Democratic Ad: Catholic Church More Concerned About Abortion Than Poor

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
I wonder if all those who complain about the Bush tax cuts have been refraining from taking them on their personal tax returns?. Somehow I doubt it but I guess it’s fun to complain about it but too hard to actually refuse it
Click to expand...
I never, ever, ever refuse a tax cut or a deduction. I need it more than Goldman Sachs does.
 
 
portarica said:
I will let you know how it feels as soon as we get up over $ 250,000.00 in adjusted gross income,

Peace
Click to expand...
If the Bush tax cuts expire everybody will get a tax increase… However if you are one of the people that objected to the Bush tax cuts I’ll be happy to e-mail you the rates that were in effect before those cuts and you can send the IRS a check for all the money you’ve saved in the last nine years on your taxes

Or ,perhaps, it was fun to complain about it , but too hard to actually refuse it.
 
Julian0404 said:
This is a play from the real outcomes that are in process in Central America, where the protestant faiths are growing “more rapidly” than they did after the referendum by Luther. They are causing thousands of Catholics to leave the faith, and join protestant churches, why?
Because for years, and years, the Catholic leaders in South American have focused on the “political” issues for the poor while the protestants have focused on the “spiritual” issues of their souls and relationship with JESUS.
This is the driving force behind the next Synod wherein Pope Benedict XVI is going to call for a new “Evangelization” and direct the religious to get back to souls first and foremost.

The democratic party is simply leveraging what they see happening and going HHHmmmmmmm, maybe that same message will work for us.
Click to expand...
**God Bless our protestant brothers & sisters, who love Jesus!

Many of them are staunch PRO-LIFERS & we need them in our battle against the Devil & those who support the murder of innocent babies by abortion!

Protestant faiths are growing because they often sell half truths & many falsehoods that sound easy like “Once saved always saved” & the “altar call” mentality, without the fullness of the Truth of Jesus Christ, which is only found in His One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church & is incredibly difficult to live!

Jesus says to each one of us;

"And he said to all, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” (LK 9:23)
**
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
 
estesbob said:
If the Bush tax cuts expire everybody will get a tax increase… However if you are one of the people that objected to the Bush tax cuts I’ll be happy to e-mail you the rates that were in effect before those cuts and you can send the IRS a check for all the money you’ve saved in the last nine years on your taxes

Or ,perhaps, it was fun to complain about it , but too hard to actually refuse it.
Click to expand...
I do not see how your point proves anything. What is inconsistent with the notion of advocating for a collective tax increase while taking advantage of an individual tax cut when it is offered?
I’ve been saying for a while now that I wish it could happen (without anyone loosing Salvation and without detriment to anyone’s soul) - that for one day: every benefit the world has experienced because of the church would be gone. Every hospital, every school, every charitable organization, every artistic and scientific contribution; every food bank, every shelter, every agency and every effect of the Church’s presence past and present be taken away. Then maybe people would realize how much She does for the poor and everyone else.
Click to expand...
Many people say that the dangers of a welfare state is increased secularization, but I could assure you that the material prosperity of Western Europe would not be endangered if your thought experiment comes to fruition.

Regarding the actual topic, I would say that in this forum, the state is indeed correct: Catholic Church more concerned about abortion than poor. It is easy to provide qualitative evidence; one should simply look in the “Social Justice” Forum’s threads and note their topics. A greater proportion of the threads in this forum are about abortion and alleviating the misery and suffering of poverty so there is an empirical basis for the claim. I do not know about the sentiments of other Catholics in general and the statement might not be true.

I do not fervently oppose abortion in the public sphere because it is possible for me to envision a just society that tolerates abortion, but I do not see how a modern society can be deemed “civilized” if its institutions neglected and flagrantly ignored the material needs of the unfortunate even if its laws are fervently pro-life. I would have a greater feeling of collective pride living in a society with low prevalence of poverty, high economic equality, and a sense of egalitarian unity among its citizens while its legal system accepts the decision of some pregnant women to terminate their pregnancies than a living in a society where abortion is prohibited but for a significant proportion of the population poverty and its associated despair are feature of their existence.
 
Black_Rose said:
I do not see how your point proves anything. What is inconsistent with the notion of advocating for a collective tax increase while taking advantage of an individual tax cut when it is offered?

.
Click to expand...
Seems be a double standard here. I see the Left whining about politicians accepting stimulus money for their districts even though they opposed the stimulus. It would seem to me that the same should apply to people who whine about the Bush tax cuts.
 
Black_Rose said:
IRegarding the actual topic, I would say that in this forum, the state is indeed correct: Catholic Church more concerned about abortion than poor. It is easy to provide qualitative evidence; one should simply look in the “Social Justice” Forum’s threads and note their topics. A greater proportion of the threads in this forum are about abortion and alleviating the misery and suffering of poverty so there is an empirical basis for the claim. I do not know about the sentiments of other Catholics in general and the statement might not be true.

I.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I give a lot to Catholic Relief Services, and they are very intent on helping the poor in other countries.

The reason abortion is a big issue is that it is against God. Same reason homosexual practices are a big issue.

Helping the poor is what we are all called to do as Christians. It is not a controversial issue.
 
JimG said:
I don’t claim any sort of doctrinal purity for either Republicans or Democrats. But the Democrats could have ensured the support of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (who have many areas of agreement with them on matters relating to the poor, and even on healthcare) if they had simply adopted the Stupak Amendment. But in the end even Stupak threw his own amendment under the bus, relying instead on useless promises from the White House. It seems, based on their party platform and past history, that being pro-choice, aka providing for abortion, is absolutely fundamental to the Democratic Party–more important even than the poor.
Click to expand...
That is a great example of how politics works against the majority of us in the middle. If a couple of middle of the road pro-life Republicans supported the Stupak Admendment in the healthcare debate and voting, a better healthcare bill would have passed.

but as both side frequently do, the baby was thrown out with the bath water.

The Dems got a bill, the Repubs could say they resisted the bill and we get stuck with a lesser bill than we could have gotten if the reasonable middle of both parties cooperated.

So the wackos in the outside 20% of each party got the most influence. The far right of the Republican party got the abortion payment policies that they enabled and the far left of the Democratic party got the abortion payment policies that they enabled.

Peace
 
estesbob said:
Seems be a double standard here. I see the Left whining about politicians accepting stimulus money for their districts even though they opposed the stimulus. It would seem to me that the same should apply to people who whine about the Bush tax cuts.
Click to expand...
Do you consider a doctor who smokes a pack per day hypocritical while advising his patients to quit smoking? Does that somehow discredit the empirical observations that demonstrate smoking is strongly correlated to lung cancer and heart disease and that smoking is an imprudent habit? The doctor is certainly not an exemplar of living optimally healthy lifestyle but he competently runs his practice by informing his patients on the hazards of smoking.

Why not isolate policy prescriptions from personal conduct in some situations? In your case, we are not talking about the misconduct of prominent or powerful politicians or bureaucrats where it might be hypocritical if their normative prescriptions immensely differ from their personal conduct, but you primarily refer to the conduct and attitudes of citizens.

Again, I do not see anything that is hypocritical when one advocates for a higher tax rates for everyone (including themselves), but take advantage of a low tax rate individually when it is offered. It will indeed be hypocritical and illegal if he/she refuses to pay a higher tax when it is government policy.
 
portarica said:
That is a great example of how politics works against the majority of us in the middle. If a couple of middle of the road pro-life Republicans supported the Stupak Admendment in the healthcare debate and voting, a better healthcare bill would have passed.

but as both side frequently do, the baby was thrown out with the bath water.

The Dems got a bill, the Repubs could say they resisted the bill and we get stuck with a lesser bill than we could have gotten if the reasonable middle of both parties cooperated.

So the wackos in the outside 20% of each party got the most influence. The far right of the Republican party got the abortion payment policies that they enabled and the far left of the Democratic party got the abortion payment policies that they enabledPeace
Click to expand...
In the House 176 Republicans voted for the Stupak amendment and only 64 Democrats . In the Senate 39 of the 40 Republicans voted for the Stupak amendment Given this I’m having a hard time following the logic of your post,

…
 
Black_Rose said:
Do you consider a doctor who smokes a pack per day hypocritical while advising his patients to quit smoking? Does that somehow discredit the empirical observations that demonstrate smoking is strongly correlated to lung cancer and heart disease and that smoking is an imprudent habit? The doctor is certainly not an exemplar of living optimally healthy lifestyle but he competently runs his practice by informing his patients on the hazards of smoking.

Why not isolate policy prescriptions from personal conduct in some situations? In your case, we are not talking about the misconduct of prominent or powerful politicians or bureaucrats where it might be hypocritical if their normative prescriptions immensely differ from their personal conduct, but you primarily refer to the conduct and attitudes of citizens.

Again, I do not see anything that is hypocritical when one advocates for a higher tax rates for everyone (including themselves), but take advantage of a low tax rate individually when it is offered. It will indeed be hypocritical and illegal if he/she refuses to pay a higher tax when it is government policy.
Click to expand...
Then I assume you agree with me that it is not hypocritical for one to oppose the stimulus but accept stimulus funds for their constituents?
 
PetersKeys said:
I wonder how many atheist pro-abortion charities there are? since they are so concerned about the poor as they state…anyone been able to find any?? any "democrat pro-“choice” food shelfs seen anywhere around??
Click to expand...
I’m afraid there are too many. Here are a few:

International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
Population growth is at the heart of global poverty. This organization is working around the globe to reduce population growth through birth control and education.

Population Services International (PSI)
PSI focuses on the distribution of bed nets and condoms in Third World countries where HIV/AIDS and malaria are potent threats to the well-being of at-risk populations. Most recently, the NGO has been working on circumcision as a way to prevent HIV/AIDs with the help of a huge grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
We know this organization best through U2 rock star Bono’s work. You can give directly to the organization, buy (red) products, where a part of your purchase goes to support The Global Fund, or join the ONE movement, which advocates and supports activists working to eradicate preventable diseases, especially in Africa.

Partners In Health
Paul Farmer, chairman of Harvard Medical School’s Department of Global Health and Social Medicine and currently on the Obama’s administration’s list of people the head of USAID, founded this organization in the 1980’s to provide healthcare in Haiti. Dr. Farmer has been a leader in global healthcare for the poor. PIH now works in many countries to provide affordable clinics.

Millennium Promise
Supports the U.N. Millennium Development Goals to cut in half extreme poverty in Africa by 2015. This organization’s flagship project is the Millennium Villages, operating across sub-Saharan Africa, that take a comprehensive approach to poverty. Formerly led by Jeffrey D. Sachs, author of The End of Poverty, and head of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

nonprofit.about.com/od/fordonors/tp/globalpovertygiving.htm
 
estesbob said:
In the House 176 Republicans voted for the Stupak amendment and only 64 Democrats . In the Senate 39 of the 40 Republicans voted for the Stupak amendment Given this I’m having a hard time following the logic of your post,

…
Click to expand...
How many of the republicans voted for the healthcare bill in the senate? How much hand wringing did the Dems have to do to get to 60 in the senate? The same machinations went on in the house as well.

If some Repubs traded votes for stronger abortion language than the presidents executive order, the Dems would not have had to make the deals with some Dems that watered down the abortion language.

The Republicans made the Stupak amendment a line in the sand and as a result got the line in the sand pushed away from them.

They bit off their noses to spite their faces. Or more correctly, they bit off their noses for their political supporters to spite the unborn.

Peace
 
estesbob said:
Then I assume you agree with me that it is not hypocritical for one to oppose the stimulus but accept stimulus funds for their constituents?
Click to expand...
Consider this:

I advocate for the conditions of world ~A (a world without the stimulus) and under that world I would do ~B (not accepting stimulus money).

But what if the world is A (there is a stimulus package):

why is it inconsistent to B (accept stimulus funds) when the world is A when it is the option that will maximize utility in world A. Doing B in world A does not impact on whether ~A would come to fruition. A and ~A are contingencies that are not significantly influenced by one’s individual preferences and actions but are heavily influenced via collective action. Having different conduct in world A and ~A in not hypocritical. The person advocating for world ~A did not argue that one should not do B under any circumstances; it is implied that B is acceptable conduct if A is true.

Is there anything inconsistent with:

If ~A then ~B.

And

If A then B.

The reason why it is “hypocritical” for someone like Ted Haggard to have homosexual affairs is because as a minister he is also expected by his congregation to be a moral exemplar and practicing homosexuality is an abrogation of the conduct that is expected from him, while a doctor’s obligations is to competently treat their patients and offer them prudent advice that is in the patients best interests. A doctor can be overweight and rarely exercise, but also advise his patients to diet and exercise. He is under no obligation to live a health lifestyle and because he is a doctor, he has the intellectual capacity to accept responsibility for his negligent personal habits.
 
On any given day, are there more posts on this forum concerning abortion or concerning the poor?

:hmmm:
 
it really doesn’t matter whether catholics care more about the one issue than the other or think that they are of equal importance since catholics do not need to choose between them.

fighting poverty is the best way to fight abortion!

please see:
catholics-united.org/?q=node/197

even if roe v. wade is overturned and the issue is turned over to the states, it will do very little if anything to prevent abortions.

according to catholics united:
"“This study confirms what many have suspected for some time: that pursuing legal restrictions on abortion services is a generally ineffective strategy of addressing abortion in the United States,” said Dr. Joe Wright, assistant professor of political science at Penn State University and Visiting Fellow at the University of Notre Dame, and author of the study. “Successfully combating the practice of abortion requires policies which speak to the reasons most women choose abortions in the first place: economic insecurity, lack of health care, and absence of other essential family supports.”

Dr. Wright authored a similar study for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good – entitled Reducing Abortion in America: the Effect of Economic and Social Supports – which draws a clear connection between availability of family assistance programs and lower abortion rates."

(voting republican is obviously bad for the poor and has done nothing to end abortion. conservative justices have found corporations to be persons, but the courts haven’t said the same about the unborn. why? because conservatives support corporations but only give lip-service to life issues.)
 
Rocinante said:
it really doesn’t matter whether catholics care more about the one issue than the other or think that they are of equal importance since catholics do not need to choose between them.

fighting poverty is the best way to fight abortion!

please see:
catholics-united.org/?q=node/197

even if roe v. wade is overturned and the issue is turned over to the states, it will do very little if anything to prevent abortions.

according to catholics united:
"“This study confirms what many have suspected for some time: that pursuing legal restrictions on abortion services is a generally ineffective strategy of addressing abortion in the United States,” said Dr. Joe Wright, assistant professor of political science at Penn State University and Visiting Fellow at the University of Notre Dame, and author of the study. “Successfully combating the practice of abortion requires policies which speak to the reasons most women choose abortions in the first place: economic insecurity, lack of health care, and absence of other essential family supports.”

Dr. Wright authored a similar study for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good – entitled Reducing Abortion in America: the Effect of Economic and Social Supports – which draws a clear connection between availability of family assistance programs and lower abortion rates."

(voting republican is obviously bad for the poor and has done nothing to end abortion. conservative justices have found corporations to be persons, but the courts haven’t said the same about the unborn. why? because conservatives support corporations but only give lip-service to life issues.)
Click to expand...
As far as I have heard, abortions have drastically declined in the US. I don’t thinkpolitics has anything to do with the poor. Actually the poor are more likely to NOT use abortions. The people who use birth control are usually well-off.

The truth is the poor are increasing in this country, what with illegal immigrants and the economy. They have the highest birth rates all over the world. They are the salt of the earth and we who have money need to care for them.
 
portarica said:
How many of the republicans voted for the healthcare bill in the senate? How much hand wringing did the Dems have to do to get to 60 in the senate? The same machinations went on in the house as well.

If some Repubs traded votes for stronger abortion language than the presidents executive order, the Dems would not have had to make the deals with some Dems that watered down the abortion language.

The Republicans made the Stupak amendment a line in the sand and as a result got the line in the sand pushed away from them.

They bit off their noses to spite their faces. Or more correctly, they bit off their noses for their political supporters to spite the unborn.

Peace
Click to expand...
\

I still don’t follow your logic. It seems to beyou’re saying that Republicans insistence that the healthcare bill not fund abortions caused the healthcare bill to fund abortions. This seems to be the usual convoluted thinking we see by those Catholics trying to twist church teaching into supporting their political views.It would appear since the overwhelming majority of Democrats in both houses insisted the bill fund abortions that any attempt to blame Republicans for this is absolutely specious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top