PDA

View Full Version : Elections Catholics: Life is Issue #1


KCJohnny
10-14-2008, 07:51 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/61wj4tJICcc&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/61wj4tJICcc&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Life is the most important issue.

Nightfyre
10-14-2008, 07:53 PM
So you're willing to concede that we should withdraw from Iraq?

OnTheWarpath58
10-14-2008, 07:58 PM
So you're willing to concede that we should withdraw from Iraq?

:popcorn:

irishjayhawk
10-14-2008, 08:04 PM
So you're willing to concede that we should withdraw from Iraq?

After birth, life is debatable.

bango
10-14-2008, 08:14 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/61wj4tJICcc&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/61wj4tJICcc&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Life is the most important issue.

Could you be more specific?

DaFace
10-14-2008, 08:21 PM
L'chaim.

OnTheWarpath58
10-14-2008, 08:28 PM
I will not presume to speak for you or any other member

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5116693&postcount=81

Sure, John.

You'll just speak for every practicing Catholic in the US.

I wonder how many Catholics actually believe what that "ad" was portraying them to believe?

DaFace
10-14-2008, 08:30 PM
Oooh! Oooh! My best friend's a Catholic. He and his wife are voting for Obama though. :shrug:

irishjayhawk
10-14-2008, 08:35 PM
Oooh! Oooh! My best friend's a Catholic. He and his wife are voting for Obama though. :shrug:

He isn't a Traditional Catholic.

Or that's what I hear, anyway.

KC Jones
10-14-2008, 08:38 PM
Is this like the Batman beacon for calling Slag into the forum?

irishjayhawk
10-14-2008, 08:42 PM
Is this like the Batman beacon for calling Slag into the forum?

ROFL

OnTheWarpath58
10-14-2008, 08:44 PM
Is this like the Batman beacon for calling Slag into the forum?

ROFL

HolmeZz
10-14-2008, 08:50 PM
I hear ya, Johnny. I know I'm glad Bush has been President the last 8 years or abortion might still be legal.

irishjayhawk
10-14-2008, 08:50 PM
I hear ya, Johnny. I know I'm glad Bush has been President the last 8 years or abortion might still be legal.

Bush is a liberal, silly.

Adept Havelock
10-14-2008, 08:57 PM
Bush is a liberal, silly.

Then it's a good thing he was pressured to sign the Bill banning all abortions that the GOP majority congress sent him sometime in 00-06. :p

Logical
10-14-2008, 09:02 PM
<object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/61wj4tJICcc&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

Life is the most important issue.LMAO Kennedy and almost 1/2 those Catholic immigrants would most likely have supported Obama.:D

Logical
10-14-2008, 09:04 PM
Is this like the Batman beacon for calling Slag into the forum?Slag seems reasonable compared to KCJ.:doh!:

Infidel Goat
10-14-2008, 09:06 PM
Must imbed Monty Python/Terry Jones stuff...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U0kJHQpvgB8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U0kJHQpvgB8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mXed3tvR_-g&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mXed3tvR_-g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I'm sure that the Republicans agree with Monty Python--after all, they picked a Palin as their VP candidate...

Adept Havelock
10-14-2008, 09:18 PM
Slag is eminently reasonable compared to KCJ.:doh!:

FYP.

Taco John
10-14-2008, 09:30 PM
To the Catholics I know who are switching streams this year to vote for Obama, the combination of McCain's age and Sarah Palin's lack of experience is the number one issue. The number two issue is the economy and their retirements. And the number three issue is the war.

I know abortion is on that list somewhere, because it's the reason they voted for Bush twice - but it's not an issue that's moving their votes this time around.

SNR
10-14-2008, 09:39 PM
Must imbed Monty Python/Terry Jones stuff...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U0kJHQpvgB8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U0kJHQpvgB8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I'm sure that the Republicans agree with Monty Python--after all, they picked a Palin as their VP candidate...Damn it. Beat me to the punch

bango
10-14-2008, 09:41 PM
Slag seems reasonable compared to KCJ.:doh!:

I guess that he has not told you lately that only Catholics are the true Bible Christians?

Mecca
10-14-2008, 09:47 PM
You know according to McCains pastor the Catholic church is the great white whore....obviously Catholic supporting stuff there.

Logical
10-14-2008, 09:50 PM
I guess that he has not told you lately that only Catholics are the true Bible Christians?Unlikely given he knows I am Deist, but at least he has not told me directly that I am going to hell. Some day maybe.

KCJohnny
10-14-2008, 10:30 PM
Could you be more specific? Watch the video. Its 3 minutes and some change.

So what if individual Catholics are voting for Obama? There are many Catholics who disobey the Church's explicit teaching on contraception, abortion, unworthy reception of the Holy Eucharist, marriage/divorce and remarriage, etc... it doesn't make it OK. The Bishops of the Church are fully united on the Church's guidance: vote pro-life - its the most important issue of our times.

If you are not Catholic, go ahead and say what you will. This (video) message is directed at Catholics who desire to comport with the teaching of the Church.

irishjayhawk
10-14-2008, 10:32 PM
Watch the video. Its 3 minutes and some change.

So what if individual Catholics are voting for Obama? There are many Catholics who disobey the Church's explicit teaching on contraception, abortion, unworthy reception of the Holy Eucharist, marriage/divorce and remarriage, etc... it doesn't make it OK. The Bishops of the Church are fully united on the Church's guidance: vote pro-life - its the most important issue of our times.

If you are not Catholic, go ahead and say what you will. This (video) message is directed at Catholics who desire to comport with the teaching of the Church.

So you do or don't speak on behalf of all Catholics? Middle America?

KILLER_CLOWN
10-14-2008, 11:21 PM
So you do or don't speak on behalf of all Catholics? Middle America?

Why would he? KCJ is a Rapture cultist.... :shrug:

Jenson71
10-15-2008, 12:25 AM
Promoting the sanctity of life at all stages should always be a top issue.

Look, Democrats have the potential to be a supermajority in Congress next year. Obviously, there is no reason to think there is going to be an attempt to pass some amendment overturning Roe v. Wade or banning abortion, or at least that it could even be close to getting through.

The president can not introduce legislation chipping away at Roe. What he can do is sign legislation or veto it. If McCain becomes president, he could veto any legislation designed to widen abortion rights, but that veto would be overturned soon after.

So it rests on who the next president would nominate as Justices of the Supreme Court AND judges at the lower federal courts. And let us be clear, with Democrats having such a majority, they have the ability to easily shoot down any nomination from McCain that could potentially threaten Roe v. Wade.

McCain would most likely have to concede to selecting judges that are less Borkian and more O'Conners like. And along those lines, I think there's going to be a strong interest to get another female back on the Court.

Catholics, and all anti-abortion proponents, are faced with the dilemma of bashing their fists into a brick wall by promoting those demagogues who excel at lip-service, or finding new outlets that yield great results that promote life at all stages, including at conception. What exactly could these be? Promotion of adoption availability and education on the damaging effects of abortion on women are two great ones. I also think supporting Democrats for Life is a good idea. Movements that begin inside of groups tend to do much better than movements that attempt to "invade" from outside. The Democrats for Life seem to be a very committed and well-respected group very interested in limiting the amount of abortions in our country. Of course, demagogues on the right are hesistant to support a group associated with the "D" word, but, well, let us try to put an end to the control of demagogues in our democracy.

Mecca
10-15-2008, 12:27 AM
They are never going to overturn Roe v Wade......then the Republicans won't have the golden carrot to dangle anymore...that's all it is.

T-post Tom
10-15-2008, 01:47 AM
Promoting the sanctity of life at all stages should always be a top issue.

Look, Democrats have the potential to be a supermajority in Congress next year. Obviously, there is no reason to think there is going to be an attempt to pass some amendment overturning Roe v. Wade or banning abortion, or at least that it could even be close to getting through.

The president can not introduce legislation chipping away at Roe. What he can do is sign legislation or veto it. If McCain becomes president, he could veto any legislation designed to widen abortion rights, but that veto would be overturned soon after.

So it rests on who the next president would nominate as Justices of the Supreme Court AND judges at the lower federal courts. And let us be clear, with Democrats having such a majority, they have the ability to easily shoot down any nomination from McCain that could potentially threaten Roe v. Wade.

McCain would most likely have to concede to selecting judges that are less Borkian and more O'Conners like. And along those lines, I think there's going to be a strong interest to get another female back on the Court.

Catholics, and all anti-abortion proponents, are faced with the dilemma of bashing their fists into a brick wall by promoting those demagogues who excel at lip-service, or finding new outlets that yield great results that promote life at all stages, including at conception. What exactly could these be? Promotion of adoption availability and education on the damaging effects of abortion on women are two great ones. I also think supporting Democrats for Life is a good idea. Movements that begin inside of groups tend to do much better than movements that attempt to "invade" from outside. The Democrats for Life seem to be a very committed and well-respected group very interested in limiting the amount of abortions in our country. Of course, demagogues on the right are hesistant to support a group associated with the "D" word, but, well, let us try to put an end to the control of demagogues in our democracy.

Wow! A sane, rational, intelligent, thoughtful, constructive and insightful post on a thorny subject that normally inspires lunacy, blind rage, fuzzy logic and political partisanship. Well done! That is one of the best posts that I've read here. Rep! :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Fishpicker
10-15-2008, 01:51 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_gLJFRQUy2o&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_gLJFRQUy2o&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Count Zarth
10-15-2008, 01:54 AM
Fuckin' Catholics.

T-post Tom
10-15-2008, 02:04 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_gLJFRQUy2o&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_gLJFRQUy2o&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Would have been better without the 3rd party graphics added in.

KCJohnny
10-15-2008, 02:37 AM
Promoting the sanctity of life at all stages should always be a top issue.

Look, Democrats have the potential to be a supermajority in Congress next year. Obviously, there is no reason to think there is going to be an attempt to pass some amendment overturning Roe v. Wade or banning abortion, or at least that it could even be close to getting through.

The president can not introduce legislation chipping away at Roe. What he can do is sign legislation or veto it. If McCain becomes president, he could veto any legislation designed to widen abortion rights, but that veto would be overturned soon after.

So it rests on who the next president would nominate as Justices of the Supreme Court AND judges at the lower federal courts. And let us be clear, with Democrats having such a majority, they have the ability to easily shoot down any nomination from McCain that could potentially threaten Roe v. Wade.

McCain would most likely have to concede to selecting judges that are less Borkian and more O'Conners like. And along those lines, I think there's going to be a strong interest to get another female back on the Court.

Catholics, and all anti-abortion proponents, are faced with the dilemma of bashing their fists into a brick wall by promoting those demagogues who excel at lip-service, or finding new outlets that yield great results that promote life at all stages, including at conception. What exactly could these be? Promotion of adoption availability and education on the damaging effects of abortion on women are two great ones. I also think supporting Democrats for Life is a good idea. Movements that begin inside of groups tend to do much better than movements that attempt to "invade" from outside. The Democrats for Life seem to be a very committed and well-respected group very interested in limiting the amount of abortions in our country. Of course, demagogues on the right are hesistant to support a group associated with the "D" word, but, well, let us try to put an end to the control of demagogues in our democracy.

Same exact rhetoric was employed about slavery in the 1850s. In 1857 the Dred Scott Decision doomed the abolitionist movement as slavery was granted a blank check to take hold in the free territories (as Kansas). Then a strange thing happened. Ordinary people were alerted to the disgusting inhumanity of slavery by an author of fiction. Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/46787.Uncle_Tom_s_Cabin) did more to undermine popular support for slavery (which held blacks to be sub-human, and 3/5th of a person - glaringly similar to the "its not a baby" rhetoric) than all the legislators and politicians combined. It raised consciousness about the inhumanity of owning and abusing other humans.

The same movements are underfoot to expose the barbarity of abortion. It took a century of committed abolitionists (whom experienced many downturns in the crusade for emancipation) to finally get the awareness of slavery's abject evil out to the public. Roe v Wade can and should be overturned. Not only does it promote a slew of objective evils, it is bad law.

Jensen's middle way wins the approval of those who are willing to accept infanticide and its attendant evils as inevitable. I applaud all efforts to remove the causes of abortion. But I also know that the fight for Life is worth waging and that the longer abortion remains legal in our great nation, the more its 2nd and 3rd order effects will drag us down the road of inhumane practices and policies.

Nightfyre
10-15-2008, 03:31 AM
Same exact rhetoric was employed about slavery in the 1850s. In 1857 the Dred Scott Decision doomed the abolitionist movement as slavery was granted a blank check to take hold in the free territories (as Kansas). Then a strange thing happened. Ordinary people were alerted to the disgusting inhumanity of slavery by an author of fiction. Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/46787.Uncle_Tom_s_Cabin) did more to undermine popular support for slavery (which held blacks to be sub-human, and 3/5th of a person - glaringly similar to the "its not a baby" rhetoric) than all the legislators and politicians combined. It raised consciousness about the inhumanity of owning and abusing other humans.

The same movements are underfoot to expose the barbarity of abortion. It took a century of committed abolitionists (whom experienced many downturns in the crusade for emancipation) to finally get the awareness of slavery's abject evil out to the public. Roe v Wade can and should be overturned. Not only does it promote a slew of objective evils, it is bad law.

Jensen's middle way wins the approval of those who are willing to accept infanticide and its attendant evils as inevitable. I applaud all efforts to remove the causes of abortion. But I also know that the fight for Life is worth waging and that the longer abortion remains legal in our great nation, the more its 2nd and 3rd order effects will drag us down the road of inhumane practices and policies.

You're deluded if you think abortion is similar to slavery in that respect.

Jenson71
10-15-2008, 04:10 AM
The biggest difference I see between slavery and abortion is the contextual movements and views about them.

Slavery was something that was pragmatic and natural (you lost in war, you're naturally a slave - that's normal) to something that became accepted, to something we were embarrassed about, and finally to something we recognized as very wrong. It was a pretty smooth and forward progression.

Abortion has had more of a rocky road, in large part due to gender/sexuality views, I think. It's been practiced forever. In ancient times, it could be enforced on women, without their approval. Rodney Stark goes as far as saying that the early Church's disapproval of abortion actually led to the growth, particularly in regards to female membership, of the Christianity. Medieval Europe, mostly Church leaders, spoke out against it. In the 1800s, most countries are enacting laws against it, and U.S. states are cracking down on it. Even early feminists spoke out against it, although I can't tell if this was a moral issue or a female watch issue. But the rise of feminism brought with it the strong idea that women should have more control of their bodies, and so, you see basically a divergence of this path that went from laws against to laws allowing in the 1900s.

I'm not an expert by any means on the history of abortion or slavery for that matter, so please correct me if I'm wrong on any account.

BTW, I don't feel that Roe v. Wade has to be overturned. What has to be done is reducing abortions. If abortions were decreased from 1.5 million per year to half a million a year yet Roe v. Wade was still a good law, wouldn't that be better than if Roe v. Wade had been overturned and women were just getting illegal abortions, say, 1.2 million a year? (Which was about the number before Roe.) Even if Roe is overturned, does this mean abortions are now illegal? I think it'd become a state by state issue. Some states would have it, and some wouldn't. Then what? No more fights because the fetuses in Iowa are better than the fetuses in California anyway?

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 05:59 AM
Life is the most important issue.


Sure is a good thing all those Catholics follow their marching orders to the letter. I tell ya, you CAN'T GET those Irish and Italian Catholics up here in Boston to vote Democrat...

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 06:01 AM
The Bishops of the Church are fully united on the Church's guidance: vote pro-life - its the most important issue of our times.


What, exactly, is new here? PJPII was as conservative as you're going to get and had 25+ years to shift the American Catholic leadership firmly to the right.

KCJohnny
10-15-2008, 07:30 AM
Mr. Jensen71:
Thank you for your thoughtful replies. It is refreshing to have exchanges like this one on the last-bastion-of-civility-in-America, ChiefsPlanet. ;)

While one should arm onseself with the facts about chattel slavery in the antebellum South and not inordinately romanticize the period (for there was much to laud in Southern society), one should also admit that being allowed to live as a slave with at least the prospect for freedom as a dream is eminently more advantageous than being mercillessly slaughtered in one's own mother's womb.

Slavery was sustained in America through the dehumanization of the slave - Frederick Douglass and other have written eloquently about the tack - which ultimately led to the codification of the American black as 3/5ths of a person.

Please allow that to sink in.

The same dehumanization is taking place today even in the face of startling advances in science and technology that identify babies as fully formed human beings as early as 8 weeks - the first trimester. They are not less than full human being prior to that, but are human beings in primitive growth stages, fully human nonetheless. While beating, raping or separating the family members of a slave were despicable acts deserving of the full condemnation of a righteous nation, the dismembering of human babies in their own mothers' wombs is infinitely more damnable.

Your positing that 1.2 million abortions might be tolerable is a moral capitulation. The Abolitionists would never have abided such compromise. Not only must the slaves be freed, but the law must gauruntee their rights. Not overturning RvW is unconscionable. Your figures also demand an accounting - from whence do you derive the 1.2 pre-Roe figure for abortions?

The legal sanction of abortion fuels many other damaging pathologies: primarily the practice of irresponsible sexual behavior that depends on abortion as contraceptive. Our Creator never intended for mankind to practice sexual relations outside of marriage nor with no possibility of generating offspring. Today, 1 in 4 Americans have a permanent STD; 1 in 2 marriages will fail; and 1 in 3 babies that do escape abortion will be born out of wedlock. The #1 cause of poverty in America is homes headed by a single parent.

tiptap
10-15-2008, 07:35 AM
At least we agree that our treatment of single (mostly women) parents has a great deal to do with poverty. I see this as more causal than abortions. I see that as derivative of poverty and no coordinated access to birth control.

irishjayhawk
10-15-2008, 08:34 AM
Mr. Jensen71:
Thank you for your thoughtful replies. It is refreshing to have exchanges like this one on the last-bastion-of-civility-in-America, ChiefsPlanet. ;)

While one should arm onseself with the facts about chattel slavery in the antebellum South and not inordinately romanticize the period (for there was much to laud in Southern society), one should also admit that being allowed to live as a slave with at least the prospect for freedom as a dream is eminently more advantageous than being mercillessly slaughtered in one's own mother's womb.

Slavery was sustained in America through the dehumanization of the slave - Frederick Douglass and other have written eloquently about the tack - which ultimately led to the codification of the American black as 3/5ths of a person.

Please allow that to sink in.

The same dehumanization is taking place today even in the face of startling advances in science and technology that identify babies as fully formed human beings as early as 8 weeks - the first trimester. They are not less than full human being prior to that, but are human beings in primitive growth stages, fully human nonetheless. While beating, raping or separating the family members of a slave were despicable acts deserving of the full condemnation of a righteous nation, the dismembering of human babies in their own mothers' wombs is infinitely more damnable.

Your positing that 1.2 million abortions might be tolerable is a moral capitulation. The Abolitionists would never have abided such compromise. Not only must the slaves be freed, but the law must gauruntee their rights. Not overturning RvW is unconscionable. Your figures also demand an accounting - from whence do you derive the 1.2 pre-Roe figure for abortions?

The legal sanction of abortion fuels many other damaging pathologies: primarily the practice of irresponsible sexual behavior that depends on abortion as contraceptive. Our Creator never intended for mankind to practice sexual relations outside of marriage nor with no possibility of generating offspring. Today, 1 in 4 Americans have a permanent STD; 1 in 2 marriages will fail; and 1 in 3 babies that do escape abortion will be born out of wedlock. The #1 cause of poverty in America is homes headed by a single parent.

Unfortunately, Dred Scott was born. A fetus is not.

Chiefnj2
10-15-2008, 08:47 AM
In 1999, when McCain was on the presidential campaign trail, he took a different stance on the abortion law.

"Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade , which would then force x number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations," he told the San Francisco Chronicle at the time.

KCJohnny
10-15-2008, 09:09 AM
Unfortunately, Dred Scott was born. A fetus is not.

That reveals you as both racist and in favor of infanticide.

Charming.

SLAG
10-15-2008, 09:29 AM
This letter from the Archbishop of Denver- Apb. Chaput pretty much is how I view Pro-Obama Catholics:


Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08”

By Charles J. Chaput
Tuesday, May 20, 2008, 5:47 AM

Forty years ago this month, Bobby Kennedy was still alive and running for the Democratic party’s 1968 presidential nomination. I was a seminarian in Washington, D.C. I was also an active volunteer in Kennedy’s campaign. I can still remember helping with secretarial work in the same room where Edward Kennedy and Pierre Salinger labored away on the campaign’s strategy. It was my first involvement in elective politics, and, after the Vietnam Tet Offensive in February and Martin Luther King Jr.’s murder on April 4, Kennedy’s cause seemed urgent. Then, on June 5, Kennedy was gunned down himself.

After Robert Kennedy died, the meaning of the 1968 election seemed to evaporate. I lost interest in politics. I didn’t get involved again until the rise of Jimmy Carter. Carter fascinated me because he seemed like an untypical politician. He was plain spoken, honest, a serious Christian and a Washington outsider. So I supported him during his 1976 campaign when I was a young priest working in Pennsylvania. After his election as president, I came to Denver as pastor of Holy Cross Parish in Thornton in 1977. I eventually got involved with the 1980 Colorado campaign for Carter’s re-election on the invitation of a parishioner and Democratic party activist—Polly Baca, who was and remains a good friend.

Carter had one serious strike against him. The U.S. Supreme Court had legalized abortion on demand in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and Carter the candidate waffled about restricting it. At the time, I knew Carter was wrong in his views about Roe and soft toward permissive abortion. But even as a priest, I justified working for him because he wasn’t aggressively “pro-choice.” True, he held a bad position on a vital issue, but I believed he was right on so many more of the “Catholic” issues than his opponent seemed to be. The moral calculus looked easy. I thought we could remedy the abortion problem after Carter was safely returned to office.

Carter lost his bid for re-election, but even with an avowedly prolife Ronald Reagan as president, the belligerence, dishonesty, and inflexibility of the pro-choice lobby has stymied almost every effort to protect unborn human life since.

In the years after the Carter loss, I began to notice that very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be “personally opposed” to abortion really did anything about it. Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand-wringing and a convenient excuse—exactly as it is today. In fact, I can’t name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life—not one. Some talk about it, and some may mean well, but there’s very little action. In the United States in 2008, abortion is an acceptable form of homicide. And it will remain that way until Catholics force their political parties and elected officials to act differently.

Why do I mention this now? Earlier this spring, a group called “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08” quoted my own published words in the following way:

So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t, and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics— people whom I admire—who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite—not because of—their pro-choice views.

What’s interesting about this quotation—which is accurate but incomplete—is the wording that was left out. The very next sentences in the article of mine they selected, which Roman Catholics for Obama neglected to quote, run as follows:

But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life—which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.

On their website, Roman Catholics for Obama stress that:

After faithful thought and prayer, we have arrived at the conclusion that Senator Obama is the candidate whose views are most compatible with the Catholic outlook, and we will vote for him because of that—and because of his other outstanding qualities—despite our disagreements with him in specific areas.

I’m familiar with this reasoning. It sounds a lot like me thirty years ago. And thirty years later, we still have about a million abortions a year. Maybe Roman Catholics for Obama will do a better job at influencing their candidate. It could happen. And I sincerely hope it does, since Planned Parenthood of the Chicago area, as recently as February 2008, noted that Senator Barack Obama “has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record both in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate.”

Changing the views of “pro-choice” candidates takes a lot more than verbal gymnastics, good alibis, and pious talk about “personal opposition” to killing unborn children. I’m sure Roman Catholics for Obama know that, and I wish them good luck. They’ll need it.

Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., is archbishop of Denver.

irishjayhawk
10-15-2008, 01:14 PM
That reveals you as both racist and in favor of infanticide.

Charming.

Unfortunate meant that for your argument to be true both would have to be unborn.

Unfortunately for you, Dred Scott was born. A fetus is not. That's why your comparison doesn't work.

Bowser
10-15-2008, 02:15 PM
It still stuns me that there are people out there thinking that abortion is the number one issue in our country today, much less John, who has seen firsthand what the real issue in the world is, and what impact it is having here.

Personally, to me it feels like that last gasp, last ditch effort to scare the undecided religious into voting for McCain, since the republicans are generally the party that pushes the anti-abortion.

KCJohnny
10-15-2008, 04:57 PM
It still stuns me that there are people out there thinking that abortion is the number one issue in our country today, much less John, who has seen firsthand what the real issue in the world is, and what impact it is having here.

Personally, to me it feels like that last gasp, last ditch effort to scare the undecided religious into voting for McCain, since the republicans are generally the party that pushes the anti-abortion.

Yes John has seen firsthand the blight of failing states, greedy, rapacious dictators, and impoverished people starving for basic human rights. And that is why I agree with the Church that protection of the most vulnerable among us is the #1 issue in America (and the world for that matter).

If we fail to get the Right to Life right, nothing else matters. Why sacrifice for anything subsequent to human birth if we can't even protect harmless, innocent babies from violent dismemberment in their own mothers' wombs?

This isn't a last ditch effort to do anything. I and most other Pro-Lifers have been very consistent on this issue all along. But now that you brought it up, Obama's abortion policies (http://www.theurbanprophet.org/obamanation.htm)are the most radical in the history of American politics.

Bowser
10-15-2008, 05:08 PM
Question: If Bush and his cronies couldn't get Roe v. Wade overturned in his first six years of office when the republicans controlled the board, do you think McCain will really make a difference in this matter, or is he just the lesser of two evils regarding this manner?


And no offense, but that link reads like the Dummies Guide to Religious Fearmongering, especially the same sex marriage part.

Taco John
10-15-2008, 05:44 PM
But now that you brought it up, Obama's abortion policies (http://www.theurbanprophet.org/obamanation.htm)are the most radical in the history of American politics.


You got some bullet points?

DaFace
10-15-2008, 05:54 PM
Honest question: When was the last time a president had any notable affect on the abortion issue either direction? It may be very recent, and I've just not been paying attention, but I'm genuinely curious.

Shaid
10-15-2008, 05:56 PM
Reagan - 8 years
Bush #1 - 4 years
Clinton - 8 years
Bush #2 - 8 years

It would appear to me that out of the last 28 years, 20 years have seen a Republican president and it has still not led to anyone overturning Roe v. Wade. What makes anyone think another 8 years will make a difference. I'm sick of Republicans telling us how they are the "moral" and "christian" party. Prove it and you might get my vote. Republicans need to hit rock bottom so they can begin to realize that they are voted in to office to protect and serve American citizens and not big business. Maybe then we'll actually get some morality back in the party and it'll be worth voting for them.

banyon
10-15-2008, 06:00 PM
If we fail to get the Right to Life right, nothing else matters. Why sacrifice for anything subsequent to human birth if we can't even protect harmless, innocent babies from violent dismemberment in their own mothers' wombs?
.

So basically, nothing has mattered in this country since 1973?

With that attitude, no wonder things are so sh***y.

Taco John
10-15-2008, 06:16 PM
I think that it's wrong to kill a human with a heartbeat and a brainwave, but to say that nothing else matters if we don't get it right -- well, that's hyperbole.

But still, we *should* get it right, especially in the day and age of science. If our scientific instruments can detect a brainwave and a heartbeat, we should all be able to agree that it's a human life - whether we have religion or not.

Jenson71
10-15-2008, 06:19 PM
Honest question: When was the last time a president had any notable affect on the abortion issue either direction? It may be very recent, and I've just not been paying attention, but I'm genuinely curious.

Indirectly, probably George W. Bush with the signing of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003 and his nominees Alito and Roberts upholding the act as Constitutional last year.

KCJohnny
10-16-2008, 01:32 AM
Indirectly, probably George W. Bush with the signing of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003 and his nominees Alito and Roberts upholding the act as Constitutional last year.

Bingo.

It took over 100 years and a brutal civil war to outlaw slavery. 28 years may not be enough to overturn the heinous verdict of Roe vs Wade. BTW, the plaintiff in RvW, Norma McCorvey (http://www.leaderu.com/norma/) today repudiates the case, her position, and abortion.

Our nation has paid a long, ugly and painful price for the institution of slavery. There will be hell to pay for the slew of pathologies and attendant sins that accompany abortion.

KCJohnny
10-16-2008, 01:42 AM
You got some bullet points?

Check here (http://www.bookerrising.net/2008/10/robert-oliver-commentary-why-i-cannot.html).

In a Human Events article, “Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL” (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647), Amanda B. Carpenter writes:
“In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote…When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, ‘Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.’ But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted ‘present.’ At the second he voted ‘no….’ Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Stanek told me her testimony ‘did not faze’ Obama. In the second hearing, Stanek said, ‘I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!’ And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,’ she said.”


Here is what Rev. Wayne Perryman (http://www.wayneperryman.com/) , author (Unfounded Loyalty and What the Media Failed to Tell American Voters), says about the subject:
“Isn’t it strange that Congress seems to have unlimited funds to give to young black mothers to kill their babies (through abortions), but it struggles to find funds for pre-natal care if they decide to let their baby live? How can blacks support a candidate who is willing to provide unlimited funds to kill them (seventeen million black babies since Roe v. Wade), but is hard pressed to find health care funds to help heal them? Intelligent blacks present the question this way: Under the banner that a woman has the right to choose, why is it that the government has unlimited funds to help the black baby die, but has limited health care funds to help the baby live? It is estimated that the government has spent billions to kill the seventeen million black babies (since Roe V. Wade). This is why concerned blacks ask: Why did the government decide to fund abortions? Was it out of the concern for the poor black mother, or was it to slow down the birth rate of African Americans due to Afro-phobia? Had those seventeen million babies lived during the past thirty-four years and each had two children of their own, the black population in America would be close to ninety million, thus making it the largest ethnic minority voting group in America? How can blacks condemn Jim Crow and Klan for killing thousands of blacks, and yet support a candidate that defends a program that killed 17 million blacks? Do blacks find is strange that the same party that supported the slavery [of blacks], Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan is the same party that supports the killing of black babies?”

Count Zarth
10-16-2008, 04:48 PM
Fuckin' Catholics.

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-16-2008, 04:51 PM
Bingo.

It took over 100 years and a brutal civil war to outlaw slavery. 28 years may not be enough to overturn the heinous verdict of Roe vs Wade. BTW, the plaintiff in RvW, Norma McCorvey (http://www.leaderu.com/norma/) today repudiates the case, her position, and abortion.

Our nation has paid a long, ugly and painful price for the institution of slavery. There will be hell to pay for the slew of pathologies and attendant sins that accompany abortion.

Well, since Norma is on board, let's start another Civil War over it. I mean, what's another few million dead on top of all those other darkies? Am I right, KCJ?

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-16-2008, 04:52 PM
Anyone wanna take bets on how long it is before KCJ blames 9/11 on abortion?

Count Zarth
10-16-2008, 04:56 PM
Anyone wanna take bets on how long it is before KCJ blames 9/11 on abortion?

If only little Sammy Fetus and little Johnny Embyro hadn't been aborted 40 years ago, the RIGHT airline pilots might have been at the controls of the two planes that were hijacked. Instead we ended up with Roger Spineless and Christian Pushover, who were of course easy prey for the terrorists.

KCJohnny
10-17-2008, 10:07 AM
Well, since Norma is on board, let's start another Civil War over it. I mean, what's another few million dead on top of all those other darkies? Am I right, KCJ?

You are not right. You are guilty.

bango
10-17-2008, 06:12 PM
You are not right. You are guilty.

I have to aqks you why you feel that your faith is a call to arms? Does it have to do a lot with your career or is there something else to it?

Logical
10-17-2008, 08:09 PM
I think that it's wrong to kill a human with a heartbeat and a brainwave, but to say that nothing else matters if we don't get it right -- well, that's hyperbole.

But still, we *should* get it right, especially in the day and age of science. If our scientific instruments can detect a brainwave and a heartbeat, we should all be able to agree that it's a human life - whether we have religion or not.I could go along with this as long as the mothers health/life were not in danger. But we would need to set up a program so that all babies (black, latino, white, crack addicted, deformed, retarded etc. at birth would be adopted so the mother is not forced to care for a baby she does not want)

bango
10-17-2008, 08:43 PM
I could go along with this as long as the mothers health/life were not in danger. But we would need to set up a program so that all babies (black, latino, white, crack addicted, deformed, retarded etc. at birth would be adopted so the mother is not forced to care for a baby she does not want)

:clap: This is the best option for all that are involved. The Mother does not have the mental anguish that she will eventually have when she realizes someday what she has done. The baby or unborn child for those who want to get specific lives. The person that performs this ugly act might not ever have to consider facing guilt or anything else and can go back to actually practicing medicine again. The Dems and Repubs can fight over one less issue. The Repubs will have to find a new moral issue so that people do not find out that they are nothing more than Corporationists, Warhawks, and LIBERAL.

Ebolapox
10-17-2008, 10:21 PM
kcj and his radical proselytizing make me glad I'm an atheist.

KCJohnny
10-18-2008, 01:11 AM
I have to aqks you why you feel that your faith is a call to arms? Does it have to do a lot with your career or is there something else to it?

No, it has to do with being salt and light in a seriously depraved cultural downspiral and offering a better way to those who do not believe the Gospel.

FWIW, people like Hamas are far more strident than I in their irreligiosity - therefore, in defense of the faith, I and other concerned believers speak out.

BTW, this thread is very specifically addressed to Catholics. So the call to arms here is among fellow Catholics to vote like Catholics.

Count Zarth
10-18-2008, 01:16 AM
Can anyone explain why Catholics are so arrogant?

Logical
10-18-2008, 01:19 AM
No, it has to do with being salt and light in a seriously depraved cultural downspiral and offering a better way to those who do not believe the Gospel.

FWIW, people like Hamas are far more strident than I in their irreligiosity - therefore, in defense of the faith, I and other concerned believers speak out.

BTW, this thread is very specifically addressed to Catholics. So the call to arms here is among fellow Catholics to vote like Catholics.I am betting more Catholics vote Obama than McCain.

Nightfyre
10-18-2008, 01:38 AM
No, it has to do with being salt and light in a seriously depraved cultural downspiral and offering a better way to those who do not believe the Gospel.

FWIW, people like Hamas are far more strident than I in their irreligiosity - therefore, in defense of the faith, I and other concerned believers speak out.

BTW, this thread is very specifically addressed to Catholics. So the call to arms here is among fellow Catholics to vote like Catholics.

Why do you feel your morality is superior to all others and therefore should take precedent in law?

KCJohnny
10-18-2008, 01:54 AM
Why do you feel your morality is superior to all others and therefore should take precedent in law?

First of all, not killing babies isn't "my morality". Our Founding Fathers certainly found no Constitutional right to the barbarity of abortion.

Secondly, someone's 'morality' will be informing legislation. Why not the morality supported by the Christian Traditions that have been the tried and true values of the West for nearly 2 millenia?

Again, this thread was directed at Catholics (I hope you watched the short video embedded). All are welcome to comment, but this is from our Council of Bishops: vote like a Catholic. And for the Church, the Right to Life is issue #1.

Nightfyre
10-18-2008, 03:13 AM
First of all, not killing babies isn't "my morality". Our Founding Fathers certainly found no Constitutional right to the barbarity of abortion.
You have to define "babies" first, which is the big hole in your argument.
When does human life truly begin? There is no person qualified to say. Should we not then allow each woman the right to decide for themselves?


Secondly, someone's 'morality' will be informing legislation. Why not the morality supported by the Christian Traditions that have been the tried and true values of the West for nearly 2 millenia?
Morality? Our law, especially at the federal level, should not dictate morality. It should preserve the rights of people falling subject to its law. Secondly, our founding fathers created a HUGE wall between church and state; so there's a good reason for not using your christian traditions. Thirdly, what is so tried and true about Christian morality? Hypocrisy is a Christians' most prevalent moral.


Again, this thread was directed at Catholics (I hope you watched the short video embedded). All are welcome to comment, but this is from our Council of Bishops: vote like a Catholic. And for the Church, the Right to Life is issue #1.

Yawn. Church trying to insert itself in the state again? **** off.

whoman69
10-18-2008, 08:55 AM
First of all, not killing babies isn't "my morality". Our Founding Fathers certainly found no Constitutional right to the barbarity of abortion.

Secondly, someone's 'morality' will be informing legislation. Why not the morality supported by the Christian Traditions that have been the tried and true values of the West for nearly 2 millenia?

Again, this thread was directed at Catholics (I hope you watched the short video embedded). All are welcome to comment, but this is from our Council of Bishops: vote like a Catholic. And for the Church, the Right to Life is issue #1.

The Founding Fathers also found no Constitutional right against slavery. They did though instill the right of freedom of religion. That means I don't need the government to force religion down my throat. One of my biggest problems with the Catholic church is they make all the moral decisions for their parishoners even with no guidance from the bible. I don't believe that one man can be infallible just because he is elected pope. I also believe its an Christian's duty to understand the bible and make their own decisions. Its also not just the Catholic church that has joined in on the 'pro-life' debate.

To me its hypocritical to say there should be no abortions while at the same time stating that the only sex ed that should be taught is abstinance only and that birth control is wrong. People are not saints. We have already seen in the holier than thou crowd that they steal, adulterize, and take the sabbath day to make tons of money. I don't need my morality shoved down my throat by my government nor have my moral decisions made for me by my church.

KCJohnny
10-18-2008, 09:28 AM
Morality? Our law, especially at the federal level, should not dictate morality. It should preserve the rights of people falling subject to its law. Secondly, our founding fathers created a HUGE wall between church and state; so there's a good reason for not using your christian traditions. Thirdly, what is so tried and true about Christian morality? Hypocrisy is a Christians' most prevalent moral.


Your ignorance is impressive. Morality dictates law, not the opposite as you errantly aver.

No, our Founding Fathers did not create a HUGE wall between Church and state - Thomas Jefferson wrote a private letter to a Virginia Baptist Convention pastor to ensure him that the state would keep its nose out of religious affairs which you perversely and heretically refer to in your ill-advised post.

The Founding Fathers welcomed Christianity as they knew that revolutions unsupported by theology were doomed. You are gravely mistaken - Christianity is the animating principle behind 95% of the legislation taking place in Washington, DC. UNfortunately, your party twists the Lord's eternal principles to suggest and support thing His spirit cannot support.

You are gravely mistaken about the hallowed place of Christian belief in both parties. Look it up. God matters.

banyon
10-18-2008, 09:31 AM
Your ignorance is impressive. Morality dictates law, not the opposite as you errantly aver.

No, our Founding Fathers did not create a HUGE wall between Church and state - Thomas Jefferson wrote a private letter to a Virginia Baptist Convention pastor to ensure him that the state would keep its nose out of religious affairs which you perversely and heretically refer to in your ill-advised post.

The Founding Fathers welcomed Christianity as they knew that revolutions unsupported by theology were doomed. You are gravely mistaken - Christianity is the animating principle behind 95% of the legislation taking place in Washington, DC. UNfortunately, your party twists the Lord's eternal principles to suggest and support thing His spirit cannot support.

You are gravely mistaken about the hallowed place of Christian belief in both parties. Look it up. God matters.

The separation between church and state is contained in the Constitution, not in a letter.

SLAG
10-18-2008, 10:34 AM
Amazing, in a thread directed at Catholics - some of you think KCJ is trying to Push his Morality upon you. The video was meant for those that Claim to follow the Catholic faith, if someone who claims to be "Catholic" does not agree with the the teachings of the faith should not label or proclaim to be "Catholic" -with the big C.

I don't get what the big deal is, Why must those support a Pro-Abort Politician or someone who uses Birth Control or any other person who does not try to live by the Catholic faith want to label themselves or proclaim to be "Catholic" when they dont even TRY to live accordingly.

Just become protestant - or atheist or what ever follows YOUR "Personal Spirituality"- Make your self God, just like all those whom want to say "Keep your Morality away from me" etc.. They want license to do whatever they want whenever they want because no one is better than them That is not TRUE Freedom


Liberalism defines freedom as the right to do whatever you please, and that is the way freedom is understood by 90% of young Americans educated in non-religious institutions. If freedom means that, it means anarchy.
Freedom thus becomes a physical power, not a moral power; an absence of law instead of a respect for it; a right without a corresponding duty; a license without responsibility.
Totalitarianism on the other hand defines freedom as a duty to do what you must. If freedom means that, it means tyranny.
Freedom thus becomes a duty without a right, and comes into being only when the individual will identifies itself with the will of the dictator.
Under this system there is no will but the class will or the national will or the race will. The person no longer exists.
Let loose false concepts of freedom like that in the world and you cannot stop war. The first abuse of freedom which identifies it with absence of law or self-expression, creates war through conflicting egotisms; the second abuse of freedom which identifies it with the will of the dictator, begets war through force and violence.
That is not the kind of freedom God gave us; that is the way we distorted it.

True freedom...means the right to do whatever you ought- and oughtness implies law, responsibility, purpose. In other words freedom in inseparable from the God of Love Who made us.


As a Catholic you either accept all the teachings of the past 2000 years, you accept the Good with the Bad, and you admit that you are a sinner whom is unworthy to have the lord enter your house.

"Quis ut Deus"
Im Out

Adept Havelock
10-18-2008, 10:39 AM
They want license to do whatever they want whenever they want because no one is better than them That is not TRUE Freedom


Actually, that's the very definition of "freedom". :shrug:

As for "true" freedom, I'll take the OED's definition every time. "No true Scotsman..."

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

freedom

• noun 1 the power or right to act, speak, or think freely. 2 the state of being free. 3 (freedom from) exemption or immunity from. 4 unrestricted use of something: the dog had the freedom of the house. 5 a special privilege or right of access, especially that of full citizenship of a particular city given to a public figure as an honour.


If you find "True Freedom" in either making yourself into, or following the commands of a "Slave of Christ", go right ahead. However, the English language disagrees strongly with that twisted definition of the word "freedom".

banyon
10-18-2008, 10:39 AM
As a Catholic you either accept all the teachings of the past 2000 years, you accept the Good with the Bad, and you admit that you are a sinner whom is unworthy to have the lord enter your house.


Ok, I found the "either", where's the "or"?

Adept Havelock
10-18-2008, 10:43 AM
Ok, I found the "either", where's the "or"?

Something about pits of fire, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and Yanni "music", I'm sure.

ChiefsLV
10-18-2008, 10:49 AM
If we fail to get the Right to Life right, nothing else matters. Why sacrifice for anything subsequent to human birth if we can't even protect harmless, innocent babies from violent dismemberment in their own mothers' wombs?



Last time I checked this country was growing in population just fine. Basically what you've told us on this forum is that if Bush were able to run for a third term and was running in place of McCain, you'd vote for him again. You are hopelessly brainwashed. :shake:

Nightfyre
10-18-2008, 12:03 PM
Your ignorance is impressive. Morality dictates law, not the opposite as you errantly aver. Yawn. Unsubstantiated claim.

No, our Founding Fathers did not create a HUGE wall between Church and state - Thomas Jefferson wrote a private letter to a Virginia Baptist Convention pastor to ensure him that the state would keep its nose out of religious affairs which you perversely and heretically refer to in your ill-advised post. You are so Busch league it's hilarious. You do realize Jefferson wasn't even a Christian, right? He was a deist. :shake:

The Founding Fathers welcomed Christianity as they knew that revolutions unsupported by theology were doomed. You are gravely mistaken - Christianity is the animating principle behind 95% of the legislation taking place in Washington, DC. UNfortunately, your party twists the Lord's eternal principles to suggest and support thing His spirit cannot support.

You are gravely mistaken about the hallowed place of Christian belief in both parties. Look it up. God matters.

ROFL Try not to swallow your foot with that rhetoric. You're probably already choking to death on bullshit.