No deal, Rudy

Catholic Online ^ | 3/6/2007

[MHGinTN]

You offered: "Since Roe V Wade became law, we've had more Republican presidents than Dem ones, and Roe is still the law of the land. Abortion is also a topic that most Americans have way down on the list of what's of major importance." Do you not see a significant effect in having a Subpreme Court fiat ruling that legalizes the killing of alive unborn children at the simple request of the woman, and the reality that most Americans have lost the ability to comprehend the heinous nature and effects of abortion on demand? How will nominating and then electing a man who has already sold out to the horror as useful actually change directions of this nation?

[voltaires_zit]

> First, your screen name makes me laugh. Thank you.

You're more than welcome, and I'm grateful to bring humor. It's much more fun than discord!

> For a Catholic in solidarity with Pope Benedict and
> Mother Angelica, for example, Giuliani is impossible.

So long as a better candidate is available, isn't that so? If the alternatives are actually worse, then the rule is to do the least harm possible, is it not?

As I mentioned in my previous post, I don't object to those who support somebody else or even those who state why they can't support Giuliani, as you just did.

My problem is with those who savage him (or any other candidate), apparently hoping to wound him so badly from within that he can't be a viable candidate. That's the democrats' job.

[Artemis Webb]

Honey if I could figure out what your question is I would try to answer it. I'm not being glib or intentionally daft. I truly do not understand what it is you want.

You seem to feel I should ping JimRob for even mentioning his name in passing. I feel I should only ping JimRob to either bring something to his attention or if I am criticizing him...SOMETHING I HAVE NOT DONE IN ALL THESE YEARS UNTIL A WEEK AGO.

Tell me again what it is you want and I'll try to answer.

[nopardons]

Then this should have been posted in the religion section; not news.

There is also quite a history of all kinds of other kinds of news services in this country and pushing a Catholic view, on a secular site isn't why this site was founded.

Being snarky, playing with someone else's nic, is considered to be very bad manners here. Doing so, shows just what and who you are....

[Siobhan]

I think I outlined pretty well my point of view about this in intervening posts. In short, Mr. Robinson marks the general territory in which we can debate. I never posited anything about this becoming a one candidate website as you did in your post. I only asserted that it is his website, and we need to play by the rules he sets within the boundaries he sets.

[fatima]

What are you trying to say nopardons without pinging Jim.

[Siobhan]

So long as a better candidate is available, isn't that so? If the alternatives are actually worse, then the rule is to do the least harm possible, is it not?

Yes that is the general application.

[wouldntbprudent]

It seems to me that the point of nopardons' post was that the election of more Republican presidents than Democrat presidents still hasn't moved the ball forward in the abortion struggle.

IOW, how much have presidents actually impacted the issue? Bush did much by making his two Supreme Court appointments. But even if Roe v. Wade were overturned (and I pray it will be), there will still be a huge mountain to climb to restrict abortion in state or federal law.

[wouldntbprudent]

Amen.

And is it actually Catholic doctrine that, in a situation of two evils, one should strive to do the least harm possible?

Would that it were so.

[wouldntbprudent]

Amen.

And is it actually Catholic doctrine that, in a situation of two evils, one should strive to do the least harm possible?

Would that it were so.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

a look at the electoral map in any given presidential election will reveal that a state's likelihood to vote for a radical pro-abortion candidate is largely a function of its Catholic population.

The Roman Catholic Church is much more top-down as regards governance than are many Protestant denominations, many of whose conventions are subject to the member churches. Thus, no doubt high-level infiltration and control of RCC agendas would naturally be a prime target for totalitarians. Not that the Gramsci strategy hasn't targeted every church and other major institution, of course.

[wouldntbprudent]

oops -- mouse fart -- sorry for the dupe post

[MHGinTN]

At this stage in scientific development, 'restricting abortion' is no longer the cogent factor to consider. But hanks for your input. BTW, libertarian values are not going to take over FR or the Republican party this season ... another, later season, maybe.

[Jim Robinson]

"Yes, it's his site, his rules, and he manages it; however, once this site is turned into a one candidate promoting site, with all other views banned, then the LLC nature of the rules come into play and FR becomes an illegal political arm of that candidate."

Right. And I wouldn't put it past you to try to use unconstitutional anti-free speech Marxism to try to shut us down. Go ahead. Take your best shot, Mz McLame!

[takenoprisoner]

"And is it actually Catholic doctrine that, in a situation of two evils, one should strive to do the least harm possible? "

Then catholics are wrong. The correct action should be to deny them both with extreme prejudice.

[wouldntbprudent]

"Restricting abortion" includes any and all legal regulation of abortion, up to making it totally illegal.

But I guess that doesn't do it for the all-or-nothing crowd.

[Siobhan]

It is possible as a Catholic to make such a moral decision defensibly and deny both if they are equally wrong on the questions of life. But it is permissible to choose between two candidates so that the one who will do the greatest amount of harm does not benefit from one's protest.

[PerConPat]

Second, I think we need to be able to state why we think a candidate is not acceptable as cogently as possible and be able to provide an alternative...

I have read your posts tonight with a great appreciation for your insight and cyber-demeanor. I believe that all candidates are flawed and that no currently declared Pub candidate is without an obligation to clarify his positions on weighty matters. However, I regard Giuliani's positions to be those requiring the heaviest lifting.

His speech before CPAC was not a good first step. Homilies on the existence of disagreement will not satisfy those Conservatives who- rightly IMHO- place pro-life concerns, the Second Amendment, and secure borders at the top of their agendas. Hunter is a reasonable choice at present if for no other reason than to keep these issues from being submerged by visions of "electable" sugar plumbs from distracting Primary voters.

[MHGinTN]

Figure this out, connect these sentences, friend: What is an abortion? How does that differ from terminating a pregnancy? Embryo-aged beings in the human species are human beings at their earliest age. You try to marginalize pro-life people by making snide comments like 'all or nothing crowd' but it only shows how little you comprehend the depths of the depravity in this nation regarding the alive unborn. Right To Life is not merely one among many issues, it is a founding principle of this nation. Where in that issue is there room to compromise and yet be defending the right to Life? Can you mark the utilitarian steps along the path?

[wouldntbprudent]

Thank you for that explanation. It is very helpful.