Democratic Ad: Catholic Church More Concerned About Abortion Than Poor

[estesbob]

NARAL is definitely pro-choice, but i don’t have any reason to think that they want to increase the number of abortions.

Seems like we have significantly lowered the bar here. Our goal should not be to decrease the number of abortions it should be to eliminate them entirely. Unfortunately when people, especially Catholics, start talking about decreasing the number of abortions they almost always are using it as a huge loophole to allow themselves to support organization such as the NARL or pro-abortion candidates. Abortion is not just another political issue to wheel and deal and compromise on -it is literally a matter of life and death and we cannot support it nor empower those who support it in any way shape or form and remain true to the teachings of our church.

 

[Rocinante]

Seems like we have significantly lowered the bar here. Our goal should not be to decrease the number of abortions it should be to eliminate them entirely.

do you think it is possible for you to cast a vote that will eliminate all abortion? if i could do that i would, but given that that is not an option, the best we can do is vote for the candidate most likely to decrease abortion.

Unfortunately when people, especially Catholics, start talking about decreasing the number of abortions they almost always are using it as a huge loophole to allow themselves to support organization such as the NARL or pro-abortion candidates. Abortion is not just another political issue to wheel and deal and compromise on -it is literally a matter of life and death and we cannot support it nor empower those who support it in any way shape or form and remain true to the teachings of our church.

to my knowledge i have never voted for a candidate that supports abortion nor would i. some candidates may oppose making laws against abortion, but none support abortion or think that more abortions would be a good thing.

i am not even sure what making laws against abortion means. does that mean that young women who get them will be imprisoned? that doctors will be fined or go to jail? that women will be physically restrained from harming their babies?

 

[estesbob]

do you think it is possible for you to cast a vote that will eliminate all abortion? if i could do that i would, but given that that is not an option, the best we can do is vote for the candidate most likely to decrease abortion.

Totally irrelevant. Again you are treating abortion as if it was just one other political issue to be weighed when looking at the best candidate to vote for. It is not. The Pope himself made it very clear that no other moral issues rise to the level of abortion. You simply cannot support a candidate who supports abortion unless their opponent is more poor abortion than they are.

to my knowledge i have never voted for a candidate that supports abortion nor would i. some candidates may oppose making laws against abortion, but none support abortion or think that more abortions would be a good thing.

Again this is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize supporting abject evil. Whether one wants to use the euphemism “pro-choice” to cover-up their support of women killing their children has no bearing whatsoever as to whether we can support them. The church feel so strongly about this that Pope Pius VI forbade the use of the term “pro-choice” when discussing the issue of abortion.

i am not even sure what making laws against abortion means. does that mean that young women who get them will be imprisoned? that doctors will be fined or go to jail? that women will be physically restrained from harming their babies?

I am sure that once abortions are outlawed again it will be handled the same manner it was prior to Roe V Wade where punishment was directed exclusively at the abortionist’s. Again it is irrelevant to the discussion as to whether a Catholic can support a pro-abortion politician.

 

[Anselm33]

Totally irrelevant. Again you are treating abortion as if it was just one other political issue to be weighed when looking at the best candidate to vote for. It is not. The Pope himself made it very clear that no other moral issues rise to the level of abortion. You simply cannot support a candidate who supports abortion unless their opponent is more poor abortion than they are.

Again this is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize supporting abject evil. Whether one wants to use the euphemism “pro-choice” to cover-up their support of women killing their children has no bearing whatsoever as to whether we can support them. The church feel so strongly about this that Pope Pius VI forbade the use of the term “pro-choice” when discussing the issue of abortion.

I am sure that once abortions are outlawed again it will be handled the same manner it was prior to Roe V Wade where punishment was directed exclusively at the abortionist’s. Again it is irrelevant to the discussion as to whether a Catholic can support a pro-abortion politician.

for sticking up for the teachings of the Church.
anselm

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Rocinante;7232423**:

i had assumed that the democrats are against abortion since i don’t know a single person, democrat or republican who is pro-abortion.

i was not surprised to read on the link provided, “Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous.”

it is clear that both parties at least have a stated goal of trying to reduce abortions. the question that remains is which party is more likely to be successful in achieving that goal?

Don’t assume that because someone doesn’t LABEL themselves as anti-abortion, that they are against it. The other side calls themselves “pro-choice” because they support the CHOICE of a mother to kill her baby at any stage throughout pregnancy. THEY might not want to have an abortion, but if you merely ask a few questions, their support of abortion becomes very clear. Try, “What would you suggest if your daughter became pregnant in high school?” or, “Should abortion be illegal?” You will hear the truth then, and it will be “No, it should be between a woman and her doctor, and the poor should have availability so murder is equal-opportunity.” (They don’t really say that last bit, but they should, to make it clear.) We pro-lifers draw the analogy between this stated attitude and someone in slave times who said, “Well, I don’t want slaves, but that should be an individual choice.”

And if the Democrat Party has a goal of making abortions more rare, they are FIRED because they have FAILED spectacularly!!! 50 MILLION BABIES have been murdered since Roe v. Wade was handed down, NOT counting babies aborted with the “morning after” pill RU 486. The LIE was that if abortion was legalized, it would be safe and rare. But there is money involved. Fetal stem cells don’t come from living babies.

Do you believe everything that an untrustworthy source says about itself? Remember, this is the party that uses the term “reproductive rights” to stand for abortion. They don’t want to even say the word yet they want the practice. NARAL and PP support the Democrat party with a LOT of money, and in turn, they are supported and sheltered. If it weren’t a money-making business, it would fail (well, it would have failed if we didn’t have the King of Bailouts in office). Abortion makes money.

 

[Rocinante]

Don’t assume that because someone doesn’t LABEL themselves as anti-abortion, that they are against it.

i don’t. i also don’t assume that republican candidates who loudly claim to be pro-life don’t quietly help their daughters get abortions to avoid political scandal. do you?

And if the Democrat Party has a goal of making abortions more rare, they are FIRED because they have FAILED spectacularly!!!

the republicans have failed as well. haven’t they?

the republicans are at least as responsible for the failure by promoting policies that keep poor people (who disproportionately choose to abort) down. at least the number of abortions has steadily declined since roe.

 

[Rocinante]

for sticking up for the teachings of the Church.
anselm

no one is disputing the fact that abortion is immoral.

 

[Rocinante]

Totally irrelevant. Again you are treating abortion as if it was just one other political issue to be weighed when looking at the best candidate to vote for. It is not. The Pope himself made it very clear that no other moral issues rise to the level of abortion. You simply cannot support a candidate who supports abortion unless their opponent is more poor abortion than they are.

i think i agree that abortion is the most important moral issue of our time, but if i am deciding between candidate R and candidate D where R is nominally pro-life and D is nominally pro-choice i might find that neither one is at all likely to be able to do much to directly change the abortion situation in the US for the better. (I think that this is almost always the case in elections in the US.)

at that point i’ll have to go ahead and base my decision on other lesser but still very important moral issues like whether or not the candidate lied to get us to go to war or is screwing the poor at every opportunity or is otherwise likely to make the country less moral. i might even find that candidate D (in spite of his nominal pro-choice position) is actually more likely than candidate R to perpetuate the circumstances where women make the awful choice to abort.

rocinante

 

[markbrumbaugh]

what do you mean “by not having abortions”? conservative states and counties have higher abortion rates than liberal states and counties. didn’t you know?

republicans make more poor people with their economic policies, not with the lip service they pay to life issues. that is just their way of getting poor religious people to vote against their own interests. its diabolical really.

do you really think that the fat cat wealthy capitalists really care a lick about the unborn? they don’t. their conservatism is all about lowering taxes for the rich and screwing the rest of us. they don’t care about the issue, but it is in their interest to get us arguing about whether gays ought to marry or whether their ought to be an islamic cultural center between the mcdonald’s and the strip club in lower manhatten. they play on people’s homophobia and racism over immigration. and while we’re all looking the wrong way, they get richer and richer and the poor keep getting poorer.

i’m not saying that the dems are a hundred percent better. in fact, they are only a littel to somewhat better in regard to being beholden to corporate interests, but there is still a difference.

rocinante

You and many others are so sadly mistaken about us “wealthy capitalists.” In case you didn’t know if it weren’t for our economic system over the last several hundred capitalist years, we would all be living in poverty, without medical genius inventions, digging in the dirt for our next meal. The profit motive creates invention much better than a centrally planned economy ever could. Generous welfare entitlements rob man of the reason to work and the dignity thereof, as well as enslaves them into perpetual poverty.

Since 1964, we have spent nearly 10 trillion (not billion) (2003USD) dollars in the US in the war on poverty. Think of all the factories, jobs and paychecks that would have instead have created. But to you, we taxpayers are making the poor, poorer.

You are so wrong…as well as full of hate.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

i don’t. i also don’t assume that republican candidates who loudly claim to be pro-life don’t quietly help their daughters get abortions to avoid political scandal. do you?
QUOTE]

I don’t know…why don’t you ask someone who does and I’m sure you hate…Sara Palin.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

i had assumed that the democrats are against abortion since i don’t know a single person, democrat or republican who is pro-abortion. i was not surprised to read on the link provided, “Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous.”

it is clear that both parties at least have a stated goal of trying to reduce abortions. the question that remains is which party is more likely to be successful in achieving that goal?

My dear friend this post is either naive, hopelessly so, or else disingenuous.

When Dems push the notion of making abortion “rare” what they are doing is playing for a compromise making abortion legal and available - and hence far from rare -whilst wrapping this reality in touchy feely language to make the reality palatable to middle america.

Dems support the position in Roe V Wade as a rule. In fact is it arguably their basic touchstone. Support for Roe V Wade is de facto support for unlimited abortion…let’s not lie to ourselves

 

[portarica]

You and many others are so sadly mistaken about us “wealthy capitalists.” In case you didn’t know if it weren’t for our economic system over the last several hundred capitalist years, we would all be living in poverty, without medical genius inventions, digging in the dirt for our next meal. The profit motive creates invention much better than a centrally planned economy ever could. Generous welfare entitlements rob man of the reason to work and the dignity thereof, as well as enslaves them into perpetual poverty.

Since 1964, we have spent nearly 10 trillion (not billion) (2003USD) dollars in the US in the war on poverty. Think of all the factories, jobs and paychecks that would have instead have created. But to you, we taxpayers are making the poor, poorer.

You are so wrong…as well as full of hate.

So in the last fifty or so years we have spent about 800 a year per person on the war on poverty last year we spent 2000 per person on the defense budget .

Here are some of the programs included in the fight against poverty: Medicaid, food stamps, supplementary security income, temporary assistance to needy families, child day-care payments, child nutrition payments, foster care, adoption assistance, and health insurance for children.(from the same website that came up with the 10Trillion number)

The poster apparently is against the Medicare that kept Schivaro alive, the food stamps that go to the working poor, the SSI for widows and children who lose a parent, adoption assistance and foster care that provide alternatives to abortion, day care that enables parents to work instead of collecting assistance. The WIC program that helps out the young mothers who don’t choose abortion and the other programs that help the least.

What a waste of money, give me a tank and a $600 toilet seat anyday .

Peace

 

[estesbob]

i think i agree that abortion is the most important moral issue of our time, but if i am deciding between candidate R and candidate D where R is nominally pro-life and D is nominally pro-choice i might find that neither one is at all likely to be able to do much to directly change the abortion situation in the US for the better. (I think that this is almost always the case in elections in the US.)

at that point i’ll have to go ahead and base my decision on other lesser but still very important moral issues like whether or not the candidate lied to get us to go to war or is screwing the poor at every opportunity or is otherwise likely to make the country less moral. i might even find that candidate D (in spite of his nominal pro-choice position) is actually more likely than candidate R to perpetuate the circumstances where women make the awful choice to abort.

rocinante

I notice you are not Catholic so I suspect the teachings of the church do not matter to you but I think they are absolutely correct on this issue. There is no way you can rationalize supporting abortion or empowering somebody who supports abortion with your vote. No issue or combination of issues rises to the level of abortion. It is an abject evil that is wrong in every case and can never be supported. The idea that it’s okay to vote for somebody who believes killing children is permissible because you think they might enact poverty programs you agree with is specious.

 

[estesbob]

no one is disputing the fact that abortion is immoral.

There sure are a lot of them every year for nobody believing there are immoral. The truth is abortion is a multibillion dollar a year industry. I’m always interested in how people rail against evil corporations interested in only making money while at the same time given a pass to an industry that makes vasts amount of money killing children

 

[Rocinante]

I notice you are not Catholic so I suspect the teachings of the church do not matter to you but I think they are absolutely correct on this issue. There is no way you can rationalize supporting abortion or empowering somebody who supports abortion with your vote. No issue or combination of issues rises to the level of abortion. It is an abject evil that is wrong in every case and can never be supported. The idea that it’s okay to vote for somebody who believes killing children is permissible because you think they might enact poverty programs you agree with is specious.

i keep saying that there is some nuance to this issue, and then you keep responding to my arguments simply by insisting that the issue is simple. you keep avoiding the points i’m making and basing your “simple” argument on misconceptions that i’ve been trying to dispel.

we agree, as i have repeatedly said, that it would be wrong to vote for someone who promotes the idea that killing children is morally permissible, but that isn’t generally the issue. in fact, i haven’t heard of any candidate who ever argued that abortion is not immoral. the political question is rather whether or not abortion ought to be legal.

whether or not abortion is immoral is indeed simple. but the legal issues are not so simple for a number of reasons.

before we talk about what those are, can you at least see that there is a difference between the question “is it immoral?” and “should it be illegal?” can we get past demonizing democrats in general as people who want to kill babies? if not, there is no reason to continue.

rocinante

 

[dmelosi]

i keep saying that there is some nuance to this issue, and then you keep responding to my arguments simply by insisting that the issue is simple. you keep avoiding the points i’m making and basing your “simple” argument on misconceptions that i’ve been trying to dispel.

we agree, as i have repeatedly said, that it would be wrong to vote for someone who promotes the idea that killing children is morally permissible, but that isn’t generally the issue. in fact, i haven’t heard of any candidate who ever argued that abortion is not immoral. the political question is rather whether or not abortion ought to be legal.

whether or not abortion is immoral is indeed simple. but the legal issues are not so simple for a number of reasons.

before we talk about what those are, can you at least see that there is a difference between the question “is it immoral?” and “should it be illegal?” can we get past demonizing democrats in general as people who want to kill babies? if not, there is no reason to continue.

rocinante

You keep missing the point…It never has been a question of people “saying” that they are for killing the most innocent. That has been disguised as being a choice. Although on the surface it easier to say they are supporting choice, rather than allowing this mass slaughter. You are trying to make this discussion something it is not. You can try to disguise it anyway you want. It is what it is, it is ok with you or it is not.

 

[onenow1]

You keep missing the point…It never has been a question of people “saying” that they are for killing the most innocent. That has been disguised as being a choice. Although on the surface it easier to say they are supporting choice, rather than allowing this mass slaughter. You are trying to make this discussion something it is not. You can try to disguise it anyway you want. It is what it is, it is ok with you or it is not.

DM

5th command: Thou shall not murder !

 

[estesbob]

i keep saying that there is some nuance to this issue, and then you keep responding to my arguments simply by insisting that the issue is simple. you keep avoiding the points i’m making and basing your “simple” argument on misconceptions that i’ve been trying to dispel.

The issue is quite simple. . Wrapping up infanticide in a nice little ribbon of “pro-choice” and " women’s rights" in no way diminishes its evil

 

[Rocinante]

The issue is quite simple. . Wrapping up infanticide in a nice little ribbon of “pro-choice” and " women’s rights" in no way diminishes its evil

yeah, i know it is evil. i don’t know how many times i need to say that until you’ll get it.

but there is more to the issue than simply admitting that abortion is evil. most people on both sides of the debate already agree that abortion is evil. so you are simply not adding anything to the conversation by repeatedly saying so. you are basically sticking you fingers in your ears and saying “la, la, la, i can’t hear you.” and you aren’t helping the cause in doing so.

 

[estesbob]

yeah, i know it is evil. i don’t know how many times i need to say that until you’ll get it.

but there is more to the issue than simply admitting that abortion is evil. most people on both sides of the debate already agree that abortion is evil. so you are simply not adding anything to the conversation by repeatedly saying so. you are basically sticking you fingers in your ears and saying “la, la, la, i can’t hear you.” and you aren’t helping the cause in doing so.

And that is where you’re wrong-people who support abortion are supporting evil. This is true whether they try to dress it up as supporting a woman’s right to choose or blaming society for the need for abortion. Evil is evil. You cannot support it directly or by empowering those who support it. It really is that simple.