Democrats... The Pro Life Party

[ricmat]

so to you, a use of a condom = murder?

My understanding of this is that there are 2 forms of “birth control.” One is abortion. In addition to the obvious, “the pill” works by preventing an embryo from implanting on the wall of the womb. Hence, this abortion is also considered murder of the innocent.

The types of birth control that prevent conception in the first place, such as condoms, are morally wrong, but not to the same degree as murder. In this case, you become the arbiter of when life begins, instead of God. You say to God, “I don’t care if you have a soul waiting for my partner and I to co-create a body for it.” You slap God in the face, so to speak.

By the way, the whole mindset of contraception - “I, mankind, can determine when life begins.” has led to the obvious corollary - “I, mankind, can determine when life ends.” Abortion. Euthanasia. Think about it.

 

[mary_bobo]

You gotta be kidding!!! When the president thinks he can fire lawyers in public service because he disagrees with them??? What is going to happen next?

Dear Lister: before you condemn one side or the other, please find out what you are talking about. The president has the power to fire any attorneys in the Justice Department any time and for whatever reason he/she wishes. It is done all the time.

Too bad schools don’t still teach civics. And this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Valke2]

Dear Lister: before you condemn one side or the other, please find out what you are talking about. The president has the power to fire any attorneys in the Justice Department any time and for whatever reason he/she wishes. It is done all the time.

Too bad schools don’t still teach civics. And this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

That’s not entirely true. Firing without administrative review of some sort is now done by relying on language contained in the patriot act. Before that, it was not done all the time.

 

[elvisman]

God is the real Judge. We can only judge according to our understanding, and often are wrong.

Then you don’t know the faith you are claiming is yours - the Catholic faith.
We are bound to accept the moral teachings the Magesterium of the Church. It is not up for debate.
As for whether or not the Church has the right to decide or judge somebody’s actions - Jesus said just the opposite (Matt. 18:15-18, Matt. 16:19, John 20:23). You’re wrong - HE’S right.
If you don’t believe in what Jesus said and refuse to accept His teachings, you have no claim to the Catholic Church.
Those aren’t my feelings, those are the mandates handed down by God to HIS Church

 

[Valke2]

Former officials, legal scholars and U.S. lawmakers from both parties have publicly questioned the administration’s stated rationale for the firings and have suggested troubling theories about the real reasons for the purge, which experts say is without precedent. Some former Justice Department officials say they believe the administration’s moves are a politically driven power grab – aimed not only at a tighter grip on policy from Washington, but also at creating openings with which to reward their friends and build up a bench of conservative loyalists positioned to serve in powerful posts in future administrations.

 

[dmelosi]

Were you this vocal when Reno fired 93?

Former officials, legal scholars and U.S. lawmakers from both parties have publicly questioned the administration’s stated rationale for the firings and have suggested troubling theories about the real reasons for the purge, which experts say is without precedent. Some former Justice Department officials say they believe the administration’s moves are a politically driven power grab – aimed not only at a tighter grip on policy from Washington, but also at creating openings with which to reward their friends and build up a bench of conservative loyalists positioned to serve in powerful posts in future administrations.

 

[aimee]

You gotta be kidding!!! When the president thinks he can fire lawyers in public service because he disagrees with them??? What is going to happen next?

They serve at the pleasure of the president and can be let go for any reason. Just like all the presidents before President Bush,they clear the slate and start over, President Clinton did the same.

 

[2shelbys]

Former officials, legal scholars and U.S. lawmakers from both parties have publicly questioned the administration’s stated rationale for the firings and have suggested troubling theories about the real reasons for the purge, which experts say is without precedent. Some former Justice Department officials say they believe the administration’s moves are a politically driven power grab – aimed not only at a tighter grip on policy from Washington, but also at creating openings with which to reward their friends and build up a bench of conservative loyalists positioned to serve in powerful posts in future administrations.

If you are gullible enough to believe the media nonsense. If, on the other hand, you actually read and research and think for yourself you have far less reason to think this is anything suspicous. They reviewed the actions of these 8 people for 2 years before acting. The Clinton administration on the other hand, fired ALL 93 attorneys immediately after taking office and gave them ten days to vacate. I’ll bet you didn’t have any problem with that at all in spite of the obvious political intent, the outrageous burden placed on the judiciary committee to review and decide on replacements, and the outrageous burden placed on the FBI to rush through backgound checks in order to replace the entire U.S. Attorney base all at one time. There were some districts that had no U.S. attorney for months after the Clinton/Reno firings and that was not thought to be the least bit taxing or obstructive but the carefully researched firing of only 8 is somehow a huge transgression. It is so sad that there are people that actually fall for this stuff.

 

[2shelbys]

**Then you don’t know the faith you are claiming is yours - the Catholic **faith.
We are bound to accept the moral teachings the Magesterium of the Church. It is not up for debate.
**As for whether or not the Church has the right to decide or judge somebody’s actions - Jesus said just the opposite (Matt. 18:15-18, Matt. 16:19, John 20:23). **You’re wrong - HE’S right.
If you don’t believe in what Jesus said and refuse to accept His teachings, you have no claim to the Catholic Church.
Those aren’t my feelings, those are the mandates handed down by God to HIS Church

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[YADA]

Never forget the old adage that “Statistics don’t lie but liers use statistics”

The opening poster stated that abortions go up under republicans and down during democratic terms. This is one of those mis-uses of statistics. As I remember the issue; raw statistics on abortion illustrated an increase in Bush’s presidency causing people to hail Clinton [Mr. I vetoed the ban on partial birth abortion] as being more pro life than Bush.

What was left out was any adjustment for how the data was reported and what data was collected. Different laws and regulations impact what information is collected and who has to report abortion data, whether reporting is voluntary or compulsary. Other factors that impact the numbers are the laws that regulate the behavior. When the data was analyzed in context the abortion rate was actually determined to be a continuation of the downward trend. I wish I had the actual statictics to cite.

I have to research this but it made a big splash in the news a couple of years ago. the big splash did not last long as the “statistics” used were put into proper perspective…

I am not sure if Oregon Right to Life has archives and I have moved three times since this came out, do not know if I can find my news article or not…Had to show it to my parish priest at the time as he commeented at a meeting that Bush was responsible for an increase in abortions…which he later had to acknowledge was wrong…

 

[2shelbys]

Never forget the old adage that “Statistics don’t lie but liers use statistics”

The opening poster stated that abortions go up under republicans and down during democratic terms. This is one of those mis-uses of statistics. As I remember the issue; raw statistics on abortion illustrated an increase in Bush’s presidency causing people to hail Clinton [Mr. I vetoed the ban on partial birth abortion] as being more pro life than Bush.

What was left out was any adjustment for how the data was reported and what data was collected. Different laws and regulations impact what information is collected and who has to report abortion data, whether reporting is voluntary or compulsary. Other factors that impact the numbers are the laws that regulate the behavior. When the data was analyzed in context the abortion rate was actually determined to be a continuation of the downward trend. I wish I had the actual statictics to cite.

I have to research this but it made a big splash in the news a couple of years ago. the big splash did not last long as the “statistics” used were put into proper perspective…

I am not sure if Oregon Right to Life has archives and I have moved three times since this came out, do not know if I can find my news article or not…Had to show it to my parish priest at the time as he commeented at a meeting that Bush was responsible for an increase in abortions…which he later had to acknowledge was wrong…

Now here is someone who reads, researches, and thinks for themself.

 

[VociMike]

Valke2, you still haven’t shown a source, so I’ll show my skepticism by saying that it’d have to be demostrated in multiple Republican & multiple Democratic presidencies (just so you’ll no that there’s a trend) - and even then I doubt I’d fully believe it because I’m positive that there’d be other factors at work. Over all though the Republicans are the one’s trying to protect life. And if we get a few more good judges on the SCOTUS we’ll be doing alright.

Catholig

Abortion numbers in 2003 were the lowest since 1976 (when they rose sharply for four years). Anybody want to check who was in power from 1976-1980, and in 2003?

 

[mary_bobo]

If you are gullible enough to believe the media nonsense. If, on the other hand, you actually read and research and think for yourself you have far less reason to think this is anything suspicous. They reviewed the actions of these 8 people for 2 years before acting. The Clinton administration on the other hand, fired ALL 93 attorneys immediately after taking office and gave them ten days to vacate. I’ll bet you didn’t have any problem with that at all in spite of the obvious political intent, the outrageous burden placed on the judiciary committee to review and decide on replacements, and the outrageous burden placed on the FBI to rush through backgound checks in order to replace the entire U.S. Attorney base all at one time. There were some districts that had no U.S. attorney for months after the Clinton/Reno firings and that was not thought to be the least bit taxing or obstructive but the carefully researched firing of only 8 is somehow a huge transgression. It is so sad that there are people that actually fall for this stuff.

Well done. And by the way, were these firings before or after the mass firings at the WH travel office, accusing employees there of things that were later to be proven untrue. The reason, to put in place cronies of the Clintons who ran a travel agency. And the travel office folks are not political at all, they just make arrangements.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Abortion numbers in 2003 were the lowest since 1976 (when they rose sharply for four years). Anybody want to check who was in power from 1976-1980, and in 2003?

Misleading information. The increase was attributed to the Roe vs Wade Supreme Court vote in 1973.

1973 ____ 744,600
1974_____ 898,600
1975_____ 1,034,200
1976_____ 1,179,300
1977_____ 1,316,700
1978_____ 1,409,600
1979_____ 1,497,700

 

[VociMike]

Misleading information. The increase was attributed to the Roe vs Wade Supreme Court vote in 1973.

Or maybe health care was just getting worse. The late 70s were a time of high inflation, remember.

The real point is, there are a thousand different factors that have affected the number of abortions in a given year, and to paint it as a democrats vs. republicans issue, even in part, is a ridiculous grasping at straws. It is literally playing politics with dead babies.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Or maybe health care was just getting worse. The late 70s were a time of high inflation, remember.

The real point is, there are a thousand different factors that have affected the number of abortions in a given year, and to paint it as a democrats vs. republicans issue, even in part, is a ridiculous grasping at straws. It is literally playing politics with dead babies.

I never said I agree with Valke on his statistics.

The number of abortions per year in the US is relatively constant and is showing a downward trend. Meanwhile the Census has shown a non-linear increase in population.

The number of Abortions per Capita is on a serious decline.

Want some numbers?

 

[JoeyWarren]

It’s a numbers racket.

One side can look at from the total number of Abortions

while

the other side can view it from a per capita (percentage) stance.

In either case both numbers show a trending decline while one has a shallow slope, the other has a steep slope.

 

[Valke2]

My understanding of this is that there are 2 forms of “birth control.” One is abortion. In addition to the obvious, “the pill” works by preventing an embryo from implanting on the wall of the womb. Hence, this abortion is also considered murder of the innocent.

The types of birth control that prevent conception in the first place, such as condoms, are morally wrong, but not to the same degree as murder. In this case, you become the arbiter of when life begins, instead of God. You say to God, “I don’t care if you have a soul waiting for my partner and I to co-create a body for it.” You slap God in the face, so to speak.

By the way, the whole mindset of contraception - “I, mankind, can determine when life begins.” has led to the obvious corollary - “I, mankind, can determine when life ends.” Abortion. Euthanasia. Think about it.

How is that different than just pulling out or using the rythm method? In both cases you are still the “arbiter of life”
I see no connection between contraception and Euthanasia. The connection between contraception and abortion is more plausible. But the turth is that as long as there have been women getting pregnant there have been people looking for ways to end pregnacies.

 

[Valke2]

Or maybe health care was just getting worse. The late 70s were a time of high inflation, remember.

The real point is, there are a thousand different factors that have affected the number of abortions in a given year, and to paint it as a democrats vs. republicans issue, even in part, is a ridiculous grasping at straws. It is literally playing politics with dead babies.

well then, I’m in good company. Because everytime the abortion issue is raised it is a matter of playing politics with dead babies (or fetuses if you are on the other side).

 

[kangnamdragon]

Or maybe health care was just getting worse. The late 70s were a time of high inflation, remember.

The real point is, there are a thousand different factors that have affected the number of abortions in a given year, and to paint it as a democrats vs. republicans issue, even in part, is a ridiculous grasping at straws. It is literally playing politics with dead babies.

I have to disagree with this because the Republican Party’s official position is pro-life. The Democrat Party is officially pro-choice. There is an obvious difference.