R
rlg94086
Guest
Exactly. And, I’m sure that Rich has never met a Democrat who voted for a pro-choice candidate (e.g. Hillary Clinton) because they “care as much about the living as the unborn.”
- Status
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Re-read your posts. It’s a lot of emotional opinion IMO. If you really believe that it is fact, then go and so believe. I don’t.
I’d keep away from implying an ad hominem, and if you push the point, I’ll go line for line with you about the great world you claim you inhabit in comparison to my world.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Try not to make silly statements. Sure, I know pro-choice Democrats, and not a few pro-choice Republicans. I also know pro-life Dems and even some pro-life GOPers.Exactly. And, I’m sure that Rich has never met a Democrat who voted for a pro-choice candidate (e.g. Hillary Clinton) because they “care as much about the living as the unborn.”
R
rlg94086
Guest
You is? That’s wonderful. We all should be. Jesus called us all to be charitable to the poor.Your choice and a valid one. I myself are involved in a number of programs as a donor to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, visit the imprisoned, etc. You know, some of the things Jesus asked us to do.
Now, what does that have to do with the fundamental right to life? Why is caring for the poor to be lumped into political movements whose purpose is to make the taking of innocent human life illegal versus political movements who wish to preserve and/or expand the right of people to kill innocents?
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Well, for one, if you are quite poor, you may not be able to feed your family and the ailments associated with malnutrition can kill your children as easily as anything else will. Caring for the poor can be a pro-life position IMO.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Indeed. And, you are a pro-life Democrat, correct? What was your reason for supporting Hillary Clinton for president? Try not to make any silly statements in your response…
R
rlg94086
Guest
As I said, I have no problem with people using “pro-life” in regards to caring for the poor. No innocents get harmed when caring for the poor. My problem is when liberals use that to justify voting pro-choice. It is done all the time.
E
estesbob
Guest
I see the standard pro-abortion tactic of dragging people into endless semantics arguments has successfully hijacked this thread. Easier to argue about the meaning of “pro-choice” than it is to defend supporting evil
R
rlg94086
Guest
Not to mention the argument that “live” and “life” aren’t related.
…oops…I mentioned it.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
I most honestly believed that she was the best possible candidate for the Office based on her credentials and experience; better than Obama virtually in infinite measure, and better than McCain and Ms. Palin by far. I had no illusions. I was certain that a McCain presidency would not see an end to abortion while he was in office just as I knew I’d see no change either if Sen. Clinton were President.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Their problem, not mine. They can ride that excuse to Hell for all I care.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Just a correction, folks, that Cardinal Bernardin’s statements are not thinly veiled socialism. They do not endorse specific policies for compassion and protection of the born. They merely are comprehensive endorsements for promotion of Life in all stages, which is the same phrase officially used by the Church: “from conception to natural death.”
I have not seen any evidence that the late Cardinal Bernardin was a socialist. And because he was a man of heroic virtue (forgiving his offender directly and with embrace, as did JP2), he is in fact on the way to canonization; the process is in place. If his moral views were non-canonical, his Cause would not have even reached this far.
Catholics may legitimately and morally disagree on the means for compassion and protection of the born. And it should never be an either/or. (I do respect the ‘innocence’ issue; just saying that Bernardin correctly asserted that stopping with births is insufficient when it comes to the application of Catholic doctrine.) His point was that the passion about Life should be sustained, that’s all. And he himself beautifully demonstrated that, as a model for all of us. Surely I don’t forgive those who have wronged me, and less seriously so, as graciously and immediately as he did.
I have not seen any evidence that the late Cardinal Bernardin was a socialist. And because he was a man of heroic virtue (forgiving his offender directly and with embrace, as did JP2), he is in fact on the way to canonization; the process is in place. If his moral views were non-canonical, his Cause would not have even reached this far.
Catholics may legitimately and morally disagree on the means for compassion and protection of the born. And it should never be an either/or. (I do respect the ‘innocence’ issue; just saying that Bernardin correctly asserted that stopping with births is insufficient when it comes to the application of Catholic doctrine.) His point was that the passion about Life should be sustained, that’s all. And he himself beautifully demonstrated that, as a model for all of us. Surely I don’t forgive those who have wronged me, and less seriously so, as graciously and immediately as he did.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Mental gymnastics used for voting pro-choice. Spoken like a true “pro-life” Democrat.
Many Catholics used the same reasons to vote for Obama, and guess what? There were changes to abortion law…for the worse.
M
Mickey
Guest
Now this is surely an opinion…of yours. Let me break it down for you again. A child is being killed in the womb. The pro-abortion side calls it “pro-choice.” It is a choice to kill a child…a child who does not have a choice. The correct description is pro-abortion or pro-death. This is fact.
I do…and I shall.
Obviously.
Lawyers do not intimidate me.
I will continue to fight for the defenseless children in the womb who are being murdered by the hundreds of thousands…and I will oppose those pro-abortion groups who try to hide under the guise of sugar-coated language such as “pro-choice.”
Everyone will face the fearsome judgement seat of Christ . Be watchful.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Thank you for that. As in many cases (e.g. Vatican II), it sounds like it wasn’t what the Cardinal said; it was in the interpretation and use by others.Just a correction, folks, that Cardinal Bernardin’s statements are not thinly veiled socialism. They do not endorse specific policies for compassion and protection of the born. They merely are comprehensive endorsements for promotion of Life in all stages, which is the same phrase officially used by the Church: “from conception to natural death.”
I have not seen any evidence that the late Cardinal Bernardin was a socialist. And because he was a man of heroic virtue (forgiving his offender directly and with embrace, as did JP2), he is in fact on the way to canonization; the process is in place. If his moral views were non-canonical, his Cause would not have even reached this far.
Catholics may legitimately and morally disagree on the means for compassion and protection of the born. And it should never be an either/or. (I do respect the ‘innocence’ issue; just saying that Bernardin correctly asserted that stopping with births is insufficient when it comes to the application of Catholic doctrine.) His point was that the passion about Life should be sustained, that’s all. And he himself beautifully demonstrated that, as a model for all of us. Surely I don’t forgive those who have wronged me, and less seriously so, as graciously and immediately as he did.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Had I any choice? Palin one step away from the Oval Office? I know you are jesting.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
As if I were stupid. Sure. Thank you for your participation on this thread. Please excuse my ignorant inability to understand what you are saying so I shall therefore not insult you by responding in my feeble manner to your posts.
Why should we?
Do you not expect to die shriven and facing Purgatory only, and not Hell?
M
Mickey
Guest
Sorry…I tried to simplify it for you.
Exactly.
I try to work out my salvation with fear and trembling.
E
estesbob
Guest
The good cardinal has been slimed many times by pro-abortion catholics twisting his teaching on “seamless garment” to try and rationalize their support of evil.
M
Mickey
Guest
The Philosophical Weakness of the “Pro-Choice” Movement
by Vincent Arong
“The right to choose!”
I guess the next question to ask is: “the choice to do what?” “Pro-choice” as a slogan doesn’t stand on itself; it presupposes an object to be chosen. When it is revealed that the term really implies the freedom to choose an abortion, then it really has no conceptual difference with the term “Pro-abortion.”
Furthermore, the term “Pro-choice” is really limited in scope, for if the choice is to abort, then the child that is aborted is denied the freedom of being “Pro-choice” as an adult. The only way for the term “Pro-choice” to be universally valid is to give the unborn child the same freedom to be “Pro-choice.” This means that the child must be granted the opportunity to live, which is really no different from the concept of “Pro-Life.”
Moreover, the term “Pro-choice” is really a misnomer, because it assumes that choices have no qualitative difference. In other words, “Pro-choice” implies that the choice to abort or the choice to spare a child’s life are no different— neither choice is good or evil; it’s just one’s “personal decision,” after all.
However, the concept shoots itself in the foot, because choice implies knowing that one option is different from another in terms of quality – “If an option is better than another, I choose it; if an option is worse than another, I do not choose it.” Choice is not a random event, but a rational movement, which is based on knowing that one option is better to do than another. The adherents of “Pro-choice” choose (pun intended) to ignore this self-evident fact and demonstrate their logic to be circular in reasoning. The Pro-choice philosophy implodes in your face if you just stare at it long enough.
At root, the philosophical problems inherent in the “Pro-choice” mentality demonstrate the cause to be intellectual suicide. Further, since ideas do have consequences, the consequence of the “Pro-choice” philosophy is none other than the physical, moral and spiritual suicide of an entire culture, which includes the mothers who consent to the abortion, the children who are aborted, the doctors who conduct the abortion, the rest of us who justify abortion, and finally, those of us who choose to allow abortion to continue by consciously turning a blind eye to the controversy.
The silver lining of this whole thing is that when the dust settles, the only real survivors will be those families that are Pro-life. In effect, the Pro-lifers will out-baby the Pro-abortionists. Pro-abortion individuals will just depopulate themselves into extinction. This is not necessarily a cause for joy for the Pro-life movement. The Pro-Life philosophy entails respecting the sanctity of all human life, including those who hold a Pro-abortion position, and so Pro-lifers will not stop at exposing Pro-abortion for what it is: The Philosophy of Death.
philvaz.com/apologetics/p9.htm
by Vincent Arong
“The right to choose!”
I guess the next question to ask is: “the choice to do what?” “Pro-choice” as a slogan doesn’t stand on itself; it presupposes an object to be chosen. When it is revealed that the term really implies the freedom to choose an abortion, then it really has no conceptual difference with the term “Pro-abortion.”
Furthermore, the term “Pro-choice” is really limited in scope, for if the choice is to abort, then the child that is aborted is denied the freedom of being “Pro-choice” as an adult. The only way for the term “Pro-choice” to be universally valid is to give the unborn child the same freedom to be “Pro-choice.” This means that the child must be granted the opportunity to live, which is really no different from the concept of “Pro-Life.”
Moreover, the term “Pro-choice” is really a misnomer, because it assumes that choices have no qualitative difference. In other words, “Pro-choice” implies that the choice to abort or the choice to spare a child’s life are no different— neither choice is good or evil; it’s just one’s “personal decision,” after all.
However, the concept shoots itself in the foot, because choice implies knowing that one option is different from another in terms of quality – “If an option is better than another, I choose it; if an option is worse than another, I do not choose it.” Choice is not a random event, but a rational movement, which is based on knowing that one option is better to do than another. The adherents of “Pro-choice” choose (pun intended) to ignore this self-evident fact and demonstrate their logic to be circular in reasoning. The Pro-choice philosophy implodes in your face if you just stare at it long enough.
At root, the philosophical problems inherent in the “Pro-choice” mentality demonstrate the cause to be intellectual suicide. Further, since ideas do have consequences, the consequence of the “Pro-choice” philosophy is none other than the physical, moral and spiritual suicide of an entire culture, which includes the mothers who consent to the abortion, the children who are aborted, the doctors who conduct the abortion, the rest of us who justify abortion, and finally, those of us who choose to allow abortion to continue by consciously turning a blind eye to the controversy.
The silver lining of this whole thing is that when the dust settles, the only real survivors will be those families that are Pro-life. In effect, the Pro-lifers will out-baby the Pro-abortionists. Pro-abortion individuals will just depopulate themselves into extinction. This is not necessarily a cause for joy for the Pro-life movement. The Pro-Life philosophy entails respecting the sanctity of all human life, including those who hold a Pro-abortion position, and so Pro-lifers will not stop at exposing Pro-abortion for what it is: The Philosophy of Death.
philvaz.com/apologetics/p9.htm
- Status