M
mikew262
Guest
Here we go with the Holocaust comparisons again.
Do you think that a Catholic who supports a pro-choice candidate is a heretic?
- Status
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Here we go with denying that the Nazi Holocaust (which killed about 12 million innocemt people) can be compared with our Holocaust which has killed four times as many/Here we go with the Holocaust comparisons again.
F
fix
Guest
So, which issues are of greater weight than abortion?
M
mary_bobo
Guest
And what is what the candidate stands for is in opposition to what his/her party stands for? Also, I don’t think the war was the only main issue in the last election. It is just the one the MSM wants us to focus on.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
The big problem I see is the lack of inclusion of the political parties to which the candidates belong. One voice in the wilderness itn’s going to overcome the powerful “powers that be”.
Don’t think you can acquaint this issue with religion interferring in politics. One knows what the teaching of the Church is on this matter. It is always fascinating to see how folks can giggle words and come to the conclusion that they can do whatever they wish because some other issues are more to their liking than abortion.
M
mikew262
Guest
I didn’t think I needed to spell this out any further, but here goes.
Let say there are 15 issues that the country is most concerned about ranging from taxes, to abortion, to the position on terrorism.
If I agree with 14 of the positions of the candidate and disagree with his/her position on Abortion, guess what? I’m voting for him/her. While I may disagree with the Abortion position, I also realize one person is not very likely to sway the issue one way or another, however the other 14 issues I deem important to the future of this country at least will probably be voted on the way I approve of.
Now lets take the opposite view, I vote for a candidate who shares my views on Abortion, but takes an opposite view to me on the other 14 positions. How silly is that?
Now in my case, I’m a conservative politically, so most likely this scenario will never take place, but it could.
M
mikew262
Guest
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Mike, how likely is it that a candidate will be pro-life and** not** also espouse other human rights issues?
When it comes down to it, abortion is a human rights issue above everything else.
And equally, when it comes right down to it, it doesn’t matter if we have somehow a candidate A, who ‘theoretically’ espouses all the ‘goodies’ but is into abortion ‘rights’ ,and candidate B is ‘only’ for stopping abortion but doesn’t seem to care about the environment.
Without the fundamental human right to life, you’ve already sold out. Who is the one benefiting from candidate A–the born, perhaps, but the unborn absolutely and uncategorically not.
With candidate B, we might not have the happy workers et–at least, not immediately anyway-- but we’ll have millions of people saved from certain death. The former group may not have a bunch of ‘goodies’ in their life, but the latter now enjoy the chance to **have ** a life.
The whole fanciful and in fact close to absurd scenario you give, mike, is based on the idea that a bunch of admittedly nice, or even just, things ‘trump’ the right to life of any given individual. It’s the old ‘quality of life’ sleight-of-hand. . .after all, isn’t it more important that the people you ‘see’ have good jobs instead of saving some unseen unborn person have the opportunity–which for all of us involves good as well as bad, sorrow as well as joy, suffering as well as enjoyment–to life?
Isn’t it a teaching --that one cannot ‘do evil in order to achieve good?’
The ends don’t justify the means. Not even for a candidate who gives you 14 out of 15 ‘goods’, but will not stop the holocaust of abortion.
When it comes down to it, abortion is a human rights issue above everything else.
And equally, when it comes right down to it, it doesn’t matter if we have somehow a candidate A, who ‘theoretically’ espouses all the ‘goodies’ but is into abortion ‘rights’ ,and candidate B is ‘only’ for stopping abortion but doesn’t seem to care about the environment.
Without the fundamental human right to life, you’ve already sold out. Who is the one benefiting from candidate A–the born, perhaps, but the unborn absolutely and uncategorically not.
With candidate B, we might not have the happy workers et–at least, not immediately anyway-- but we’ll have millions of people saved from certain death. The former group may not have a bunch of ‘goodies’ in their life, but the latter now enjoy the chance to **have ** a life.
The whole fanciful and in fact close to absurd scenario you give, mike, is based on the idea that a bunch of admittedly nice, or even just, things ‘trump’ the right to life of any given individual. It’s the old ‘quality of life’ sleight-of-hand. . .after all, isn’t it more important that the people you ‘see’ have good jobs instead of saving some unseen unborn person have the opportunity–which for all of us involves good as well as bad, sorrow as well as joy, suffering as well as enjoyment–to life?
Isn’t it a teaching --that one cannot ‘do evil in order to achieve good?’
The ends don’t justify the means. Not even for a candidate who gives you 14 out of 15 ‘goods’, but will not stop the holocaust of abortion.
A
a_cermak
Guest
Can I point out a big difference here? The Jews, Gypsies, etc. were killed by the German government. The US government is not doing the killing here. The women choosing to abort those 40 mil or so children did so after weighing their options and deciding what was best for themselves. I would say that’s a big, big difference between the Holocaust and Abortion.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
That’s your big difference?
Yeah, you’re right – only a few Germans actually pushed the Jews into the gas chambers. Millions of Americans have personally murdered innocent children.
That – plus the numbers – makes us worse than the Nazis. And it means those who tacitly support abortion under the “pro-choice” rubric are worse than those who watched the cattle cars full of starving Jews roll by and did nothing.
A
a_cermak
Guest
Another difference is that the children being aborted, for the most part in the first trimester, are reliant upon their mother being willing to carry them to term. The law of the land is that if she is not willing to do that, the child will be killed. That’s because we have no technology to keep them alive or even extract them in one piece. What the supreme court ruled is that women have a right to privacy and a property rights interest in their own body. It’s why in most states it’s a heck of a lot harder to get an abortion at 7 months of gestation (as it should be) because one can merely choose a C-section at that point and the child will likely be OK.
How do you undo Roe without also undoing the proposition that women have a property rights interest in their own body?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Now there’s a classical pro-abortion argument for you!!
Bodies and property rights are entirely two different things. Do men have a “property rights interest” in their own bodies?
I
Iowa_Mike
Guest
A Jewish Scholar wrote a book about the holocost. I think the name of it is “Hitler’s Willing Executioners”. This book answers the question of whether or not the German populous was aware of what was going on. The answer was a resounding Yes. It took hundreds of thousands of Germans to run the machinery that killed the Jews. The book made it clear that these people by and large knew exactly what was going on and the author provides many, many examples to support his findings. In one case the German soldiers brought their girlfriends with them to a village. They locked all the Jews in a barn and set it on fire. Their girlfriends looked on as the German soldiers made sure no one escaped and watched as the Jews burned to death.
If you think about it…we fought WWII to stop Hitler from killing innocent people including Jews, Catholics, political opponents, the elderly, handicapped and mental defectives, etc. What a difference 60 years makes. Today, with the blessing of various governments and while billions look on, we are aborting babies by the millions and euthanizing the elderly and mentally ill. In my humble opinion what is happening today is much more egregious than what the German’s did and it’s getting worse. Life is cheap.
Common sense has always supported the contention that life begins at conception. Now technological developments are all breaking in support of this contention.
Iowa Mike
F
fix
Guest
So, the one who supports abortion is to be seen as having no influence on the matter and holds that position simply as a gesture? He/she may one day be in a position to directly influence the matter and you will have aided his/her rise to such a position.
J
jman507
Guest
Let’s add this too, when does the rights of that life overule the rights of property? And is this life the property of the mother?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I guess that I just cannot understand how anyone in this country can put ‘any’ issue (such as taxes, terrorism, etc.) ‘over’ the issue of the fundamental human right to life.
Lower taxes are more important than a child’s right to life?
The position of a candidate on ‘terrorism’ (and all its nebulous and quite frankly contradictory corrolaries such as “bin Laden” dead or alive? Iraq or Afghanistan or other? North Korea or Iran sanctions or not?) is more important than a child’s right to life?
People can actually say, and think, such things with absolutely no moral qualms? People in the U.S. have gone so far into modernism and relativism that they no longer recognize the sanctity of life and have substituted in its stead exactly what they fought against 60 years ago–a regime which was responsible for the deaths of millions in ‘choosing’ a race deemed ‘unsuitable’ to live --and now in the U.S. we deem unborn unchildren ‘unsuitable’ to live unless we choose to permit them to be born?
And we can smugly pat outselves on the back because ‘we’ find abortion ‘repugnant’ (although we will scurry around trying to find euphemistic terms so that we don’t presume to judge those who don’t ‘believe’ otherwise). I’m sure that there were plenty of people–not just Germans, BTW, but Poles, Austrians, even French and Italians and most certainly Americans as well–who knew what was going on during the Holocaust years but, while they personally wouldn’t ‘choose’ to kill the Jews, they didn’t do anything to stop it, even when they had a chance to do something as ‘little’ as speak up about it–and thought they were just as moral as those who play the “I’m personally against abortion but would not judge others” card.
Lower taxes are more important than a child’s right to life?
The position of a candidate on ‘terrorism’ (and all its nebulous and quite frankly contradictory corrolaries such as “bin Laden” dead or alive? Iraq or Afghanistan or other? North Korea or Iran sanctions or not?) is more important than a child’s right to life?
People can actually say, and think, such things with absolutely no moral qualms? People in the U.S. have gone so far into modernism and relativism that they no longer recognize the sanctity of life and have substituted in its stead exactly what they fought against 60 years ago–a regime which was responsible for the deaths of millions in ‘choosing’ a race deemed ‘unsuitable’ to live --and now in the U.S. we deem unborn unchildren ‘unsuitable’ to live unless we choose to permit them to be born?
And we can smugly pat outselves on the back because ‘we’ find abortion ‘repugnant’ (although we will scurry around trying to find euphemistic terms so that we don’t presume to judge those who don’t ‘believe’ otherwise). I’m sure that there were plenty of people–not just Germans, BTW, but Poles, Austrians, even French and Italians and most certainly Americans as well–who knew what was going on during the Holocaust years but, while they personally wouldn’t ‘choose’ to kill the Jews, they didn’t do anything to stop it, even when they had a chance to do something as ‘little’ as speak up about it–and thought they were just as moral as those who play the “I’m personally against abortion but would not judge others” card.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t most places have laws against suicide? That would seem to say that even the law realizes that we do not have the right to do whatever we want with our bodies. Or does suicide fall under “destruction of private property” laws?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Well, lots of people are working about this too, Joe. For example, here in Vermont the legislature is considering (and many activists are pushing for) a bill for assisted suicide (like Oregon) which of course is given a cuddly, warm fuzzy title like “Death with Dignity”.
M
mikew262
Guest
I would hope so.
- Status