Baby Killers Need Not Apply For President

[Mirdath]

I assume “ex cathedra” is tongue-in-cheek .

I think both sides would get along a lot better if they didn’t ignore the opportunity for the occasional good-natured poke, don’t you?

They’re not that stupid, if you pardon my saying so, as to blatently announce they exist to promote abortions. That’s why they’re called “Planned Parenthood” instead of "Abortions-R-Us. Same reason as “Pro-choice” sounds better than “Pro-abortion”.

Did you expect them to hide the fact that they perform abortions? That they’re both known for it and make no secret of it doesn’t at all translate to ‘support and encourage it as the first, default, and preferably only option in any and all cases’, which is what I asked you to cite.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Did you expect them to hide the fact that they perform abortions? That they’re both known for it and make no secret of it doesn’t at all translate to ‘support and encourage it as the first, default, and preferably only option in any and all cases’, which is what I asked you to cite.

That’s not going to be found, except for some of the earliest founders perhapse.

The more I look at this, the more I get a sense of conspiratorial paranoia.

poverty isin’t linked to abortion, the “abortionists” are fudgeing the statistics(thank God, other wise the conservative party might have to part with the republicans!), the want abortion as a first choice, never mind the question of why include adoption at all if that;s their goal, the MUST have put it there for that reasone

etc.

 

[Mirdath]

That’s not going to be found, except for some of the earliest founders perhapse.

Even Margaret Sanger wasn’t for abortions for everyone – only for people she looked down on. So I’m afraid she’s disqualified.

The more I look at this, the more I get a sense of conspiratorial paranoia.

poverty isin’t linked to abortion, the “abortionists” are fudgeing the statistics(thank God, other wise the conservative party might have to part with the republicans!), the want abortion as a first choice, never mind the question of why include adoption at all if that;s their goal, the MUST have put it there for that reasone

etc.

Conspiratorial paranoia from which side exactly? I mean, what you just said sounds a lot more tinfoil-hat than anything I have.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Even Margaret Sanger wasn’t for abortions for everyone – only for people she looked down on. So I’m afraid she’s disqualified.

Perhapse, she was infavor of it in some cases, as you ceeded, and I do not know how extream other early founder were, hence “perhapse”, because I do not know, but they might have, that is the place to look.

Conspiratorial paranoia from which side exactly? I mean, what you just said sounds a lot

 

[Mirdath]

Perhapse, she was infavor of it in some cases, as you ceeded, and I do not know how extream other early founder were, hence “perhapse”, because I do not know, but they might have, that is the place to look.

She was a raging eugenicist, there’s no denying that. If everybody of other skin colors had been aborted into oblivion I’m sure she’d be just tickled pink. But that is simply not equivalent to ‘every pregnancy should be terminated’.

Some “Pro-Life” people here, those instances of conspiratorial thinking, not that pro choice can’t get paranoid as well.

Ah, okay – thanks for clarifying.

 

[Steve40]

I understand your resolve in this matter. But I cannot reconcile the killing of people over war as any better. The children of Iraq are also being killed - thereby rendering any person supporting George W. Bush or this war, as a baby killer. ??? I don’t know, enlighten me.

The war in Iraq is over. I believe it was a just war but the Pope is on your side so I’ll give it some prayer and thought.

Please give some thought to the child getting killed down the street tomarrow. The Killing Center near me killed 1600 children last year, that’s about 4 kids/day. I think we have lost more children within 10 miles of my house this past year then we have lost in any 10 mile areas in Iraq last year.

We are here, not in Iraq. Serve life God and country here, where you can.

 

[mmm1]

I understand the revulsion & anger because of the loss of over 45 million babies in the US alone since 1973. That doesn’t even include the threat to human life from embryonic stem cell research & therapeutic cloning. I consider myself very pro-life, but I think seekerz, Dale M, Newbie @, goofyjim, deb 1 & Mirdath raise some very good points about inflammatory & hateful labels.

I especially like wow’s comment about Jesus conquering evil with love. He didn’t call Mary Magdalene or the woman at the well whores, He spoke the truth without hating people.

Picture a young relative. Let’s say she just found out she is pregnant & she’s at your house for Thanksgiving. After dinner she hears family members talk politics & the conversation turns to abortion. Aunt Sally says something about baby butchers, & that she could never vote for a baby killer. Gramma says she could never understand how anyone could kill their own flesh & blood.

Now this young girl is scared to death. Her friend says an abortion is a simple way to solve her “problem” & it’s only a “clump of cells”. She needs the truth & advice, but do you think she’ll confide in Aunt Sally & Gramma?

We have to be very careful about how we talk & choose our words carefully. You never know who is listening.

 

[Veronica7978]

The war in Iraq is over. I believe it was a just war but the Pope is on your side so I’ll give it some prayer and thought.

Please give some thought to the child getting killed down the street tomarrow. The Killing Center near me killed 1600 children last year, that’s about 4 kids/day. I think we have lost more children within 10 miles of my house this past year then we have lost in any 10 mile areas in Iraq last year.

We are here, not in Iraq. Serve life God and country here, where you can.

The war in Iraq is not over.

 

[Newbie2]

Did you expect them to hide the fact that they perform abortions? That they’re both known for it and make no secret of it doesn’t at all translate to ‘support and encourage it as the first, default, and preferably only option in any and all cases’, which is what I asked you to cite.

I’ll give you that, perhaps, but can you cite a reference for YOUR assertion that the “vast majority (are) those who are simply pro-choice.”?

 

[Newbie2]

Add a wink to that, please.

 

[Mirdath]

I’ll give you that, perhaps, but can you cite a reference for YOUR assertion that the “vast majority (are) those who are simply pro-choice.”? [wink added at request]

It follows quite nicely from your concession that no sane person wants every single pregnancy to be terminated

 

[Newbie2]

I’m not sure sanity has much to do with it.

But I still maintain that supporting choice is not anti-abortion and therefore is by default not pro-life, whether or not anyone agrees with that logic.

And I’ll admit that I don’t understand the position that supports “choice” but opposes abortion

And that’s about all I’ve got.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think many politicians are baby killers themselves. That is reserved to those who receive and perform the actual act that kills. But I agree with the sentiment. Those who think their role of leadership means they not intervene in the holocaust are derelicts. They are worse than those who refuse to report child abuse and rape because they don’t want to get invololved. Worse because not only is innocence lost but life. Worse because they hold the position of responsibility and chose not to exercise it.

 

[wow]

These words are just my opinion. I’ll admit these opinions do not make me feel good and often cause me to pray to the Lord our God for forgivness for my judgemental thoughts for it is not possible for me to see what is in other’s hearts. If it’s not possible for me to see in others hearts I don’t see how anyone can see what’s in mine or another’s heart. I am writing this so some have some food for thought because I do interpret hurtful wording in some posts that seem to be lacking in charity, hope or compassion.

Most comparisons I’ve seen, seem to have malice associated with them. It seems some take advantage of these comparisons in order to throw out words like “Nazis” intended to strike against those with opposing views. I’ve seen words like communism, socialism, evil and many other negatives, too many to list and to be honest I don’t want to remember them all.

Some prefer to use condescending wording to make those of an opposing views feel belittled or worse.

It seems there is so little care about the effect these words have on others. Others who maybe truly seeking a righteous path to the Father. Others who maybe close to coming around and yet are delayed in changing their views when treated this way. Some are weak and I would hate for anything I’ve said to cause one to despair and slow down their seeking the truth or even worse and give up the search.

Our words and attitudes may be interpreted as a win in a debate when in all actually it might have set someone firmly in a wrong belief and caused them problems in their own search for salvation. Just because someone does not continue an argument does not mean we have beaten them. It could very well have meant we lost our battle.

For all have sinned and need the glory of God. The effect of sins against God cannot be measured by men. We cannot think wholly like God.

As our Church teaches us, we should seek to change evil with an all encompassing love. Because of this I pray and beg that we consider our words carefully and pray before hitting the “Submit Reply” button.

As I’ve stated, this is food for thought and I truly mean no offense to anyone with what I have written. I confess, I am a sinner and need the glory of God. I truly wish to imitate the life of Christ and will admit, it’s not always easy.

I’d like to share a portion of a prayer I try to say daily, “Put your love in my heart that I may magnify your tenderness and compassion to all, even those that seem unlovable”. I don’t know who authored the prayer but I find this part meaningful in my seeking the love of God.

If I’ve offended anyone with this post, I beg your forgiveness and prayers.

I love you all and I pray for all of us.

We truly live in difficult times.

 

[Newbie2]

Yeah, it may get heated a bit, and sometimes passion for a subject spills over into lack of charity.

 

[tomarin]

Find me one person who says that abortion should be the default choice, that expectant mothers should choose to abort rather than bring the pregnancy to term no matter what circumstances they’re in – then you’ll have someone to apply that label to. It does not fit the vast majority of those who are simply pro-choice.

as i see it, “pro-choice” means that you don’t see human life in its developmental stages as having any intrinsic value. whatever value it has is given to it by its mother by virtue of her “wanting” it. if the developing human life is unplanned or inconvenient, it is devoid of value and so may be terminated.

am i wrong? this mentality of ascribing value to life based on the parents’ preferences seems very inhumane and dehumanizing to me. and yes, it is linked to eugenics historically, so i’m surprised that knowing that you would still be so eager to defend it.

 

[jailbelle]

People who are for abortions and are pro choice are for killing babies. We have to be clear about this issue. That is what happens to defenseless babies in their Mother’s womb, a place that should be sacred and safe. Women, mothers hold the future of civilization in their bodies. t\To deny this is to deny God’s plan.
To continue with Mother Teresa’s comment. A nation that teaches its women that it is fine to kill their babies is teaching selfishness is better than love of their offspring. That nation is doomed to violence and death.

 

[Mirdath]

as i see it, “pro-choice” means that you don’t see human life in its developmental stages as having any intrinsic value. whatever value it has is given to it by its mother by virtue of her “wanting” it. if the developing human life is unplanned or inconvenient, it is devoid of value and so may be terminated.

am i wrong?

Nope – although I must further qualify your otherwise accurate and succinct explanation by stating that human life in and of itself has no special intrinsic value whatsoever, no matter its state of development. Personhood is valuable.

this mentality of ascribing value to life based on the parents’ preferences seems very inhumane and dehumanizing to me. and yes, it is linked to eugenics historically, so i’m surprised that knowing that you would still be so eager to defend it.

Hitler breathed oxygen too Even though the aims of many proponents of legal abortion have been dishonorable at best, that doesn’t necessarily say anything about abortion but rather about them.

 

[pnewton]

I wonder how well a pro-choice platform would go if one was morally opposed to rape, but we mustn’t legistate againts the rapists’ choice?

 

[tomarin]

Nope – although I must further qualify your otherwise accurate and succinct explanation by stating that human life in and of itself has no special intrinsic value whatsoever, no matter its state of development. Personhood is valuable.

my point is that this personhood is a totally arbitrary fiction. it is bestowed upon some fetuses by mothers who give them nicknames and play mozart for them, and in other cases not bestowed by other mothers who do not wish to give birth to the baby. this doesn’t change the fact that a fetus is a fetus is a fetus, biologically and in every other way. a mother cooing to her unborn child doesn’t magically change the child’s nature.

Hitler breathed oxygen too Even though the aims of many proponents of legal abortion have been dishonorable at best, that doesn’t necessarily say anything about abortion but rather about them.

it’s relevant insofar as on this issue it is orthodox christians who can claim the moral highground, not progressives. it was progressives of the 1920’s that embraced eugenics enthusiastically – although none would want to be associated with it today.