The following is the voter guide issued by Californians for Life:
Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020, is the California general election, when all 53 California Congressional Districts, 20 of the 40 California state Senate seats, and all 80 California state Assembly seats will be voted on. This is a critical election. Make sure everyone you know is registered to vote, with their current address and name. You can easily register to vote on-line at this Secretary of State website.
Early voting starts October 5th. You can print out the Pro-Life Voter Guide at this link. Here is the Spanish Pro-Life Voter Guide.
Find out which Congressional District,which state Senate District and state Assembly District you live in so that you can identify which candidate to vote for from the list below.
============================================
Pro-Life Candidates for Congress:
Congressional District 1: Endorse Congressman Doug LaMalfa
Congressional District 3: Endorse Tamika Hamilton
Congressional District 4: Endorse Congressman Tom McClintock
Congressional District 6: Congressional Candidate Christine (Chris) Bish would be better than the pro-abortion incumbent Congresswoman Doris Matsui, who supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
Congressional District 7: Endorse Buzz Patterson
Congressional District 8: EndorseJay Obernolte
Congressional District 9: Endorse Antonio (Tony) Amador
Congressional District 10: Endorse Ted Howze
Congressional District 11: Congressional Candidate Nisha Sharmawould be better than the pro-abortion incumbent Congressman Mark DeSaulnier, who supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
Congressional District 14: Congressional Candidate Ran Petel would be better than pro-abortion incumbent Congresswoman Jackie Speier, who supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy
Congressional District 15: Endorse Alison Hayden
Congressional District 16: Endorse Kevin Cookingham
Congressional District 19: Endorse Justin Aguilera
Congressional District 20: EndorseJeff Gorman
Congressional District 21: Endorse former Congressman David Valadao
Congressional District 22: Endorse Congressman Devin Nunes
Congressional District 23: Endorse Congressman Kevin McCarthy
Congressional District 24: Endorse Andy Caldwell
Congressional District 25: Endorse Congressman Mike Garcia
Congressional District 26: Endorse Ronda Kennedy
Congressional District 27: Endorse Johnny Nalbandian
Congressional District 30: Endorse Mark Reed
Congressional District 31: Endorse Agnes Gibboney
Congressional District 32: Joshua Scott is pro-life and would be better than the pro-abortion incumbent Congresswoman Grace Napolitano who supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
Congressional District 33: Endorse James Bradley
Congressional District 35: Mark Cargile is pro-life and would be better than the pro-abortion incumbent Congresswoman Norma Torres who supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
Congressional District 36: EndorseErin Cruz
Congressional District 37: Endorse Errol Webber
Congressional District 39: EndorseYoung Kim
Congressional District 40: Endorse C. Antonio Delgado
Congressional District 41: Endorse Aja Smith
Congressional District 42: Endorse Congressman Ken Calvert
Congressional District 43: Endorse Joe Collins
Congressional District 44: Endorse Billy Earley
Congressional District 45: EndorseGreg Raths
Congressional District 46: Endorse James Waters
Congressional District 47: John Briscoeis is pro-life and would be much better than the pro-abortion incumbent Congressman Alan Lowenthal, who supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
Congressional District 48: Endorse Michelle Steel
Congressional District 49: Brian Maryott is better than the pro-abortion incumbent Congressman Mike Levin, who supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
Congressional District 50: Endorse former Congressman Darrell Issa
Congressional District 51: Endorse Juan Hidalgo Jr.
Congressional District 52:Jim DeBello would be better than pro-abortion incumbent Congressman Scott Peters, who supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
=============================================
Pro-Life Candidates for State Senate:
State Senate District 1: Endorse State Senator Brian Dahle
State Senate District 3: Endorse Carlos Santamaria
State Senate District 5: Jim Ridenour would be better than pro-abortion Susan Eggman who voted in favor of requiring universities to distribute the Chemical Abortion Pill (SB 24) and voted to celebrate the Roe v Wade Resolution, which has killed over 60 million babies and left millions of women (and men) hurt for a lifetime.
State Senate District 17: Endorse Vicki Nohrden
State Senate District 21: Endorse State Senator Scott Wilk
State Senate District 23: Endorse Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh
State Senate District 25: Endorse Kathleen Torres Hazelton
State Senate District 27: Houman Salem would be better than pro-abortion Henry Stern who voted in favor of requiring universities to distribute the Chemical Abortion Pill (SB 24)and also voted to celebrate the Roe v Wade Resolution, which has killed over 60 million babies and left millions of women (and men) hurt for a lifetime.
State Senate District 29: State Senator Ling Ling Chang would be better than her opponent.
State Senate District 37: Endorse State Senator John Moorlach
State Senate District 39: Endorse Linda Blankenship
================================================
Pro-Life Candidates for State Assembly:
Assembly District 1: Endorse Assemblymember Megan Dahle
Assembly District 3: Endorse Assemblymember James Gallagher
Assembly District 4: Endorse Matt Nelson
Assembly District 5: Endorse Assemblymember Frank Bigelow
Assembly District 6: Endorse Assemblymember Kevin Kiley
Assembly District 8: Endorse Cathy Cook
Assembly District 9: Endorse Eric M. Rigard
Assembly District 12: Endorse Assemblymember Heath Flora
Assembly District 13: Carlos Villapudua would be better than the pro-abortion Planned Parenthood-endorsed Kathy Miller.
Assembly District 16: Endorse Joseph A. Rubay
Assembly District 21: Endorse Joel Campos
Assembly District 23: Endorse Assemblymember Jim Patterson
Assembly District 26: Endorse Assemblymember Devon Mathis
Assembly District 31: Endorse Fernando Banuelos
Assembly District 32: Endorse Todd Cotta
Assembly District 33: Both Thurston “Smitty” Smith and Rick Herrick are Pro-Life.
Assembly District 34: Endorse Assemblymember Vince Fong
Assembly District 35: Endorse Assemblymember Jordan Cunningham
Assembly District 36: Endorse Assemblymember Tom Lackey
Assembly District 38: Both Suzette Martinez Valladares and Lucie Lapointe Volotzky are both Pro-Life
Assembly District 40: Endorse Jennifer Tullius
Assembly District 42: Endorse Andrew Kotyuk
Assembly District 44: Endorse Denise Pedrow
Assembly District 47: Candidate Matthew Gordon is Pro-Life, while the incumbent Catholic (and catechist) pro-abortion Democrat Assemblymember Eloise Gomez Reyes voted in favor of requiring universities to distribute the Chemical Abortion Pill (SB 24) and also voted to celebrate the Roe v Wade Resolution, which has killed over 60 million babies and left millions of women (and men) hurt for a lifetime.
Assembly District 49: Endorse Burton Brink
Assembly District 52: EndorseToni Holle
Assembly District 55: Endorse Assemblymember Phillip Chen
Assembly District 56: Endorse America Figueroa
Assembly District 57: EndorseJessica Martinez
Assembly District 60: Endorse Chris Raahauge
Assembly District 61:Ali Mazarei would be better than pro-abortion Catholic Democrat Jose Medina who voted in favor of requiring universities to distribute the Chemical Abortion Pill (SB 24) and also voted to celebrate the Roe v Wade Resolution, which has killed over 60 million babies and left millions of women (and men) hurt for a lifetime.
Assembly District 62: Endorse Robert A. Steele
Assembly District 67: Endorse Kelly Seyarto
Assembly District 68: Endorse Assemblymember Steven S. Choi
Assembly District 71: Endorse Assemblymember Randy Voepel
Assembly District 72: Endorse former State Senator Janet Nguyen
Assembly District 73: Endorse Laurie Davies
Assembly District 74: Endorse Diane Dixon
Assembly District 75: Endorse Assemblymember Marie Waldron
Assembly District 76: Endorse Melanie Burkholder
Assembly District 77: June Cutter would be much better than pro-abortion incumbent Democrat Brian Mainschein who voted in favor of requiring universities to distribute the Chemical Abortion Pill (SB 24)and also voted to celebrate the Roe v Wade Resolution, which has killed over 60 million babies and left millions of women (and men) hurt for a lifetime.
Assembly District 79: Endorse John Moore
Assembly District 80: Endorse John Vogel
Questions and suggestions can be sent to Wynette Sills, director
CaliforniansForLife.org at wynette.sills@gmail.com, 916-955-1577
The Californians for Life ought to massively publish and distribute their valuable info, long before elections! Copies ought to be placed in all churches– and just everywhere! I already voted by absentee ballot last week. Pro-Life is “numero uno,” for me! I’ve always believed “Pro-Death” Baby Killers ought to all be put in jail!!
We have been publishing this Pro-Life Voter Endorsement list even prior to the California Primary in March of this year. See all the details at https://californiansforlife.org/pro-life-voter-information/ Please help distribute this information. Forward this list to your friends, family, co-workers, and church community. You can sign up to receive the Californians for Life newsletter at https://californiansforlife.org/
You propose taking one group’s opinion and placing it “in all churches-and just everywhere!” This is not a new concept. There is a word for it. Fascism.
You are wrong. That’s not what fascism means at all. To be fascist it would require that the opinion be forced on people by an authoritarian state.
Catholics being educated about moral implications of actions is a good. Your over reaction shows your left wing bias. How easily the left tosses around the word fascist, they don’t even know what it means. probably you don’t either.
Annette, voters always appreciate all the information they can receive, to make good choices for candidates, when they go to the polls to vote. Surely, you want to do all you can, especially if you love God and His little children, and are a practicing Catholic believer– to help end legal baby murder– abortion– in our country. Why don’t you join a pro-life group at your parish, or maybe volunteer for 40 Days For Life, or at least say a Rosary to end abortion?
In today’s news, another bishop has spoken out. Bishop Felipe Estevez of St. Augustine, FL, said abortion is a “fundamental threat to the beginning of life itself.” In a letter to the Catholics in his diocese, Bishop Estevez said: “Pope Francis has made it clear that if we fail to protect life, no other rights matter. He also said that abortion is not primarily a Catholic or even a religious issue: it is first and foremost a human rights issue.”
Note: neither the bishop nor the Pope are endorsing candidates. Rather, they are simply pointing out the fact that without being alive issues like healthcare, economic opportunity, education, racial justice and others do not matter.
God bless Bishop Estevez for speaking out truthfully.
Deacon CA, the “fact” is that everyone who votes is alive and that “issues like healthcare, economic opportunity, education, racial justice and others” do matter and seriously so, including to the unborn, even while abortion remains legal. “Issues like healthcare, economic opportunity, education, racial justice and others” are all material parts of protecting life, including the life of the unborn. Threats to any of them are threats to protecting life and “being alive”. Indeed, even if abortion were 100% eliminated, threats to “healthcare, economic opportunity, education, racial justice and others” would still be threats to the unborn and the born. There are many aspects to protecting life, and advocacy is deserved for all of them. Different people may subjectively opine and argue as to which is more important, “fundamental” or “preeminent” than the others, and people, including Catholics who identify as pro-life, will continue to disagree, including as to the best or shortest route to eliminating abortion.
Abortion Is The Preeminent Issue and Catholics have a duty of conscience when voting. Your response to Deacon Craig was a bloated way of inserting the properly discredited seamless garment theory into the discussion. There is a hierarchy among issues and when life is not at the top, none of the others matter.
A candidate who is pro abortion can’t be trusted to care about any lives.
I agree. They’re no more (or less) trustworthy than the other candidates. They’re all liars. (Romans 3:4)
Patricia, of course, “everyone who votes is alive.” That reinforces the point Bishop Esteves, the Pope, others and I are making. Voting rights are meaningless if one has been killed. Lynch a black man and he certainly won’t vote. Nor will he need an education, a job or healthcare.
Deacon CA, you are reinforcing and extending my point. If things don’t matter to people who are already dead, then neither does making abortion illegal matter to people who are already dead. All the things you claim are “meaningless if one has been killed”, i.e. “issues like healthcare, economic opportunity, education, racial justice and others” do matter to the living, i.e. to those to whom things matter, and that includes children living in the womb. Let us return now to the the bishop’s claim. The bishop’s claim that “if we fail to protect life, no other rights matter” is false if one is limiting “protect life” to the issue of abortion, because it’s a fact that even if we fail to stop abortion, the human race does not cease, persons who vote continue living and voting, and “other rights” (and “issues like healthcare, economic opportunity, education, racial justice and others”) do continue to matter, including to everyone who votes, and to all living children, including to all children living in the womb.
Kristin, the “bloat” you complain about is in your interpretation, your reading, your doing. The issue of life, protecting, respecting and promoting life is not reducible to exclusively the legality of abortion, and the other aspects of the issue of life very much continue to matter to you and to everyone else while abortion remains legal. For many voters, voting for the anti-abortion candidate is much like trying to open a stuck door, and it’ll take a lot of people pulling together to make it happen. Each pro-life voter will follow his/her own chosen path for making that happen. If, for you, nothing but making abortion illegal matters, maybe you’ll just sit there repeatedly pulling at that stuck door (perhaps unrealistically) hoping that enough other voters are going to help you this next time you pull on that handle. Meanwhile, other pro-life voters may follow another method of opening other easier doors first, obtaining further support for opening that stuck door and also help with other life protecting issues. They share the priority of stopping abortion but employ another method to achieve it, a method that protects, respects and promotes life with “issues like healthcare, economic opportunity, education, racial justice and others”.
Patricia, going back to the seamless garment nonsense is useless as thinking Catholics have rejected it. The social issues you list are not “pro-life”, but neutral issues that can be addressed in a variety of ways. The legalized killing of children can only be addressed in one way, by completely ending the practice of abortion. Your insistence on opening “easier doors first” is an abandonment of those most in need of immediate protection, the unborn.
Kristin, I agree with you that abortion is the premier issue. I am not a single issue voter. But if a candidate is pro-choice, it is a no-go for me. Sometimes, you have both candidates pro-life and then you can look at other issues.
You have to be pretty dang old to know about the seamless garment controversy. Or you are hanging out on the wrong websites. There are internet personalities who still rant about it, however, the majority of Catholics wouldn’t know what you are talking about. I had to google it 12 years ago, when I first heard about it so I imagine it is even more obscure now.
It is a happy rarity when both candidates are pro-life, and in that instance others positions should be properly considered. Knowledge of seamless garment theory speaks to historical knowledge of a problem mindset that liberal Catholics keep trying to resurrect, not age or website preference.
As for the majority of Catholics, 70% of them don’t even believe in the Real Presence, and that’s of the roughly 20% who still attend Mass. At least you bothered to do some research and can see how old worn out theories still plague the Church today. Now as then, the lies must be exposed.
Kristin, it’s you, not I, who keeps going back to a seamless garment argument. What I’m saying is that even a pro-life voter who is absolutely adamant that making abortion illegal is the preeminent issue above all other issues may still licitly vote for candidates who are not on board with making abortion illegal when, in the prudential judgment of that voter, doing so will result in a better overall outcome. For example, if pro-life / anti-abortion Patricia concludes, after careful deliberation, that electing anti-abortion Carl will not (for any number of reasons) actually yield a net positive change in the vital matter of stopping abortion, and anti-abortion Carl is otherwise a nutjob or worse on other/less important issues, then Patricia may make the prudential decision to vote for pro-choice John (despite his pro-choice position) who will nonetheless deliver real and valuable results on other less important issues. In other words, if Patricia can’t get the most important thing she needs until 5 pm, she can, if not should, still get other things done in the meantime, and she may vote accordingly.
Patricia, according to Catholic teaching the only time a Catholic can vote for someone who backs abortion is if it takes out another pro abort candidate with more seniority, thus lessening future harm, and that is only if there is not a pro life candidate running for the same office.
Some abortionists have admitted that they have never had to do an abortion (ripping apart or burning by saline the unborn) to save the mother’s life since complications present themselves when the child is developed enough to deliver vaginally or by caesarian.
Anne, that is incorrect. The Church teaches principles that are not limited to the specific example you’ve listed. For example, the USCCB’s “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” guide states that Catholic voters “may reasonably decide to vote for” a pro-abortion candidate if the voter reject’s that candidate’s pro-abortion position and votes “for that candidate for other morally grave reasons”. Cardinal Ratzinger also said something very similar in a 2004 letter to U.S. bishops: “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” It is left to each voter with an informed conscience to decide whether there is “the presence of proportionate reasons” or “morally grave reasons”. In addition, USCCB’s guide reminds that voters “should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil [such as abortion] to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.”
No Cardinal Ratzinger did not, and why is there no reply section after the name on your post. Abortion and “so-called same sex marriage” are intrinsic evils.
Anne, you are welcome to read the letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) yourself. It was made public in 2004 and, for example, is available to the public in EWTN’s library. The quoted statement was copied verbatim from the bottom of the letter.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/worthiness-to-receive-holy-communion-general-principles-2153
Patricia, I was told in the past by very holy priests that the last part of that message that Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Bendict XVI) meant just what I said it meant in my previous post to you — that one could only vote for a pro abortion person if the only other candidate was pro abortion too and had less seniority. Although I was a union member at my last job before I retired, I voted against my own self interest because I could not in good conscience vote for the people whom the union supported. I became a Republican.
Anne, the USCCB does not teach that the principle stated by Cardinal Ratzinger can only be applied as trivially as you allege, and it is also not what Cardinal Ratzinger said. If Cardinal Ratzinger believed the principle could only be applied so trivially as you allege, ask yourself why didn’t Cardinal Ratzinger himself simply say so? And why, in all these years since, has he still not come forward and simply said what you allege? And why does the USSCB also not teach what you allege?
Patricia, in reply to your post October 15 at 11:04 am, that is merely your own opinion. It is known that some of the messages Pope Benedict XVI, or Pope Emeritus Benedictus XVI, sent out to some bishops were covered up (trashed canned) by some, such as the one stating Mc Carrick was not to travel because of molestation charges and the corruption of some seminarians. I do not know if you are just naive or being deceptive. I’ll let God decide that one.
Anne, the statements I’ve already presented from the USCCB and Cardinal Ratzinger (Prefect, CDF) regarding voting are not “merely [my] own opinion” and they clearly are not “covered up (trashed canned)”. They’ve been openly published for years. As you say, “I do not know if you are just naïve or being deceptive,” but I do know you’ve presented nothing credible to substantiate your claim about voting. Instead, you just cite your purported recollection of what some “very holy priests” allegedly told you, and you haven’t well-explained what you even mean by a “pro abortion person”. If a person supports ending some but not all abortions, is that person a “pro abortion person”? If so, which presidential candidate, for example, is not a “pro abortion person”?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic moral teaching and your misapplication of it will not vindicate your vote for pro abortion candidates.
No, I don’t have whatever “misunderstanding” or “misapplication” you concocted in your head from your (mis)reading of something. As to your “vote for pro abortion candidates,” I’m not sure what you mean. For example, Donald Trump and Joe Biden are both “pro abortion candidates” depending on how the term is defined.
Patricia, let me clarify that one for you. Pro abortion means voting to let children in the womb be slaughtered by tearing that limb from limb or burning them to death by saline injection. Now have you got the picture? and some abortionist have even done that without anesthesia, so they can sell the fresh body parts for experimentation or for stem cells to use on other people, aka another form of cannibalism. Thus the stem cell proposition is another California proposition to vote “NO” on.
Anne, according to the definition you provided, “pro abortion” means voting with the intent that (“to let”) children in the womb be killed in the manner in which you’ve described. I don’t know of many voters who vote with that intent, whether they’re voting for Joe Biden or Donald Trump or anyone else. And I surely don’t know of any voters who vote with that intent when they vote on the stem cell research proposition. Thank you for explaining what you mean by “pro abortion”.
Patricia,
From https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/worthiness-to-receive-holy-communion-general-principles-2153
“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
1) – It is not OK – It is still Remote Material Cooperation of abortion
2). There is no “proportionate reason” to vote for the pro-abortion
candidate Biden and Harris
3)- You parrot the democratic party line, trying to say that
Trump is against “important moral issues involving human life and dignity” so therefore you can justify your democratic vote.
That is not true. He has worked toward Peace and progress
for all in innumerable topics.
He has accomplished so much more good than the last democratic President – he actually made things worse.
Anonymous, thank you for reposting the quote and link I previously posted.
1) The quoted statement of Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly states that remote material cooperation can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. And I note that per the dictionary of the English language, one of the listed definitions of “OK” is “permissible”. With that definition in mind, one can understand the quoted statement of Cardinal Ratzinger as saying that remote material cooperation can be “OK” in the presence of proportionate reasons. Of course, if you choose to not vote to elect such a candidate, you can do so.
2) Your opinion that “there is no proportionate reason to vote for Biden and Harris” is exactly that: your opinion. Thank you for sharing it.
3) Nowhere did I say nor try to say and indeed I expressly reject your claim regarding that if Trump is “against moral issues involving human life and dignity” (all quite vague) that it necessarily justifies voting for anyone at all.
4) Your opinions that Trump “has worked toward peace and progress” and regarding Obama are again exactly that: your opinions. As always, thank you for sharing them.
So– Patricia– does it matter at all to you– the wrongfully legalized murder of innocent children, created by God, in their mothers’ wombs? Many fine people have a very strong moral conscience, about that. And you?
Anon, yes, and after consulting various voter guides, including the one presented here, I vote for the slate of candidates that I deem collectively best in getting us away from that. Perhaps you do too.
Read this if you have an open mind:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/10/abortion_more_than_just_a_single_issue.html
This voter guide is not intended to be the full combo platter of every issue but an ala carte offering. If you don’t like the menu go somewhere else, Patricia.
Just cut to the chase, you want to vote for pro-abort Biden and are attempting to justify it to yourself and others. Own it, and stop making excuses. Droning on about voting for someone steeped in abortion won’t assuage your guilt, and if your conscience is pricked, there is still hope for you.
This is for you Patricia
Kristin, I don’t want to do any such thing nor am I attempting what you allege. I’m so sad for you that you have stooped to bearing false witness. The “guilt” you try to project upon me is yours.
Clearly you are playing games, so let’s be clear. You “don’t Want to do any such thing” – vote for pro-abort Biden – But You Will. No bearing of false witness on this end because that is the only way to interpret your voluminous comments. Any guilt over this directed toward you, from you, and it’s all very disingenuous so Bye Now!
And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love…
Christians don’t love that which is deceitful.
During the era of slavery in the U.S., many fine people with strong moral consciences were abolitionists, who felt that legalized slavery was a horrific sin against God. None of them would dare cast a vote nor support pro-slavery candidates and issues. Unthinkable. Some issues are that important. We ended up in a bloody Civil War, and our President (Lincoln) was assassinated.
During the era of slavery in the U.S., there were also “many fine people” including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and countless others who owned slaves and/or were otherwise pro-slavery in one way or another. In that light, as some would venture to say, “you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides”. I think it’s a bit of folly to pick and choose which had “strong moral consciences” and suspect everyone has his/her own set of moral weaknesses. Or put another way, the “many fine people” may be “fine” in some regards and not others. Everyone is a mixed bag. Or as Jesus said, “No one is good but God alone.”
Patricia, our Founding Fathers did not all believe in slavery, nor proclaim slavery as right, before Almighty God. They were stuck in a bad system, which they did not know how to end. They should have done more in their lifetimes, to end slavery! However– in today’s world, we can and must do all that is possible, to end the senseless legal murder of unborn children!
And many fine people with strong moral consciences (including some priests and nuns) enslaved other persons and believed it was God’s will.
Almost every tribe and nation had slavery during that time, and some still do. Native Americans took other tribes into slavery, whites took native tribes into slavery and visa versa. Black Africans sold other blacks into slavery or used them as slaves themselves. Some countries still have slavery. Hernando Cortez conquered the Aztec Empire with the help of other native tribes, the Olmecs and Toltecs I think, since they were tired of being enslaved or killed on Aztec altars. If you were conquered, whether you started the fight or not, that was your fate. Now we imprison, and there are fights over that.
Patricia, our Founding Fathers did not all believe in slavery, nor proclaim slavery as right, before Almighty God. They were stuck in a bad system, which they did not know how to end. They should have done more in their lifetimes, to end slavery! However– in today’s world, we can and must do all that is possible, to end the senseless legal murder of unborn children!
Anon, I don’t see anyone here claiming that “all” the Founding Fathers believed in slavery and proclaimed it as right. And they weren’t “stuck” in a bad system then any more than we are (or are not) now. As to “we can and must do all that is possible” to end abortion, that’s very vague and people disagree on how to apply that ambition.
Patricia, one does not need to get so complicated on defending the simple right of a poor, helpless, unborn child of God– to be responsibly brought to term, and born! It is a very simple thing– Respect Life! All babies deserve the right to be born! A baby is simply a big responsibility– not a “political issue,” nor a “choice for their mom to decide whether or not to kill them!” Why all these strange, complicated, unnecessary attacks on those desiring to responsibly stand up for a child’s right to simply– be born?? Don’t you think a child deserve their lives– just as you deserved yours?? What does it say, of a cold, heartless society, selfishly pursuing money,
materialism, honors, and pleasure– while evilly legally sanctioning the killing of unborn children, if the mother so chooses?? Motherhood is sacred!
Anon, yes, “respect life”. I also like “accept life”.
The very finest people not only have good Christian morals– in extreme cases of evil, they act upon their consciences, and go a step further— and risk their lives for what is right, before God. We have many saints in Heaven, martyred because they willingly stood up against great evil, for the sake of Christ!
Californians for Life labels these candidates as “pro-life” but does not define what they mean by that label or specify what information they used about the candidates for their decision. In researching their list of purportedly “pro-life” candidates, I find many of the listed candidates themselves also do not clearly state their positions in that regard. Apparently, many don’t want to publicly answer a question like “Under what circumstances should abortion be allowed?” But perhaps more surprising is to come across a response such as “I believe all abortions over 18 weeks of gestation should be permanently banned, even by private providers, except in the extremely rare case of saving the mothers life. Otherwise, I believe the government has limited ability to exercise authority over private citizens making personal decisions at their own expense even though others may find their decisions abhorrent.” As candid as that candidate may have been in that response, I note that I didn’t find it on or by following the link to his/her website, and I didn’t expect I would.
You aren’t even willing to understand how abortion is defined, ok so 60 million elective baby killing abortions in the US doesn’t spell it out for you. Biden will appreciate your vote, millions of unborn babies won’t.
Patricia’s got big hugs for acceptance of abortion and homosexual activity, provided it is hidden behind a smokescreen. Sad that so much time is spent on sowing doubt and confusion, wonder if that kind of attention goes into prayer.
She sounds to me like a “lost soul!”
In our Catholic faith, Abortion–Baby Murder– is considered to be among the four most serious, grievous mortal sins, which “cries to Heaven for vengeance!”– causing immediate excommunication of all involved in the act of Murder! No true follower of Jesus Christ could possibly accept such a horrible candidate, who passes such horrible laws, facilitating Baby Murder– and at taxoayers’ expense! — especially if the Hyde Amendment is ended, as the Democrats want to do! Plus– to champion laws facilitating abortion-up-to-birth (as the Democrats insist on) and even insisting on laws to leave babies born alive during abortions, to die — is demonic! Satanic! This is NOT what America was founded for– to fulfill the sick, evil demands of the demonic, Satanic! I answer only to Our Lord, for my vote– as we all must, for all we think, say, and do.