I
- Status
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi Pnewton,
Your point was not missed. It just pales when compared with the butchered bodies as we debate if the Church really does condemn abortion but approves us voting for those who actively support it.
You may have missed the fact that this focus is on the upcoming election - and no lack of courtesy or denial of dignity was certainly intended. There was also no allowing unsubtantiated remarks to go unchallenged. As I see it the issue is establishing a hierarchy of values… you’ve determined yours and I have determined mine. I suggest you consider that as you lead whatever civility crusade you are on by showing the necessary example of how you provide dignity and charity to others who do not agree with you.
And just to make sure we are all focused on the most pressing reality, this election is in 56 days,
God bless
Your point was not missed. It just pales when compared with the butchered bodies as we debate if the Church really does condemn abortion but approves us voting for those who actively support it.
You may have missed the fact that this focus is on the upcoming election - and no lack of courtesy or denial of dignity was certainly intended. There was also no allowing unsubtantiated remarks to go unchallenged. As I see it the issue is establishing a hierarchy of values… you’ve determined yours and I have determined mine. I suggest you consider that as you lead whatever civility crusade you are on by showing the necessary example of how you provide dignity and charity to others who do not agree with you.
And just to make sure we are all focused on the most pressing reality, this election is in 56 days,
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Ishii,
Actually, I think your post was quite correct.
Ah, but not ‘politically correct’ … and that may generate some uncharitable words designed to enforce charity by never disagreeing with what anyone else said - no matter how inane.
But, that’s just my opinion.
Admittedly, it probably is a lot to ask someone to imagine millions of butchered unborn babies on one side of a balance scale - and the concerns of Pro-Obama Catholics on the other side. I have trouble myself … it seems like these murdered children just prevent those other concerns from even moving the balance beam.
God bless
Actually, I think your post was quite correct.
Ah, but not ‘politically correct’ … and that may generate some uncharitable words designed to enforce charity by never disagreeing with what anyone else said - no matter how inane.
But, that’s just my opinion.Admittedly, it probably is a lot to ask someone to imagine millions of butchered unborn babies on one side of a balance scale - and the concerns of Pro-Obama Catholics on the other side. I have trouble myself … it seems like these murdered children just prevent those other concerns from even moving the balance beam.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Je333,
You know, those annoying people who will not drop the fact that State Senator Obama favored infanticide - are at it again! Imagine!! I guess surviving an abortion sometimes just isn’t goodd enough - there is someone out there who really does want to take someone’s life - and just because they missed the first time does not mean they can not have another try.
This time, they had an abortion survivor tell her side of the story. Here is that link: lifenews.com/2012/09/11/ad-exposing-obamas-pro-infanticide-views-hits-250000-on-youtube/
Hey, but I am not one to get all mushy about such obvious sentementality - no way! Here is a link to the obviously unbiased Washington Post - for a genuine ‘fact check’ to make sure everything goes correctly his way. Here is that link:
lifenews.com/2012/09/11/washington-post-fact-checker-abortion-surviver-wasnt-discarded/
And, there it is - the future President of the US making war on those who had the nerve to not die when they should have!
But, in case you are not interested in this material, let me recommend it to the others on this post. It really does take Obama’s argument and measures its worth. And for those Catholics who consider Obama a worthy Candidate - maybe here is your chance to see another side of the ‘Abrotionist-in-Chief’.
God bless
God bless
You know, those annoying people who will not drop the fact that State Senator Obama favored infanticide - are at it again! Imagine!! I guess surviving an abortion sometimes just isn’t goodd enough - there is someone out there who really does want to take someone’s life - and just because they missed the first time does not mean they can not have another try.
This time, they had an abortion survivor tell her side of the story. Here is that link: lifenews.com/2012/09/11/ad-exposing-obamas-pro-infanticide-views-hits-250000-on-youtube/
Hey, but I am not one to get all mushy about such obvious sentementality - no way! Here is a link to the obviously unbiased Washington Post - for a genuine ‘fact check’ to make sure everything goes correctly his way. Here is that link:
lifenews.com/2012/09/11/washington-post-fact-checker-abortion-surviver-wasnt-discarded/
And, there it is - the future President of the US making war on those who had the nerve to not die when they should have!
But, in case you are not interested in this material, let me recommend it to the others on this post. It really does take Obama’s argument and measures its worth. And for those Catholics who consider Obama a worthy Candidate - maybe here is your chance to see another side of the ‘Abrotionist-in-Chief’.
God bless
God bless
Hello tqualey! No, Obama does not favored infanticide. It’s a dubious and dishonest politics. Surviving infants are already protected under current laws. Obama’s pro life stance is on health care and education, support and protection for the environment, helping the poor and the needy, caring for the sick.
Yes, I agree that professing is not equal to practicing one’s faith. How do I determine this while one seems to be very vocal about his faith and the other seems secular is to ask the ultimate question, WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE FATHER AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD and who among the 2 candidates already possessed it and putting that into action. And which candidate Jesus would most likely work with? Those are the things that comes to mind when I cast my vote…
P
pnewton
Guest
Hermaneutic of discontinuity? Yes, I know the date of this election, which is neither the first or the last.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
The idea that Republican Presidents appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices is a myth, because there are not any pro-life justices on the court. Every Republican appointee has stated that women have a right to abortion.
Justice Scalia, often cited as the conservative justice par excellence, has expressed his opinion that unborn children don’t have a right to life on numerous occasions.
Pax Christi
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Pnewton,
Maybe if you spent less time sniping and a bit more just looking at what you can do to make a difference in 56 days, the thread we share would have more of an impact where it really counts - like who will sit in the Oval Office this January.
And notice, I did all that in plain English.
God bless
Maybe if you spent less time sniping and a bit more just looking at what you can do to make a difference in 56 days, the thread we share would have more of an impact where it really counts - like who will sit in the Oval Office this January.
And notice, I did all that in plain English.
God bless
I
ishii
Guest
J
JimG
Guest
Justice Scalia has said that Roe v Wade should be overturned.
I have not heard him say that unborn children do not have a right to life. What I have heard him say is that the term “person” as used in the Constitution does not apply to the unborn because there is no legislative history of that. He is a rather strict constructionist. He believes that the words of the Constitution mean what those who wrote them intended them to mean, and those who wrote the Constitution used the term “person” to apply to those alread born.
He also belevies that there is NO ‘right to abortion’ anywhere in the Constitution, and that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. He believes that matter is and should be for state legislatures to decide.
The Court had no business inserting a right to abortion that was never there.
I
ishii
Guest
Back up your accusations with facts please. Otherwise its just a lot of noise.
Technically speaking, a justice doesn’t have to be “pro-life” to have a profound affect on the number of abortions that happen in this country. All the justice has to do is be a constructionist - that is, believe that the “right to privacy” that is the basis for Roe V Wade doesn’t exist in the constitution.
Ishii
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Justice Kennedy was part of the majority in PP vs Casey which upheld Roe.
In their PP vs Casey dissent, Justices Scalia and Thomas found:
“The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”
In Gonzales vs Carhart, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito and Justice Kennedy found:
“Before viability, a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy.”
So that is all 5 Republican appointees finding in their Supreme Court opinions that an unborn child does not have a right to live.
Outside of his work on the bench, Scalia’s remarks include these:
“My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons.”
and
“I read texts. I’m always reading a text and trying to give it the fairest interpretation possible. That’s all I do. How can my religious views have anything to do with that? They can make me leave the bench if I find that I’m enmeshed in an immoral operation, but the only one of my religious views that has anything to do with my job as a judge is the seventh commandment – thou shalt not lie. I try to observe that faithfully, but other than that I don’t think any of my religious views have anything to do with how I do my job as a judge.
As I made clear in my remarks, I will strike down Roe v. Wade, but I will also strike down a law that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade. You know, both sides in that debate want the Supreme Court to decide the matter for them. One wants no state to be able to prohibit abortion and the other one wants every state to have to prohibit abortion, and they’re both wrong, not because of my religious views but because that’s how I read the Constitution. It says nothing on the subject, whatever my religious views on the subject are, and I have religious views on the subject. But they have nothing whatever to do with my job.”
and
“You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law.”
So in Scalia’s “originalist” world, the will of man trumps the will of God, and “Thou shalt not kill” is simply inadmissable hearsay. Is there any difference between child murder being sanctioned by a majority of judges and child murder being sanctioned by a majority of legislators or voters?
Pax
P
pnewton
Guest
I see no logic as to why this would be the case, which is why I try to think further than just the next two months, or the next four years. The problem of abortion is rooted in utilitarian philosophy which took root even before Roe v. Wade. We can’t just whack it with a weed eater when the root is what needs to be killed. People here have addressed the allowance of abortion in the case of rape as being the lesser evil. While this is true, I am actually more concerned about the utilitarian philosophy of the Republican ticket. While it still is the obvious lesser evil (to me) I am skeptical of its impact on actually addressing why we have abortion.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
An excellent point.
The decision of most in the pro-life movement to focus exclusively on abortion and ignore things like divorce, contraception, and pornography has been incredibly damaging to any prospects for success. In addition, the decision to largely operate as secular political activists instead of Catholic evangelists has also been a big problem.
Pax Christi
I
ishii
Guest
I agree with what you’re saying - abortion is rooted in utilitarian philosophy, materialism, and selfishness to name a few. Your comments remind me that our problems are not just political but more spiritual. But its possible that what happens politically can have an effect on people, if in a small way: I think keeping abortion legal and available on any street helps reinforce a coarse, indifferent attitude toward the sanctity of life - “its legal, isn’t it so what’s the big deal?” Conversely, perhaps the overturning of Roe V Wade and the subsequent reform of the laws in several states (mostly midwest and southern) will cause people to reconsider. I have no illusions about what we are up against, and that there are deep seated reasons for why abortion and utilitarianism is tolerated so much. Still, I think we have an obligation to push for laws that reflect the sanctity of life. Electing Romney, overturning Roe V Wade would be just the beginning. Even if we are unsure the effectiveness of the political efforts, we still need to push for them, imo.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
Well, we have to choose our battles, somewhat. Millions are aborted every year- I think trying to save the unborn takes precedence over dealing with the other issues you mention, which are important as well, but are not as urgent as the abortion issue. Or better yet, why do we only have to focus on one of the issues? Its not a matter of either/or is it?
Ishii
J
jediliz
Guest
The republican party added an anti pornography stance to their party’s plank or whatever it’s called.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
No it is not a matter of either or. We can indeed walk and chew gum at the same time. Or at least we should be. My point is that a society with widespread divorce, contraception, and pornography will naturally also be a society with abortion. As the Church has taught in Casti Connubi and Humanae Vitae, contraception leads to abortion. It is the pro-life movement which has largely decided to make it an “either/or” effort by focusing solely on abortion and refusing (again for the most part, there are exceptions) to engage politically on the problems of divorce, contreception, pornography, etc. In many ways this is like working to bail out the water in the bottom of your canoe but never working to patch up the hole that causes the flooding in the first place.
Pax
I
ishii
Guest
I see your point, but the pro-life movement does all sorts of good things - witness at clinics, provide supplies and counseling for crisis pregnancies. I think that its very basic that our laws should reflect the sanctity of life. Eliminating (or decreasing) divorce, pornography, contraception, etc. will take who knows how long. The battle against those has to be fought on different fronts and different ways. But we ought to also work to reform our abortion laws. It has to be both.
Ishii
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I think we’re in agreement. I think that the failure to work on multiple things at the same time (when was the last time you saw a pro-life group ask a political candidate what their position contraception or divorce was?) hamstrings the effort to outlaw abortion.
Pax
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Dan Daly,
Thank you for this information, I was really unaware of Justice Scalia’s comments.
Assuming that these are as stated: neither abortion or any other kind of murder is put into the Constitution, then how can a law that would allow fraud be found uncostitutional because ‘Thou shalt not steal’ is not in the Consitution, either?
God bless
Thank you for this information, I was really unaware of Justice Scalia’s comments.
Assuming that these are as stated: neither abortion or any other kind of murder is put into the Constitution, then how can a law that would allow fraud be found uncostitutional because ‘Thou shalt not steal’ is not in the Consitution, either?
God bless
- Status