Question about an election ad I saw

Factual Questions
1

I do not want this thread to continue if I get an answer, and it’s not pro or con to any election side.
But I saw, just once this afternoon, on an ABC station, an ad for a candidate who I’m sorry to say I can’t remember the name. I was sleepy in my recliner when it came on so I’m not even sure what office this candidate was going for. But it must have been something national.

Before the ad started it was prefaced with a statement from ABC that the views expressed do not agree with them and that the network is required by federal law to air it. Then, when the ad was done ABC had a statement again that the ad didn’t represent the views of the network, Also, in the preface, viewers were warned there were graphic images in the ad. It was about abortion and there were some ugly views of fetuses, and the ad went on to say abortion of a fetus was killing Jesus in the womb.

I think the name of the candidate was Robert something, or at least started with an R. I’ve never seen an ad where the network makes a statement like that. And Harris and Trump ads showed during the same break in the program.

I tried to search for it using different search terms but have not come up with a candidate’s ad like this. It wasn’t the local station making the statement, but I;m in Kansas if that helps. Does anyone have any idea who this candidate might have been? Someone creepy for sure.

2

Randall Terry, probably. Founder of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue. He’s running for president on the “Constitution Party” ticket.

3

Randall Terry.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/10/21/abc-anti-abortion-ad-randall-terry/

4

Thank you for the swift replies. It’s hard to say, but he seems as bad or worse than the former president.

I’ll be bowing out now. Appreciate the help.

5

He appears to be a single-issue candidate (anti-abortion, not surprisingly).

6

Terry’s not even running as a third party spoiler he’s just doing it for the free ad time (and the cash).

7
  1. You’d think an all-powerful god could ensure that his only begotten son would be born of a woman who wanted to be a mother.
  2. If the baby dies in the womb, then they never get a chance to be tainted by Original Sin, so isn’t that a Go Directly To Heaven card?
8

Are you sure about that? I thought that original sin was inherent in being human, not something that happened at some point, even if that point was at birth. If a fetus is a person (according to those who believe so) I think that person would be tainted by original sin, even in the womb.

9

I’m not a theologian, but my understanding of most non-Calvinist flavors of Christianity is that you have to reach an age where you’re capable of understanding right and wrong before original sin attaches, because a just god wouldn’t allow someone to go to Hell if they died without even having the capacity or opportunity to accept Christ.

Calvinist God, on the other hand, explicitly creates some souls with the full intention that they will be damned, so all bets are off there.

10

Romans 9:20-23 ~ King James Version
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

11

The Catholic church used to teach that unbaptized babies would go to “limbo” because the had not had Original Sin washed from them

13

[Moderating]

Good call, since some posters are having a hard time grasping that a thread that has any tenuous connection at all to politics could possibly be in FQ.

In particular,

This is not remotely within the bounds of FQ.