805']
i wouldn't call them pro-life issues. moral issues absolutely but not pro-life issues. if we start adding care for the enviornment as pro-life issues then you can almost add everything under the sun as a pro-life issues. pro-life deals with human lives directly.
[/quote]

Everything under the sun deals with human lives directly too, when you think about it. Why should we fixate on the beginning and end of life only? Shouldn't we be advocating for the respect and dignity of all human life, at [b]every single second[/b], from the "womb to the tomb?"

[havok579257]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351837745' post='2502807']

Everything under the sun deals with human lives directly too, when you think about it. Why should we fixate on the beginning and end of life only? Shouldn't we be advocating for the respect and dignity of all human life, at [b]every single second[/b], from the "womb to the tomb?"
[/quote]

i never said we should not be advocating it. i just said it wouldn't fall under the pro life umbrella. it would fall better under human dignity.

[kujo]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1351838016' post='2502812']
i never said we should not be advocating it. i just said it wouldn't fall under the pro life umbrella. it would fall better under human dignity.
[/quote]

You're talking about organizing a flow chart. I'm talking about what it mean to be pro-life. It can be whatever we want it to be. If the reason you're pro-life is because you believe in the sanctity and dignity of every living person, than why wouldn't that reasoning extend out to those other areas, and be part and parcel of the same cause?