Skip to comments.
Catholic Newspaper Tells Anti-Abortion Voters Not to Support Giuliani
FoxNews.com ^
| March 7, 2007
Posted on 03/07/2007 1:41:55 PM PST by madprof98
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-166 next last
To: msnimje
You think Obama or Edwards would be any better on life issues?
21
posted on
03/07/2007 2:01:56 PM PST
by
Gunder
To: areafiftyone
The Church is not telling you who to vote for. But there are certain positions that are incompatible with being a Catholic, and support for abortion is one of them. It would perhaps be one thing if Rudy would keep his mouth shut and just go along with party platform; but he has always been a big and vocal supporter of abortion (well, since his Donna Hanover days) and I think the point of the editorial is well made. If we Catholics tell the GOP that it doesn't matter and that we don't really care what our church teaches anyway, then I can guarantee you that exactly what the editorial says will come to pass: the GOP will become officially pro-abortion, thanks to folks like you.
As the editorial says, there's nothing unreasonable about the anti-abortion position. Furthermore, it's always gotten us votes. Drop it and what are you left with? Democrat Party lite.
22
posted on
03/07/2007 2:02:03 PM PST
by
livius
To: madprof98
..sounds like the beginning of pro-life mobilization in this campaign
23
posted on
03/07/2007 2:02:49 PM PST
by
WalterSkinner
( ..when there is any conflict between God and Caesar -- guess who loses?)
To: Kimmers
This is an independent newspaper directed at a Catholic audience. They can say whatever they want.
24
posted on
03/07/2007 2:03:22 PM PST
by
livius
To: jmellis
Info like this makes me doubt whether ideology should matter much, if at all, in appointing SCOTUS justices, because we can't predict where they'll end up -- maybe we should just concentrate on qualifications?
Ideology matters because few drift right. The other problem is that leaning left shows an appaling lack of understanding that should automatically disqualify the nominee.
25
posted on
03/07/2007 2:03:35 PM PST
by
freedomfiter2
(Duncan Hunter: pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-border control, pro-family)
To: livius
"This is an independent newspaper directed at a Catholic audience. They can say whatever they want."Exactly, and the same thing was said when Kerry ran. However some pro-abortion 'conservatives' seem to have forgotten that.
26
posted on
03/07/2007 2:11:23 PM PST
by
ex-snook
("But above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
To: AZRepublican
Yeah, they want to support Hillary instead, Show us then where in the editorial it states what you allege.
27
posted on
03/07/2007 2:14:12 PM PST
by
jla
To: madprof98
The Register simply states the obvious.
This Catholic will never vote for Rudy (or Romney, or any similar liberal) in the primary or general election.
28
posted on
03/07/2007 2:15:28 PM PST
by
JohnnyZ
("I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002)
To: areafiftyone
Being a Catholic myself, I agree.. wondering if it comes down to Hillary or Rudy will they suggest we go third party or stay home... ;)
29
posted on
03/07/2007 2:18:29 PM PST
by
DKNY
("You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it." --Margaret Thatcher)
To: madprof98
Some people cannot abide a reasoned argument. Being pro-life as well as a member of this constitutional republic shows a consistency of thought. Without the right to life, there are no other rights. How difficult is that to understand.
Politicians who cannot support the right to life over the right to choose death of another individual have not used their God-given reasoning ability. They are not, as far as I am concerned, eligible to hold political office, especially not that of President of the United States.
Every newspaper should be pointing this out, not just Catholic ones.
30
posted on
03/07/2007 2:22:49 PM PST
by
MSSC6644
(Defeat Satan. Pray the Rosary)
To: livius
Thank you for the clarification.....
31
posted on
03/07/2007 2:23:53 PM PST
by
Kimmers
To: WalterSkinner
..sounds like the beginning of pro-life mobilization in this campaign . . . and the problem with this is. . . ?
32
posted on
03/07/2007 2:24:22 PM PST
by
MSSC6644
(Defeat Satan. Pray the Rosary)
To: areafiftyone
I am a Roman Catholic and I refuse to let the Roman Catholic Church or any church for that matter tell me who to vote for president. You can cry and whine and declare your right to be a cafeteria Catholic all you want and claim you're being shock-prodded to the polls by a newspaper, but --
the Church's teaching on the matter is clear. There are non-negotiable moral issues by which we must measure political candidates. And we will each have to answer for our votes whether at the confessional or on Judgement Day.
33
posted on
03/07/2007 2:26:37 PM PST
by
JohnnyZ
("I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002)
To: livius
As the editorial says, there's nothing unreasonable about the anti-abortion position. Furthermore, it's always gotten us votes. Drop it and what are you left with? Democrat Party lite.
What about the tons of other issues? Why would dropping this particular issue make the GOP the Dem Lite party?
34
posted on
03/07/2007 2:26:58 PM PST
by
LtdGovt
("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
To: madprof98
"Would a pro-abortion president give us a pro-life Supreme Court justice? Maybe he would in his first term."
This is what they wrote? Do they even understand the makeup of the Court? Only one more originalist is needed to take down Roe, and the next President will get 2 picks very early in their term.
So they tell me "maybe he would in his first term" - hell, that's all that's needed.
To: JohnnyZ
You can cry and whine and declare your right to be a cafeteria Catholic all you want and claim you're being shock-prodded to the polls by a newspaper, but -
Why does not withholding your vote from a candidate who is pro-choice make you a 'cafeteria Catholic'? What about politicians who allow for exceptions. That's incompatible with church teaching too, is it not?
There are non-negotiable moral issues by which we must measure political candidates.
Like?
36
posted on
03/07/2007 2:29:58 PM PST
by
LtdGovt
("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
To: shempy
As a label, "Catholic" is even more meaningless than "Republican". The Church has taken a clear and vocal stand on life issues.
What has your church done?
37
posted on
03/07/2007 2:30:13 PM PST
by
JohnnyZ
("I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002)
To: Gunder
You think Obama or Edwards would be any better on life issues?
No, but a real Republican will beat them easily in the general election.
38
posted on
03/07/2007 2:34:33 PM PST
by
msnimje
(If Giuliani is the Republican nominee we need a new Party Platform [or copy the Dem's])
To: madprof98
Good for them!! It's only going to get worse for Rudy.
39
posted on
03/07/2007 2:36:30 PM PST
by
don-o
(Fight, fight. fight to drive the GOP to the right!!!!)
To: Graybeard58
The dem nominee will be pro baby killing, no matter who it is.
Does that mean we should also?
40
posted on
03/07/2007 2:36:55 PM PST
by
msnimje
(If Giuliani is the Republican nominee we need a new Party Platform [or copy the Dem's])
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-166 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson