There he goes again, (sarcastic) thinkin like a Protestant. LOL. I told that boy he neeed keep his TV on EWTN more.
I guess it has to be rhetorical, since none of the “nuanced” debaters are willing to answer it.
Be careful – he’ll accuse you of “thinking like a Protestant.”
This is probably the most succinct answer on this entire thread.
Y’know, I vaguely remember watching reruns of that, with my dad (who’s a big “Westerns” buff)… although I’ve only recently joined the 21st century and bought a laptop… )!The reason the old tv show came to mind was the name. The hero’s last name in “Have Gun” was “Paladin.” Do a google on it or go over to YouTube and search “Have Gun, Will Travel.”
Actually, I have answered it. Repeatedly. I cannot vote for a candidate that supports something which the Church holds to be intrinsically evil.I guess it has to be rhetorical, since none of the “nuanced” debaters are willing to answer it.
Perhaps a clearer picture would emerge if people would read my posts and responses without the assumption that I am a straw man they have long reviled.
That is false and misleading. Deacon B has not endorsed, as you have, the concept of the poor being responsible for their own plight and wealth being a reasonable indicator of personal virtue (since it indicates that one is not “lazy” like the poor). It is the public support of Protestant views that I have pointed out, not guilt by association.
Dead wrong.
Boloney!
More bull!
More bull.
The problem is not that you vote pro choice, the problem is you won’t vote pro life because you say-
And therein lies the problem. Most of us here do NOT see the current crop of Pro Life candidates as evil.
No, that will only confuse them more, because you give looooooong drawn out answers to simple questions. You never answer ANYTHING without a bunch of caveats, as evdienced by your last post.
Not only that but limiting evil is a good. The Church does not teach limiting evil is a moral compromise.
Guy,
I’m afraid there’s nothing even approaching a consensus from “every tracking mechanism”. According to the Guttmacher institute (blech!–I’ll need some sort of computer sanitizer to help my computer, defined by even visiting their website! That, or an exorcism…), the percentage of below-poverty women who “procure abortions” is 44%–which, if my math is correct, leaves 56% of “abortion procuring” women above the poverty mark (with “poverty mark” being defined as $9570/yr for a single woman without children), I grant you your qualifier of “at or near”, but that still doesn’t seem like a “vast majority” to me… and the (blech!) Guttmacher Institute really shouldn’t be expected to quote anything close to a minimum estimated number of “poverty abortions”, since “poverty abortions” can be expected to garner sympathy (and since the Guttmacher Institute has a vested interest in promoting the acceptance of abortion as a whole).
Granted, the Center for Bioethical Reform has a vested interest in eliminating abortion (and in making it less acceptable to the public–and with good reason!), but I hope that the “44% below $9570/yr” vs. “28.7% below $15,000” difference shows that there’s nothing even approximating “unanimity” on this issue… and there certainly isn’t evidence of a “vast majority” in either case.
Correction: ALL of them are mothers; some of them are mothers of yet other children (i.e. the ones who weren’t killed), while the others are merely mothers of dead children (of whatever age). Not meaning to give you a hard time about word choices, but that is certainly measurable reality–and we would do well to be accurate with descriptions of such.
(knocking forehead with hand) Oh, yeah! Wow… my cylinders aren’t all firing in harmony today…
–came from the deep, dark, embarrassing days when I was a “dungeon master” while playing “Dungeons & Dragons”…)Well, if we take the poverty line, and the next line measured (one above), we have about 60%. If we use the median household income for the US, 80% fall below.
Actually, the Guttmacher Insitution is the most widely quoted statistics authority on abortion from pro-choice and pro-life groups alike. It actually reports abortion numbers 50% higher than those of the CDC abortion survey project. If we take the CDC numbers instead of the Guttmacher numbers, legal abortion in the US, in total numbers, is only about 200,000 per year higher than it was the year prior to Roe (15 states had liberalized abortion laws prior to Roe and legal abortions were counted at about 600,000 - the CDC survey now puts the number at about 800,000).
I’m not sure whose figures you’re using, here. The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform estimated that only 48.2% of women who “procured abortions” had family incomes below $29,999… which is nowhere near the poverty mark. (It’d best not be–I’m below that, myself, and I support my wife on it!
) My original point was meant as a critique of the idea that “Every tracking mechanism and study we have on abortion shows the same thing, the vast majority of women procurring abortions in the US live at or near poverty.” I’ve pointed out at least one (which drew much of its data from the [gag!] Guttmacher Institute, if its footnotes can be believed) which seems to contradict that idea.Granted… though I’d assume that many pro-life people use it in the vein of, “Look, even the pro-abortion hack! Cough!] Guttmacher Institute admits to # of abortions per year, income statistics, etc.]” Pro-life groups probably use those stats as a “lower bound” for many such data, and not necessarily as any sort of “final word” of accuracy.
Well… since I’m a newcomer to the thread (which is rather large), I haven’t pieced together “which opinion belongs to whom”, so I’ve tried not to comment on anyone’s specific views (yet); my specific points were on the tactical details which I mentioned above.