8 dead in Texas high school shooting

[AlNg]

While I agree that not enough has been applied to school security, it has nothing to do with defense spending. I even agree, to an extent, with the premise that we spend too much money on defense, but it has no influence on education spending.

The question is one of priorities not so much of one thing influencing another. Where is the most money spent and which is more important to Americans today? The safety of young American schoolchildren or protecting people in Afghanistan, Moldova and elsewhere?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

There shouldn’t be,

That’s your opinion. And regardless of your opinion, there is in fact a federal US Department of Education. And it is headed by Betsy DeVoss.

Of course its my opinion, and you are presenting yours. But it isn’t my opinion that education is not an enumerated power in Article 1 section 8. that’s a fact.

 

[JonNC]

The question is one of priorities not so much of one thing influencing another. Where is the most money spent and which is more important to Americans today? The safety of young American schoolchildren or protecting people in Afghanistan, Moldova and elsewhere?

American can walk and chew gum simultaneously. We can pay attention to school safety and still make decisions on how to best defend our national interests. It isn’t an either/or.

I have an idea, let’s end funding for Planned Parenthood, the National Endowments for the Arts, and perhaps hundreds of other programs that are outside the enumerated powers.
Let’s begin to privatize Social Security. Let’s end deficit spending.

 

[AlNg]

We can pay attention to school safety and still make decisions on how to best defend our national interests. It isn’t an either/or.

No, because the amount of money available is limited. Priorities must be set, and already Americans have decided to spend more money to protect people in Afghanistan rather than young American schoolchildren.

American can walk and chew gum simultaneously.

The analogy fails because walking or chewing gum does not cost very much whereas Americans are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to protect people in foreign countries.

But it isn’t my opinion that education is not an enumerated power in Article 1 section 8. that’s a fact.

Regardless of what the Constitution says, there is still a US Department of Education in operation today and it is headed by Betsy DeVoss.

Of course its my opinion, and you are presenting yours.

No. i am not presenting an opinion about the existence of the US Department of Education. It is a hard fact that can be easily checked, that there is in existence today a US Department of Education as part of the federal government.

 

[Luke6_37]

Let’s see what I’ve said that you claim is false.

Here are your original comments…

Luke6_37:

NARAL most certainly is committed to defending a woman’s reproductive rights, which is defined as freedom from state coercion to become pregnant, remain pregnant or end a pregnancy.

This is a euphemism for killing a baby. The state has never coerced someone to perform the act that causes pregnancy, but scientifically, once conception happens, a human being exists.
They can legally call a “right”, but it is in fact killing a human being. That is the only purpose of abortion. Rarely is it related to a woman’s health. It is taking a life as a matter of convenience. In fact, it is the only time an American can legally take the life of another human being, other than in self defense.

Here’s how they are false:

1 - Reproductive Rights is a euphemism for killing a baby - False

Planned Parenthood uses a lot of euphemisms to dehumanize an unborn child and deflect from what is actually taking place during an abortion. However, Reproductive Freedom is not one of them.

Reproductive Freedom or Reproductive Rights address the limits of state/government coercion or interference in a woman’s personal autonomy or power to govern her own reproductive status - whether it is getting pregnant, remaining pregnant or ending a pregnancy. This is regarded as a human right by reputable international organizations such as Amnesty International.

Three examples of state violations of a woman’s reproductive rights commonly cited are:

1. Coercing women to become pregnant in Romania under Nicolae Ceausescu from 1965 to 1989.
2. Coercing women to remain pregnant in nations such as El Salvador and Nicaragua that ban all abortions.
3. Coercing women to end a pregnancy such as forced abortions under China’s one child policy.

2 - Scientifically, once conception happens, a human being exists - False.

Only God knows if a human being exists at conception. Scientifically, all we can know is that once conception happens a potential human being exists. That is because a fertilized egg may form into no human being (1/3 fail), one human being (most common outcome), two+ human beings (identical twins, triplets, etc) or part of a human being as in the case of human chimeras (i.e., ONE person formed by the merging of TWO separately fertilized eggs - real but rare).

Scientifically, it takes 14 days to know how many human beings are present, if any are present at all. Therefore, during the first two weeks of life, it ultimately rests upon the moral or ethical standard that JPII addresses in Evangelium Vitae: “…what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo.” (paragraph 60)

Continued in next post…

 

[Luke6_37]

Continued from previous post…

8 dead in Texas high school shooting World News

Here are your original comments… This is a euphemism for killing a baby. The state has never coerced someone to perform the act that causes pregnancy, but scientifically, once conception happens, a human being exists. They can legally call a “right”, but it is in fact killing a human being. That is the only purpose of abortion. Rarely is it related to a woman’s health. It is taking a life as a matter of convenience. In fact, it is the only time an American can legally take the life of ano…

3 - killing a human being. That is the only purpose of abortion. - False

Abortion refers to anything that ends a pregnancy before the full term. This happens all the time. A “miscarriage” is medically classified as a “spontaneous abortion”. Removing an ectopic pregnancy is medically classified as simply an “abortion” but is ethnically given the designation “indirect abortion” by the Church and is regarded as perfectly licit and moral. Removing a molar pregnancy is also medically classified simply as an “abortion”, but since there is no embryo, the only ethical consideration on the part of the Church is to perform a D&C as completely and quickly as possible to protect the life of the woman.

Only an elective or direct abortion is ethically illicit. Even in such circumstances, it is false to state that “killing a human being” is the purpose of the abortion. In Evangelium Vitae, JPII makes it clear that the Church recognizes that women are often coerced by other factors into having an abortion, but that these can never justify taking an innocent life. This is what I meant by “human sacrifice”. Furthermore, JPII points out, most women are conned by abortion providers like Planned Parenthood into thinking that is not what is happening.

4 - In fact, it is the only time an American can legally take the life of another human being, other than in self defense - False.

Physician assisted suicide is currently legal in California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. The only technicality that distinguishes it from straight on euthanasia is that the patient actually pulls the plug, while the “doctor” provides the means for doing so. From a Pro-Life perspective, such a distinction is equivalent to saying a doctor who routinely provides women with chemical inducing abortion drugs is not culpable for taking the life of another human being.

Setting aside the extent to which the United States military follows just war doctrine, Americans routinely take the lives of human beings in states that permit the death penalty - even in situations when doing so can be regarded as purely arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional. Neil Gorsuch, the hope of so many ProLife advocates, just sided with the conservative majority on the court to say this was perfectly legal.

Opinion | Neil Gorsuch and the State’s Power to Kill (Published 2017)

The Supreme Court’s newest member just cast his first vote, to deny a stay of execution.

www.nytimes.com

 

[JonNC]

No, because the amount of money available is limited.

Tell that to the politicians.

Priorities must be set, and already Americans have decided to spend more money to protect people in Afghanistan rather than young American schoolchildren.

We spend a significant amount of money on education. The bigger problem in American schools is failed methods and pedagogy.

The analogy fails because walking or chewing gum does not cost very much whereas Americans are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to protect people in foreign countries.

Again, money is not the issue.

Regardless of what the Constitution says, there is still a US Department of Education in operation today and it is headed by Betsy DeVoss.

Thank you for recognizing that it isn’t there.
Yes, DeVoss is the current Ed secretary. Arne Duncan headed the department for a while for Obama.

No. i am not presenting an opinion about the existence of the US Department of Education. It is a hard fact that can be easily checked, that there is in existence today a US Department of Education as part of the federal government.

And as you pointed out, it isn’t a constitutionally enumerated power.

 

[Luke6_37]

You need to show, first, where my words were false. Then, you need to show me where you control who posts on this forum and who doesn’t. Then you need to show me where you are the arbitrator of what is Catholic and what is not.

Luke6_37:

This is not “your space”, as far as I know, unless you own Catholic Answers.

Catholics take the concept of communion very seriously. We have a distinct herd mentality or ought to if properly formed. Sure, we may disagree with each other over the finer points of doctrine, but we recognize that we are all sailing together in the same Barque of St. Peter.

Given that…

“Catholic Answers is an apostolate dedicated to serving Christ by bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world. We help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics “home,” and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the faith.”

https://www.catholic.com/qa/about

I would say that since you are not Catholic, you should consider yourself a guest in a Catholic space. Its good that you are here, but it would be better if you made an effort to think like a Catholic or at least respect Catholics for thinking the way they do.

That said, there are other Catholics here who I believe will challenge your attempt to define what is Catholic in your own image.

I gave you a list of Papal encyclicals to read.

While some folks on the forum seem to think they are “more Catholic than the pope”, I am not one of them. I’m just a sinner doing my best to seek the truth. Of course, I could secretly be the ghost of JPII, or Pope Emeritus Benedict, or Pope Francis trying to get you to read something I wrote.

 

[AlNg]

We spend a significant amount of money on education.

The concern I have is the amount of money spent on security for young schoolchildren.

Again, money is not the issue.

I disagree. I think that more money has to be spent on making schools safe.

 

[Luke6_37]

Luke6_37:

My side is with Jesus!

Mine too! And in my reading, the locals are saying that we need to bring God back into the schools.

This call falls way too short. We need to bring teachings of Christ, the values of the Gospel, into our society as a whole.

1. Our government, especially those in the White House today, are often appear not to be operating, speaking, deciding, and behaving with Gospel values in mind, especially the values of love, mercy. and forgiveness, which we Christians regard with highest importance.
2. The media today so often tells only one side of a story, and foments hatred and animosity rather than love and forgiveness. We Christians are called to love and forgive our enemies, and understanding the goodness and good intent of others plays a huge role in such forgiveness. Our media needs to take on the task of being a catalyst, a source, for such understanding.
3. Not to downplay the opinions of the locals in Texas, though, they are correct, all schools need to actively integrate forgiveness and mercy into the values taught on students. The shooter somewhat went for targets, people he held something against, and Jesus calls us to forgive anyone we hold anything against - that means the bullies for kids, people who disrespect them, and that means the Iranian, Russian, North Korean, and many other governments for the consumers of the MSM. It does not mean condoning the bad behaviors of people, it means understanding and forgiving, and then operating from a position of love and mercy rather than resentment and desire for revenge.

Amen!!! (10 Characters)

 

[Jeanne_S]

On this we can agree

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Dude. You claim that you are super pro life and yet you defend every pro choice talking point. We all know that “reproductive rights” as used by Planned Parenthood, et al refers to abortion and contraception in this country. “Coerced into remaining pregnant” means what, exactly? Oh yeah, not killing the child, aka abortion. We don’t know that a human being exists at conception? Nonsense. We may not know if the child will survive, become a twin, twins merge back together, or whatever, but we absolutely know human life has been created. Potential persons? Really?

You are arguing meaningless semantics for no reason. Why are you taking exception to the word “abortion”, whose primary use is the deliberate ending of human life and not etopic pregnancy? So we need to have a list of footnotes when using common language now?

 

[starshiptrooper]

Then he was probably doing it illegally. The Commies confiscated weapons from non-party members in 1918 and only allowed party members to own one registered weapon.

 

[starshiptrooper]

He just wants to keep abortion legal while pretending to be against it for whatever reason. That much is obvious at this point.

 

[Luke6_37]

This is true. Not only do we need to restrict who can buy a gun, and what types of weapons can be sold, we also must allow personal and class action lawsuits against gun manufacturers for making a product that is dangerous to public health, prohibit gun ads that glamorize gun ownership or target adolescents, and dramatically limit where a person can have and use a gun.

I think the best model to adopt is the same as what was used to reduce cigarette smoking among young people starting in the late 1990s. You may not get to zero, but you can’t argue with success.


First thing to do is get rid of the notion that doing any of those things is unconstitutional on the basis that gun ownership is some kind of specially protected right. It’s not. It’s a lot easier to justify limiting gun rights than it is to justify limiting abortion rights, especially in a nation were an unborn baby isn’t even legally recognized as a person! However, those steeped in the gun culture do everything possible to deny the hypocrisy of their double standard. They have no problem limiting abortion rights, but would have us believe that limiting gun rights is somehow impossible, anathema, a non-starter, blah, blah, blah.

This totally undermines our ability to promote a consistent ethic of life. Young people pick upon the hypocrisy of some very vocal people who claim to be Christian and immediately disregard the message the rest of us are seeking to get across. That is Satan at work!

Fortunately, as Catholics, we should see through this double standard. Our leaders point it out all the time and at every opportunity. Neither abortion nor gun rights are absolute. While we may need to adopt the Aquinas principle and limit what we can realistically & ethnically demand the government to police, that does not mean we can’t seek to impose restrictions on those who indulge or profit from the culture of death, which includes Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the NRA, and gun manufacturers.

 

[Luke6_37]

Dude. You claim that you are super pro life and yet you defend every pro choice talking point. We all know that “reproductive rights” as used by Planned Parenthood, et al refers to abortion and contraception in this country. “Coerced into remaining pregnant” means what, exactly? Oh yeah, not killing the child, aka abortion. We don’t know that a human being exists at conception? Nonsense. We may not know if the child will survive, become a twin, twins merge back together, or whatever, but we absolutely know human life has been created. Potential persons? Really?

You are arguing meaningless semantics for no reason. Why are you taking exception to the word “abortion”, whose primary use is the deliberate ending of human life and not etopic pregnancy? So we need to have a list of footnotes when using common language now?

Words matter. God created the universe through using words. Jesus is the Word of God.

I want to win the war for life, not just get brownie points in an echo chamber from people who can’t bother to examine the details of an argument. You don’t “know” squat if you think you can get away with playing loose with terms and definitions.

I understand what the Pro-Choice arguments mean - its time for the Pro-Life community to learn to understand and address them as well. If you can’t defend against them, YOU WILL LOOSE. The way I see it, 50 years and 60 million abortions later its time we learned how to argue with the enemy instead of just talking among ourselves.

 

[Luke6_37]

He just wants to keep abortion legal while pretending to be against it for whatever reason. That much is obvious at this point.

Your ignorance is the only thing that is obvious.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

So, what kinds of medications fall under the terms “drugged” or “drugging”? Would you consider someone who takes cholesterol medication every day to be “drugged”? Among the definitions of “drugged” for example:

I don’t think that’s what he is talking about. He is talking about drugs used to control behavior of boys, primarily, at school.

Medications like Ritalin and other stimulants are not used to “control the behavior of boys, primarily, at school.”

They are used to treat ADHD, and they’re not only used to treat boys with ADHD, but also girls and adults of both sexes. And if these medications have something to do with “control,” they’re to help people with ADHD control themselves better, to focus and pay attention better, to read and listen better and not get distracted as easily, to be able to begin and finish tasks more easily. And for those that are more hyperactive and impulsive (not all people with ADHD are hyperactive), it helps them to exercise more self-control in that as well.

And since ADHD impairs people who have it in almost all areas of their lives, these medications aren’t used to help us in only one little part of our lives like when we’re at school or at work. They’re also quite useful for when we’re at home, too. Children with ADHD don’t only need them when they’re in the classroom. They also need them when they’re studying at home and doing homework.

And me and others with ADHD who use stimulants aren’t “drugged” and more likely to go shoot people in a school than anyone else.

 

[JonNC]

The concern I have is the amount of money spent on security for young schoolchildren.

Again, no argument

I disagree. I think that more money has to be spent on making schools safe.

Me too.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Governments have always carved out exceptions for themselves.