havok579257 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351838101' post='2502813'] 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? [/quote] because its stupid for someone to come out and say they are pro life and you ask them why and they say because i am for saving the enviornment. heck by that logic Al Gore must be the most pro life person who does not wear the cloth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351838101' post='2502813'] 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? [/quote] Some things are more fundamental to a point of view than other things are. Being pro-life is more fundamentally focused on the life itself. Next it can focus on quality of life. Lemme come up with an example. In football the players and ball are fundamental. The type of turf or color of flags used are secondary. Sure they enhance the game and are part of it, but you can play on different types of turf. Pink flags work just as well as yellow flags. You can't play without a football or players; they must be there first. The type of turf and color of flags are moot before you have the players and football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [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] This debate is certainly past its prime as the primary season is over and he's not running anymore, but Ron Paul fits your criteria for pro-life. Unless you think there should be a legal ban on contraception... which is not necessarily the Catholic stance, actually, I've never seen anything from the Church calling for contraception to be made illegal. It is a moral issue, certainly, and absolutely the government should not force people to fund it, but I don't think there's any call for necessarily making it illegal. Ron Paul is pro-life on abortion (even at the Federal level, he just has an actual plan for starting down the road towards illegalizing it), Ron Paul is against the death penalty, he is against pre-emptive strikes as well as all the measures that inherently target non-combatants in a war (such as drones), he is against these wars and in favor of a just war doctrine requiring any war conducted to actually be a defensive war (which is the only kind of thing you can actually declare war on, because a declaration of war is only possible as a declaration that war exists already, it must be in response to a state of war initiated by an aggressor) Where exactly is Ron Paul not fully pro-life? There is the issue that he's okay with a doctor providing a shot of estrogen (which is effectively the same drug as contraceptives are) after a woman was raped that would effectively either prevent fertilization or implantation from taking place; and preventing implantation by chemical means is considered abortificient to the Catholic perspective. That is a far cry from the wide range of exceptions proposed by Romney. A huge margin of difference, a difference in KIND not just degree, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1351838247' post='2502817'] because its stupid for someone to come out and say they are pro life and you ask them why and they say because i am for saving the enviornment. heck by that logic Al Gore must be the most pro life person who does not wear the cloth. [/quote] Why is that stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351838407' post='2502820'] This debate is certainly past its prime as the primary season is over and he's not running anymore, but Ron Paul fits your criteria for pro-life. Unless you think there should be a legal ban on contraception... which is not necessarily the Catholic stance, actually, I've never seen anything from the Church calling for contraception to be made illegal. It is a moral issue, certainly, and absolutely the government should not force people to fund it, but I don't think there's any call for necessarily making it illegal. Ron Paul is pro-life on abortion (even at the Federal level, he just has an actual plan for starting down the road towards illegalizing it), Ron Paul is against the death penalty, he is against pre-emptive strikes as well as all the measures that inherently target non-combatants in a war (such as drones), he is against these wars and in favor of a just war doctrine requiring any war conducted to actually be a defensive war (which is the only kind of thing you can actually declare war on, because a declaration of war is only possible as a declaration that war exists already, it must be in response to a state of war initiated by an aggressor) Where exactly is Ron Paul not fully pro-life? There is the issue that he's okay with a doctor providing a shot of estrogen (which is effectively the same drug as contraceptives are) after a woman was raped that would effectively either prevent fertilization or implantation from taking place; and preventing implantation by chemical means is considered abortificient to the Catholic perspective. That is a far cry from the wide range of exceptions proposed by Romney. A huge margin of difference, a difference in KIND not just degree, IMO. [/quote] [color=#222222][font="Arial","sans-serif"][size=2]the last example you gave works perfect. that makes him pro-life but with some exceptions.(also his stance on contraception and moring after pill and sterilization are?) is he way better than romney... absolutely. although let's not delude ourself and act like there was a real pro life candidate out there. they were all pro life to varying degrees but not truely pro life.[/size][/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351838438' post='2502821'] Why is that stupid? [/quote] putting abortion on the same level as care for the enviornment is stupid. i hope you can see that. they two are not even close in terms of improtance when it comes to life issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1351838904' post='2502825'] putting abortion on the same level as care for the enviornment is stupid. i hope you can see that. they two are not even close in terms of improtance when it comes to life issues. [/quote] Why do they have to be competition with each other? Can't they all fall under the same umbrella of respecting human dignity? (And please do a better job of arguing your case. You know, like not simply referring to things with which you disagree as "stupid.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351839005' post='2502827'] Why do they have to be competition with each other? Can't they all fall under the same umbrella of respecting human dignity? (And please do a better job of arguing your case. You know, like not simply referring to things with which you disagree as "stupid.") [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351839005' post='2502827'] Why do they have to be competition with each other? Can't they all fall under the same umbrella of respecting human dignity? (And please do a better job of arguing your case. You know, like not simply referring to things with which you disagree as "stupid.") [/quote] let's be honest dude, almost everyone would call it stupid to say abortion and care for the enviornment fall under the same umbrella as being pro life issues. i'm not wasting time arguing something so off the wall as this so... moving on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) what is your political stance on contraception? my stance is that it should not be illegal. not everything that is immoral should be illegal. and I'm 100% pro-life, or am I by your definition? what is your political stance on sterilization? I'm not sure that my stance would hold that it should be illegal either. I don't think that's the pro-life position either. those two things are immoral, absolutely, but the Church doesn't teach that they ought to be illegalized. No one should be compelled to fund them, and that would be Ron Paul's position as well. He has stated that the morning after pill is little different chemically than the contraceptive pill and there would be no real legal recourse to banning it. I'm not sure what my stance on the legality of the morning after pill should be, I'm not sure what the proscribed pro-life position really must be. I'd be more inclined to say the morning after pill should be banned while Ron Paul would be more in favor of keeping it legal. I'm not so sure there is one prescribed pro-life position to answer this issue... there are plenty of immoral things that are going to be out there and not illegalized, many of them cause many bad things, some of them can cause deaths, but we are not obligated to think that the things themselves must be illegalized, just morally and socially discouraged. Edited November 2, 2012 by Aloysius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1351839177' post='2502833'] let's be honest dude, almost everyone would call it stupid to say abortion and care for the enviornment fall under the same umbrella as being pro life issues. i'm not wasting time arguing something so off the wall as this so... moving on. [/quote] LOL! To hell with Romney! You should all vote for Havok! "Do you swear to uphold the Constitution..." "DUHH!!!!! I'd be [b]stupid[/b] not to!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351839254' post='2502835'] what is your political stance on contraception? my stance is that it should not be illegal. not everything that is immoral should be illegal. and I'm 100% pro-life, or am I by your definition? what is your political stance on sterilization? I'm not sure that my stance would hold that it should be illegal either. I don't think that's the pro-life position either. those two things are immoral, absolutely, but the Church doesn't teach that they ought to be illegalized. No one should be compelled to fund them, and that would be Ron Paul's position as well. He has stated that the morning after pill is little different chemically than the contraceptive pill and there would be no real legal recourse to banning it. I'm not sure what my stance on the legality of the morning after pill should be, I'm not sure what the proscribed pro-life position really must be. I'd be more inclined to say the morning after pill should be banned while Ron Paul would be more in favor of keeping it legal. I'm not so sure there is one prescribed pro-life position to answer this issue... there are plenty of immoral things that are going to be out there and not illegalized, many of them cause many bad things, some of them can cause deaths, but we are not obligated to think that the things themselves must be illegalized. [/quote] my stance on contraception/birth control is that it should be illegal(the birth control pill should be legal when used for medical reasons) because it can and does cause abortions. the church teaches some contraceptions should be illegal because some cause abortions. i am absolutely against sterilization but i don;t know how i feel about it when it comes to if it should be allowed legally or not. the morning after pill kills the baby after implimentaion of the egg, so its a church stance to be against the morning after pill. it would be instrically evil as there is no good that can come from the morning after pill just like with abortion. the church is against the morning after pill because it causes an abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351839287' post='2502837'] LOL! To hell with Romney! You should all vote for Havok! "Do you swear to uphold the Constitution..." "DUHH!!!!! I'd be [b]stupid[/b] not to!" [/quote] well since i am not a fan of many laws in this country i don't think i would have that position. also give me some credit, at least i would be smart enough to not appoint you to any position of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1351839693' post='2502843'] my stance on contraception/birth control is that it should be illegal(the birth control pill should be legal when used for medical reasons) because it can and does cause abortions. the church teaches some contraceptions should be illegal because some cause abortions. i am absolutely against sterilization but i don;t know how i feel about it when it comes to if it should be allowed legally or not. the morning after pill kills the baby after implimentaion of the egg, so its a church stance to be against the morning after pill. it would be instrically evil as there is no good that can come from the morning after pill just like with abortion. the church is against the morning after pill because it causes an abortion. [/quote] Condoms cause abortions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351839806' post='2502845'] Condoms cause abortions? [/quote] IUDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now