If Hillary Clinton Makes Also Makes A Transparently Insincere Claim To Be Pro-Life Can Catholics Vote For Her

[PhuturePriest]

33 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Sure it is, when one side offers little to no criticisms of Clinton but continually criticisms of Trump. Clinton strongly stood up in favor of abortion through out all nine months and I see little to no criticisms for her from those who've taken a anti-trump but pro-life position on pm.

After seeing Clinton defend abortion for all nine months and partial birth abortion I think I'll print out the article you posted and line my puppy dog's crapper with it. 

No one is going after Hillary because she hasn't paraded around as the savior of the pro-life movement. We know she is pro-choice up through all nine months. She has never touted otherwise. Trump, however, has flip-flopped on this issue repeatedly. Going after Trump does not make me nor anyone else here a fan of Hillary. It means we're calling BS on Trump over something Hillary has never flip-flopped on.

[dominicansoul]

21 hours ago, Amppax said:

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but here's something to consider: http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/20/trump-presidency-hurt-pro-life-more-than-hillary/

From what I understand, Trump overturning Roe V Wade would give that power back to the states to decide on abortion.  So, the article isn't really well founded.  He's not going to strip liberals of their precious sacrament.  It will be in stages.  

I honestly don't like that.  Texas gave a sweeping blow to Planned Parenthood when we passed laws that shut their clinics down.  It was a victory for the prolife movement even when the Supreme Court overturned some parts of it.  It's too late for those clinics to reopen.  They will never reopen again in our great state.  I don't understand how a softer attack against Roe V Wade is the answer, when that hasn't worked the last 50 years...  

 

[dominicansoul]

Allowing liberals/Hilary to win is getting us this as well:  It won't just be worse for the unborn, but for LIFE in general:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/20/assisted-suicide-law-prompts-insurance-company-den/

[LittleWaySoul]

14 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

Allowing liberals/Hilary to win is getting us this as well:  It won't just be worse for the unborn, but for LIFE in general:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/20/assisted-suicide-law-prompts-insurance-company-den/

Yeah I heard about this. It's horrifying. I don't have words to express how horrible this is. 

[Socrates]

On 10/21/2016 at 10:52 PM, Amppax said:

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but here's something to consider: http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/20/trump-presidency-hurt-pro-life-more-than-hillary/

To beat another dead horse, that op-ed piece was fairly nonsensical.  Like other "pro-life" "arguments" in favor of Hillary, it assumes as absolute certain fact that Trump will completely break his promises regarding SCOTUS nominations, and instead nominate persons every bit as pro-abortion and anti-constitutional as Hillary.  I regard this as a possibility, as I don't completely trust the guy (one reason I did not support him in the primary), but definitely don't regard it as a certainty.  If pressured hard enough, he may keep his promises, if not out of sincere principle, at least to keep the support of his base and keep face (as has been explained on here multiple times).  

As for pro-life legislation, that's the job of Congress, not the President.

A Supreme Court filled with Clinton-nominated justices would likely strike down many state laws restricting abortion, as well as further ensure that Roe v. Wade stands for generations.

Again, better to gamble with Trump than ensure certain ruin with the Cackling Witch.  But don't blame me; I voted for Cruz.

[Papist]

7 hours ago, Socrates said:

To beat another dead horse, that op-ed piece was fairly nonsensical.  Like other "pro-life" "arguments" in favor of Hillary, it assumes as absolute certain fact that Trump will completely break his promises regarding SCOTUS nominations, and instead nominate persons every bit as pro-abortion and anti-constitutional as Hillary.  I regard this as a possibility, as I don't completely trust the guy (one reason I did not support him in the primary), but definitely don't regard it as a certainty.  If pressured hard enough, he may keep his promises, if not out of sincere principle, at least to keep the support of his base and keep face (as has been explained on here multiple times).  

As for pro-life legislation, that's the job of Congress, not the President.

A Supreme Court filled with Clinton-nominated justices would likely strike down many state laws restricting abortion, as well as further ensure that Roe v. Wade stands for generations.

Again, better to gamble with Trump than ensure certain ruin with the Cackling Witch.  But don't blame me; I voted for Cruz.

i.e. With Trump, there is some uncertainty of what we get.  With Hillary, there is NO doubt what we get.