Harry Reid: We’ll shut down government before we shut down Planned Parenthood funding

[estesbob]

I demand that you retract this statement and apologize immediately. This was EXTREMELY offensive. I literally almost blacked out with rage at reading this. If I had, I would not have a computer to type this right now. I do not support abortion. I never have. I never said I did. I never implied it. Take it back. RIGHT NOW. Or consider yourself on ignore and reported.

I am glad to know that you dont support abortion. However your posts thus far indicate that you support those who make its continuance in Amercian possible.

 

[sidbrown]

I am not in favor of government support of planned parenthood. But at the same time, my personal opinion is that Catholic women have to take responsibility for their own actions. And I believe that I read somewhere that statistics indicate that the percentage of American Catholic women who take abortifacient birth control pills or have an abortion is roughly the same as nonCatholic women in the USA.

 

[Farsight001]

I am glad to know that you dont support abortion. However your posts thus far indicate that you support those who make its continuance in Amercian possible.

Rather than a retraction and apology for your extremely offensive statement, you reiterate your ultimate claim. Ignored and reported. bye bye.

 

[estesbob]

Rather than a retraction and apology for your extremely offensive statement, you reiterate your ultimate claim. Ignored and reported. bye bye.

You have repatedly made the claim that it is OK to vote for a pro-abortion canidate if you beleive their opponent is going to start a nuclear war. Specifically in posts 65,67,74 and 78.

 

[iamrefreshed]

This is not strictly true. Catholic voters have an obligation to vote along the lines of saving lives. If you believed, for example, that McCain would have been integral in starting WW3, resulting in the use of nukes and the loss a million lives in a matter of hours instead of over the course of a year, it would instead be your obligation to have voted democrat. Whatever you think will save more lives.

The Church teaching is not that we must vote pro-life, but rather that we must not vote pro-choice, meaning that we can vote for a pro-choice candidate, but certainly not because they’re pro choice.

As for the subject at hand - I agree with an earlier poster when they said that it’s obviously not about doing what they think is best for the people anymore, but rather about protecting their own interests.

This is just how Catholics convince themselves to vote for abortion.

It like some game of mental Twister.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The Church teaching is not that we must vote pro-life, but rather that we must not vote pro-choice, meaning that we can vote for a pro-choice candidate, but certainly not because they’re pro choice.

It is my understanding that we cannot vote for one who is pro-abortion, one who actively promotes abortion. There are both Democrats and Republicans who are not actively either for or against abortion, so we may vote for them. I will have to check the USCCB guidelines to be sure.

 

[Erich]

As others have said before, we can’t reduce abortions by promoting abortion. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

In addition to checking the USCCB guidelines (which are just that, guidelines) folks should also check the CCC (which of course is way more than just a bunch of guidelines):

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safeguarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

 

[ishii]

.

Many people believe McCain was just such a candidate, especially after Bush.

And McCain may have “pushed the button”, so to speak, on his third day in office. We simply can’t know. But if you thought he certainly would, would you still vote for him? I would feel morally obligated to vote against him to save lives if that is what I thought.

I would like to know what credible evidence you have that McCain would have “pushed the button” and started a nuclear war. Please cite your evidence and how you come to the conclusion that “many people” believe he would have done that. Sounds to me like you’re making excuses for those who voted for the radical pro-abortion rights Obama over McCain. Anyway, such a claim needs to be backed up with credible evidence, do you have any?

Ishii

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I would like to know what credible evidence you have that McCain would have “pushed the button” and started a nuclear war. Please cite your evidence and how you come to the conclusion that “many people” believe he would have done that. Sounds to me like you’re making excuses for those who voted for the radical pro-abortion rights Obama over McCain. Anyway, such a claim needs to be backed up with credible evidence, do you have any?

Ishii

I believe Farsight stated he didn’t know, if McCain would actually push the nuke button but it was his feeling that he’d be the sort that might.

My concern about McCain during the campaign was his statement,

“If I’m elected President, I’ll be Hamas’ worst nightmare.”

What does that mean, genocide, all out war?

Don’t know, but along with his known temper tantrums, it was a concern for me that the man was imbalanced.

Jim

 

[estesbob]

I believe Farsight stated he didn’t know, if McCain would actually push the nuke button but it was his feeling that he’d be the sort that might.

My concern about McCain during the campaign was his statement,

“If I’m elected President, I’ll be Hamas’ worst nightmare.”

What does that mean, genocide, all out war?

Don’t know, but along with his known temper tantrums, it was a concern for me that the man was imbalanced.

Jim

So you were faced with a choice between a man who made some statements you were uncomfortable with and a man who flat out said he favored unrestricted taxpayer fnuded abortion on demand and would release funds to overseas abortion providers as soon as he took office. Too often in these discussions we get bogged down in claims of what someone “thinks” a canidate might do while ignoring clear staments about what a canidate says they will do.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So you were faced with a choice between a man who made some statements you were uncomfortable with and a man who flat out said he favored unrestricted taxpayer fnuded abortion on demand and would release funds to overseas abortion providers as soon as he took office. Too often in these discussions we get bogged down in claims of what someone “thinks” a canidate might do while ignoring clear staments about what a canidate says they will do.

Actually, it was between a man, Obama, who I didn’t hear say he favored unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion, but did say he was pro-choice, and another, John McCain, who in fact voted to fund a health-clinic on an Indian reservation which did perform first trimester abortions.

Also, I watched McCain back-stab the pro-life movement by working deals with the pro-abortion democrats in attempts to keep pro-life judges off the Supreme Court.

In other words, Obama told us he was pro-choice. McCain on the other hand, told us he was pro-life, but his record shows he was not telling the truth.

Also, McCain’s treatment of his first wife and his adulterous affair while she was dying in the hospital, showed that his moral character was seriously flawed.

Add that to his mental imbalance and we were left between a disingenuous imbalanced man and a honest pro-choice candidate.

You have to weigh the moral issues between the two, and McCain lost.

Of course there was also the option of writing in some one else’s name.

Jim

 

[estesbob]

Actually, it was between a man, Obama, who I didn’t hear say he favored unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion, but did say he was pro-choice, and another, John McCain, who in fact voted to fund a health-clinic on an Indian reservation which did perform first trimester abortions.

Also, I watched McCain back-stab the pro-life movement by working deals with the pro-abortion democrats in attempts to keep pro-life judges off the Supreme Court.

In other words, Obama told us he was pro-choice. McCain on the other hand, told us he was pro-life, but his record shows he was not telling the truth.

Also, McCain’s treatment of his first wife and his adulterous affair while she was dying in the hospital, showed that his moral character was seriously flawed.

Add that to his mental imbalance and we were left between a disingenuous imbalanced man and a honest pro-choice candidate.

You have to weigh the moral issues between the two, and McCain lost.

Of course there was also the option of writing in some one else’s name.

Jim

*I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed ‘‘abortion-rights’’ presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973. Despite what Prof. Kmiec suggests, the party platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively ‘‘pro-choice;’’ it has also removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing. On the question of homicide against the unborn child - and let’s remember that the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer explicitly called abortion ‘‘murder’’ - the Democratic platform that emerged from Denver in August 2008 is clearly anti-life. *

Archbishop Charles Chaput

If you didnt know Obama supported unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand its only becuase you didnt look. he made no secret of it. In fact he promised to promote FOCA and said he would sign it if passed.

The idea that a Cathpolic could vote for Obama becuase McCain got divorced 30 years ago and does not have a perfect pro-life record is specious. You can noit find a single member of the magestrium that suggested there were proportionate reasons that would have allowed a Catholic to vote for Obama in spite of his pro-abortion stance.
*
*

 

[JimR-OCDS]

estesbob

I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed ‘‘abortion-rights’’ presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973.

The evidence does not support this claim made by many pro-lifers.

Although Obama is clearly a pro-choice politician, who has stated that he wants to keep abortion legal, his advocacy for promoting abortion is almost nil, especially where he was open enough to sign and executive order prohibiting federal funding of abortions in the Congressional Health-Care Reform Act.

Also, when compared to the Clinton’s, he doesn’t come close to being an abortion advocate.

The Clinton’s were not just pro-choice, but they put laws and policies in place which forced abortion onto 3rd world countries, and also forced the closing of several Catholic Hospitals, one being near me. Any hospital which refused to provide abortions, were not reimbursed for medicaid and medicare patients they treated. Being the majority of those cases were the elderly, the hospital could not stay in business.

If you didnt know Obama supported unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand its only becuase you didnt look. he made no secret of it. In fact he promised to promote FOCA and said he would sign it if passed.

Yeah, but I wouldn’t have placed any bets that if that bill ever came to congress today, McCain would not vote for it.

The idea that a Cathpolic could vote for Obama becuase McCain got divorced 30 years ago and does not have a perfect pro-life record is specious. You can noit find a single member of the magestrium that suggested there were proportionate reasons that would have allowed a Catholic to vote for Obama in spite of his pro-abortion stance.

You’ve left out McCain’s dishonest record on abortion, which is the primary point, but his infidelity toward his first wife, who waited seven years for him while he was a POW in Vietnam, and nursed him back to health, shows a poor moral character of the man.

Jim

 

[estesbob]

estesbob

The evidence does not support this claim made by many pro-lifers.

Although Obama is clearly a pro-choice politician, who has stated that he wants to keep abortion legal, his advocacy for promoting abortion is almost nil, especially where he was open enough to sign and executive order prohibiting federal funding of abortions in the Congressional Health-Care Reform Act.

He overtruned the Mexico City policy on his third day in office. He opposed a partial birth aboprtion bill in Illionois. He expressed his support of FOCA, he supports the Democrat National party Platform which calls for unrestircted taxpayer funded abortion on demand. He rescidned a conscicne clause thsat protected medical workers wh did not want to participate in abortions. As Archbishop Chaput put it:

*.To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year’s ‘‘real’’ prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred ‘‘prolife’’ option is to subvert what the word ‘‘prolife’’ means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ‘‘Obama’s Abortion Extremism,’’ and his follow-up article, ‘‘Obama and Infanticide.’’ They say everything that needs to be said. *

The Essay Archbishop Chaput refers to is here:

realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/caseys_endorsement_lacks_fathe.html

Also, when compared to the Clinton’s, he doesn’t come close to being an abortion advocate.

The Clinton’s were not just pro-choice, but they put laws and policies in place which forced abortion onto 3rd world countries, and also forced the closing of several Catholic Hospitals, one being near me. Any hospital which refused to provide abortions, were not reimbursed for medicaid and medicare patients they treated. Being the majority of those cases were the elderly, the hospital could not stay in business.

I dont beleive anyone here is suggesting a Catholic could have voted for Clinton. I agree with Archbuishop Chaput that Obama is the most pro-abortion Preseint in history. How anyone can look at his record and not beleive that is beyond me. Again read the links I have provided, read the Democrat Party Platform, examine Obamas votes when he was a State senator.

Yeah, but I wouldn’t have placed any bets that if that bill ever came to congress today, McCain would not vote for it.

You’ve left out McCain’s dishonest record on abortion, which is the primary point, but his infidelity toward his first wife, who waited seven years for him while he was a POW in Vietnam, and nursed him back to health, shows a poor moral character of the man.

Jim

The only people who clam McCain is a closet abortion supporter are Catholics looking to rationalize their votes votes for pro-abortion canidates. Can you find a single pro-abortion organization that endorsed McCain? Can you find any pro-abortion organization that said it would be OK to vote fo McCain because he would in the end support FOCA and woud cut back room deals to confirm pro-abortion judges?

This debate has taken the usual path. On one side we post Church documents, quotes from the Pope and Bishops and what the canidates stance on the issues are. Are the other sied we get nothing but personal opinions on what a canidate will do in spite of their position and why its OK to ignore the teachings of the Church-usually butressed with claims of a world wide nuclear holocaust, mass genocide and public hangings in ever square if we dont support the Party of Death

 

[Erich]

I would like to know what credible evidence you have that McCain would have “pushed the button” and started a nuclear war. Please cite your evidence and how you come to the conclusion that “many people” believe he would have done that.

The “many people” who believe McCain would have “pushed the button” are probably the same people who believed (prior to November 1980) that “Ronnie Raygun” would have done the same. Of course, not only did Reagan not start a nuclear war, he helped hasten the end of the Cold War.

 

[ishii]

I believe Farsight stated he didn’t know, if McCain would actually push the nuke button but it was his feeling that he’d be the sort that might.

My concern about McCain during the campaign was his statement,

“If I’m elected President, I’ll be Hamas’ worst nightmare.”

What does that mean, genocide, all out war?

Don’t know, but along with his known temper tantrums, it was a concern for me that the man was imbalanced.

Jim

To use fear of a candidate starting a genocidal war as a reason to vote against him/her in favor of the pro-abortion candidate requires real evidence and not hearsay or quotes taken out of context. Did you know that Hillary in an interview on Good Morning America spoke of “totally obliterating” Iran? Based on your standard, you now can’t vote for her. I suspect, more likely what’s going on here is what Estesbob said, which is liberal catholics using any specious argument they can find to justify their votes for abortion rights candidates.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

The “many people” who believe McCain would have “pushed the button” are probably the same people who believed (prior to November 1980) that “Ronnie Raygun” would have done the same. Of course, not only did Reagan not start a nuclear war, he helped hasten the end of the Cold War.

Yes, they tried to demonize Reagan, calling him a warmonger, among other things. Of course those who were close to him say that he had a deep hatred of nuclear weapons and the mutual assured destruction of the Cold War. That is why he was for developing SDI. And you’re right, that “warmonger” helped end the Cold war.

Ishii

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

You’ve left out McCain’s dishonest record on abortion, which is the primary point, but his infidelity toward his first wife, who waited seven years for him while he was a POW in Vietnam, and nursed him back to health, shows a poor moral character of the man.

That, and his sorry choice of a running mate soured my even thinking of voting GOP in '08.

 

[Suudy]

That, and his sorry choice of a running mate soured my even thinking of voting GOP in '08.

Somehow, even if Bart Stupak was McCain’s running mate, you would still be soured on voting GOP in '08.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

estesbob

He overtruned the Mexico City policy on his third day in office.

Because the Hyde Ammendment prohibits federal funds going for abortions, even outside the country. The Mexico City policy in effect cut off any federal aid to poor countries for all health services.

He opposed a partial birth aboprtion bill in Illionois.

This is misleading and I’m not about to get into a debate over the details. However, he opposed PBA on the federal level and still does.

He expressed his support of FOCA, he supports the Democrat National party Platform which calls for unrestircted taxpayer funded abortion on demand

.

Yes, he did. He’s clearly a pro-choice politician.

But he didn’t hid behind misleading campaign rhetoric as McCain did.

He rescidned a conscicne clause thsat protected medical workers wh did not want to participate in abortions. As Archbishop Chaput put it:

Because the consience clause is already in federal legislation and wasn’t necessary in the Health-Care Reform Act.

Heck, even here in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, health care workers can refuse to assist in abortions.

My aunt was a surgical tech who did so and was protected by the law.

*.To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year’s ‘‘real’’ prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. *

I never heard anyone one say that Obama was a pro-life candidate with regards to abortion, he has always clearly stated that he is pro-choice.

However, on other life issues, he’s more pro-life than many who claim to be pro-life because they oppose abortion.

Anyway, this isn’t a thread about Obama, who I could care less about, but about the accusations about Harry Reid, which I already showed could not be substantiated.

Jim