Over at Vimeo, somebody claimed:
“This is what romney/ryan would have given us: http://goo.gl/22xdz
* Heartbreaking: “The debate over legalizing abortion in Ireland flared Wednesday after the government confirmed that a woman in the midst of a miscarriage was refused an abortion and died in an Irish hospital after suffering from blood poisoning.”
To which a pro-life person ought to reply:
Foremost: yes, that is heartbreaking and awful.
First, Romney didn’t receive my vote, and I believe he should’ve received 0 votes.
Second, your idea is pure speculation, undeniably, and totally unlikely.
There is nothing morally illicit about taking necessary medical action to save the life of a pregnant woman that endangers the life of her unborn child. Direct abortion and the incidental, unintended killing of an unborn baby are two vastly different things, and the latter is permissible.
Did you know that to be the teaching of the Catholic Church?
If you think abortion isn’t murder because a fetus isn’t a person, then no man has ever fathered a child.
Look at an Embryology textbook, genius!
You know what the difference is between a fetus and a child, don’t you?
Location! (10 seconds before birth, you were a fetus.)
If a fetus isn’t a person because of its location, where do I need to put you to make you non-human?
We speak to children in a way that makes sense to them. Why wouldn’t we speak to pro-abort folks in a way that makes sense to them?
We should sound like intelligent human beings who know with scientific certainty what it is we’re talking about.
“…a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.”Yet another reason to vote third party. Since all 4, yes there are FOUR, of the candidates support and promote grave intrinsic evil, we have an awesome reason to support an improbable winner. If he fails to win, then we won’t be complicit in the winning candidate’s evil.
If you are “unaware” of the grave intrinsic evil that Romney supports, then I fear you may be suffering from delusions.He has a strong pro-abort record, and was no friend of religious liberty as governor when he told Catholic hospitals that they must provide abortion pills. Even his current stance is pro-abort since it doesn’t restrict abortions at all (“the health of the mother” is a pro-abort stance and allows for any health concern at all).And he is fully in favor of Obama’s 2011 NDAA, which flips the bird to human rights. Plus, he likes Obama’s policy of murdering hundreds of innocent foreigners, including very young children, via indiscriminate drone attacks.
Me: Constitutional Freedom? I’m on board.
Can we reasonably expect Willard Romney to restore constitutional freedoms? Absolutely not. Why not? Dozens of reasons which include his apathy regarding the HHS Mandate and his support of the most recent NDAA.
What about Gary Johnson? That’s hardly a question worth asking because it is so explicitly answered by his platform. YES. If there is one candidate that you can confidently believe will restore liberty in America, it is Gary Johnson.
Dr. Narrow: Gary Johnson? Are you kidding me?
Pro-”choice” on abortion.
Pro gay marriage.
Pro drug legalization.
Pro prostitution legaliszation.
Non-partisan documentation: http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
You may be able to argue that Gary Johnson is intellectually consistent.
But you can hardly make a Catholic case for supporting him.
Me: Can I believe one iota of the filth that comes from Romney’s mouth? No. He has the moral spine of a jellyfish and the integrity of a hyena. I may as well vote for a Mystery Dum-Dum Pop since have an equal understanding of what’s inside.
Is there a pro-life canidate? No.
A candidate with a proper definition of marriage? No.
Drug legalization is a policy issue that isn’t defined by Catholic morality, besides the fact that I can trust that Gary Johnson won’t treat an executive order like a shortcut to enacting legislation the Constitutional way, which means that only the drug policy that Congress passes will become law.
Bringing up prostitution makes it seem like your grasping at straws. It’s a state’s issue right now–pretty obvious since Nevada has their own laws–and Johnson doesn’t care to take that away from the States. And, again, it’s not as if Congress is going to even consider a law requiring all states to legalize prostitution.
You objections have been dismissed. As for making a “Catholic case” for him: the very fact that I may reasonably believe that he is intellectually consistent and cares for personal liberty and freedom, including religious freedom, while no other candidate does, is more than a strong case.