Hillary Clinton Thread

[SuperLuigi]

---

Very tiresome to tolerate persons who refuse to listen to their conscience and reinforce a depraved approval of murdering new life. It isn’t an unsolvable puzzle to realize that sexual intercourse is the act that God created for men and women to procreate. If a woman is determined to not become pregnant, then she must refrain from engaging in sexual intercourse.

The people who continue to distract this simple grasp of intelligence with every excuse they can possibly come up with need to be turned off. Abortion is evil murder and is not to be championed in any way. Anyone doing so is engaging in more evil. Pretense of necessity or legality is hogwash.

The problem with America is all the excuse-makers as far as elections go. Liberals will be liberals, but what’s turning things in presidential elections are people who go around clearly demonstrating a troubled conscience, making excuses and expecting myself and others to sit there and applaud their behavior and choices while they “reason” this all out with their own selfish biases, and I’m convinced with no spiritual direction.

Ann Coulter once said it best:

"Do you agree with the Democrats on abortion? No.

Do you agree with the Democrats on gun control? No.

Do you agree with the Democrats on attacking religious liberty? No.

------------Or even so-called gay “marriage”. No.

Do you agree with the Democrats on deficit spending? No.

So how are you voting in the next election?

Democrat."

Shortly thereafter:

“Why, I can’t believe that gay “marriage” is legal in XYZ!! I can’t believe they are making Little Sisters of the Poor do that! I never thought the government could turn on me! They promised! We had a deal!”

 

[Little_Sheep]

Well, I hear that a lot lately from those advocating progressive arguments. Something they should keep in mind when touting their “education and enlightenment”.

I realize that’s not happening here, but’s an interesting trend.

Contraception is not an acceptable practice in Catholic teaching, so any discussion on even considering that would require spiritual direction at the very least.

Having to choose between abortion and contraception is a false choice argument that the pro-choice crowd promotes in error.

I do understand the Catholic Church’s stated (if not widely practiced) position on contraception. I’ve delved deeply into the Catholic arguments that uphold contraception as the error that naturally led to abortion.

And as I am sure you know, I am Protestant. I do not accept those teachings as sound. But that’s a discussion for another day, I’m sure.

 

[Little_Sheep]

There is now a Sanders thread.

Cool, thanks! I will go seek it out.

 

[meltzerboy]

The problem with America is all the excuse-makers as far as elections go. Liberals will be liberals, but what’s turning things in presidential elections are people who go around clearly demonstrating a troubled conscience, making excuses and expecting myself and others to sit there and applaud their behavior and choices while they “reason” this all out with their own selfish biases, and I’m convinced with no spiritual direction.

Ann Coulter once said it best:

"Do you agree with the Democrats on abortion? No.

Do you agree with the Democrats on gun control? No.

Do you agree with the Democrats on attacking religious liberty? No.

------------Or even so-called gay “marriage”. No.

Do you agree with the Democrats on deficit spending? No.

So how are you voting in the next election?

Democrat."

Shortly thereafter:

“Why, I can’t believe that gay “marriage” is legal in XYZ!! I can’t believe they are making Little Sisters of the Poor do that! I never thought the government could turn on me! They promised! We had a deal!”

In response to Ann Coulter’s clever portrayal of voters who shoot themselves in the foot by behaving against their self-interest by voting for Democrats is that Republicans are so lame they cannot come up with solid solutions to the country’s problems or good alternative candidates so as to generate enough support from Independents or even their own base. Thus Republican voters have no other choice but to vote for Democrats or not vote at all.

 

[Little_Sheep]

---

Very tiresome to tolerate persons who refuse to listen to their conscience and reinforce a depraved approval of murdering new life. It isn’t an unsolvable puzzle to realize that sexual intercourse is the act that God created for men and women to procreate. If a woman is determined to not become pregnant, then she must refrain from engaging in sexual intercourse.

The people who continue to distract this simple grasp of intelligence with every excuse they can possibly come up with need to be turned off. Abortion is evil murder and is not to be championed in any way. Anyone doing so is engaging in more evil. Pretense of necessity or legality is hogwash.

I appreciate your beliefs, grotto. I imagine those beliefs will fully inform your personal path should you become pregnant, as well they should. As I said earlier, I trust women to make their own private health decisions. I cannot begin to imagine who is better positioned to do that than the woman herself.

 

[Pier]

Abortion wouldn’t be an option in a legal abortion clinic because none would exist. However, women who wanted an abortion might use an illegal abortionist, with or without medical training. In that case, the question remains whether these women ought to be punished for murder and, if so, how?

A good question…

For maybe a different thread?

 

[grotto]

I do understand the Catholic Church’s stated (if not widely practiced) position on contraception. I’ve delved deeply into the Catholic arguments that uphold contraception as the error that naturally led to abortion.

And as I am sure you know, I am Protestant. I do not accept those teachings as sound. But that’s a discussion for another day, I’m sure.

---

You have distracted yourself over another excuse for abortion. NO excuse for abortion.
You are Protestant - that isn’t going to matter. If YOU do not accept Christian teaching don’t suggest you are doing so because Christian teaching is not SOUND. It will be a discussion for another day for sure and you may find yourself learning something. Don’t wait until its too late. Abortion is killing - the 5th Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”.
Don’t be confused or distracted with examples of exceptions or what is legal. Peace.

 

[Little_Sheep]

In response to Ann Coulter’s clever portrayal of voters who shoot themselves in the foot by behaving against their self-interest by voting for Democrats is that Republicans are so lame they cannot come up with solid solutions to the country’s problems or good alternative candidates so as to generate enough support from Independents or even their own base. Thus Republicans have no other choice but to vote for Democrats or not vote at all.

Sad, but true. The Republican Party is barely recognizable today. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - I want this country to have a strong, cohesive Conservative voice. No piece of me is interested in living in a liberal echo chamber. But the Republicans are a mess - maybe a mess beyond fixing at the point. I really don’t know.

I do not say that to offend Conservatives. Frankly, I feel sorry for Conservatives because the Party that is supposed to speak for them is shattered.

 

[Pier]

In response to Ann Coulter’s clever portrayal of voters who shoot themselves in the foot by behaving against their self-interest by voting for Democrats is that Republicans are so lame they cannot come up with solid solutions to the country’s problems or good alternative candidates so as to generate enough support from Independents or even their own base. Thus Republican voters have no other choice but to vote for Democrats or not vote at all.

Imo this is a fantasy, based on a LOT of wishful thinking.

 

[Little_Sheep]

---

You have distracted yourself over another excuse for abortion. NO excuse for abortion.
You are Protestant - that isn’t going to matter. If YOU do not accept Christian teaching don’t suggest you are doing so because Christian teaching is not SOUND. It will be a discussion for another day for sure and you may find yourself learning something. Don’t wait until its too late. Abortion is killing - the 5th Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”.
Don’t be confused or distracted with examples of exceptions or what is legal. Peace.

Again, I respect your beliefs on the subject. I certainly won’t argue against them because I am sure they are well-considered and held with the highest level of integrity. As are mine.

Peace to you too, grotto.

 

[JimG]

What’s so complicated? The “health decision” is whether or not to end the new human life growing inside her - that’s all. Anything else is just looking for excuses to try and justify it.

If it’s legal to abort a child because because they’re unwanted, why is it illegal to kill an unwanted infant?

If it’s legal to abort a child because they have Down Syndrome, why is it illegal to kill an infant with Down Syndrome?

If it’s legal to abort a child because the mother “can’t afford to have a child”, why is it illegal to kill one’s infant during hard economic times?

The parallels you note are instructive. In fact, if a child can be killed in the womb for any particular reason, it can also be killed outside the womb for the same reason. And these things will happen. Legal abortion has already set the precedent. Down Syndrome children are being killed in the womb. The law could be extended to allow them to be killed after birth. The same with children who might be considered an economic burden. Such things are already being proposed by serious academics.

The fact is, the Supreme Court created ex nihilo in 1973 a right to abortion which had never existed, and was never in the Constitution. If a state wants to legislate legal abortion, it’s a matter for the state legislature. If a state wants to regulate or limit abortion, it’s a matter for the state legislature, (as is true for same sex marriage.) To allow nine justices to arbitrarily insert new “rights” into a document which does not and never did provide them, is nothing short of judicial tyranny. And because the law is a teacher, it has taught several generations that child killing is perfectly fine, at the mother’s discretion, but not the father’s.

I anticipate that when child killing is extended to those outside the womb, the decision to kill will likely be delegated to both parents, if the are both custodial.

 

[meltzerboy]

The parallels you note are instructive. In fact, if a child can be killed in the womb for any particular reason, it can also be killed outside the womb for the same reason. And these things will happen. Legal abortion has already set the precedent. Down Syndrome children are being killed in the womb. The law could be extended to allow them to be killed after birth. The same with children who might be considered an economic burden. Such things are already being proposed by serious academics.

The fact is, the Supreme Court created ex nihilo in 1973 a right to abortion which had never existed, and was never in the Constitution. If a state wants to legislate legal abortion, it’s a matter for the state legislature. If a state wants to regulate or limit abortion, it’s a matter for the state legislature, (as is true for same sex marriage.) To allow nine justices to arbitrarily insert new “rights” into a document which does not and never did provide them, is nothing short of judicial tyranny. And because the law is a teacher, it has taught several generations that child killing is perfectly fine, at the mother’s discretion, but not the father’s.

How many “serious academics” are proposing killing children who have Down Syndrome or are an economic burden? I recall an article on the topic by one such person. Who else among serious academics has proposed this?

I anticipate that when child killing is extended to those outside the womb, the decision to kill will likely be delegated to both parents, if the are both custodial.

 

[meltzerboy]

The parallels you note are instructive. In fact, if a child can be killed in the womb for any particular reason, it can also be killed outside the womb for the same reason. And these things will happen. Legal abortion has already set the precedent. Down Syndrome children are being killed in the womb. The law could be extended to allow them to be killed after birth. The same with children who might be considered an economic burden. Such things are already being proposed by serious academics.

The fact is, the Supreme Court created ex nihilo in 1973 a right to abortion which had never existed, and was never in the Constitution. If a state wants to legislate legal abortion, it’s a matter for the state legislature. If a state wants to regulate or limit abortion, it’s a matter for the state legislature, (as is true for same sex marriage.) To allow nine justices to arbitrarily insert new “rights” into a document which does not and never did provide them, is nothing short of judicial tyranny. And because the law is a teacher, it has taught several generations that child killing is perfectly fine, at the mother’s discretion, but not the father’s.

I anticipate that when child killing is extended to those outside the womb, the decision to kill will likely be delegated to both parents, if the are both custodial.

How many “serious academics” are proposing killing a child with Down syndrome or one who is an economic burden? I recall one such article on the topic. Who else among serious academics has proposed this?

 

[JimG]

How many “serious academics” are proposing killing a child with Down syndrome or one who is an economic burden? I recall one such article on the topic. Who else among serious academics has proposed this?

Are you not familiar with Professor Peter Singer, chairman of Ethics at Princeton University? For some time now, he has proposed that birth need not be the arbitrary cutoff point. He proposes rather that parents have a period of time post birth to change their mind. Not just for Down Syndrome babies but others with disabilities, deformities, or who present undue challenges to parents.

Peter Singer’s Bold Defense of Infanticide

I would note that he has aroused the attention of some disability rights groups, as they consider themselves next on the hit list.

 

[Monkey1976]

How many “serious academics” are proposing killing a child with Down syndrome or one who is an economic burden? I recall one such article on the topic. Who else among serious academics has proposed this?

How many “serious academics” proposed that two men could be called a married couple 30 years ago? How many “serious academics” proposed that it was a woman’s inalienable right to kill her unborn child 100 years ago? We’ve already got “serious academics” claiming that there is no problem with pedophiles engaging in sex with children - how long until that “right” is discovered in the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution?

The point is that apart from having passed through the birth canal, there is no real difference between a child in the womb and an infant when one looks at the excuses put forth for a woman to be allowed to kill her child.

I understand that some branches of Judaism do allow for abortion, but there is no requirement to seek one out as a condition of faith. Given that, isn’t it better to err on the side of caution and do all we can to prevent an abortion?

 

[meltzerboy]

Are you not familiar with Professor Peter Singer, chairman of Ethics at Princeton University? For some time now, he has proposed that birth need not be the arbitrary cutoff point. He proposes rather that parents have a period of time post birth to change their mind. Not just for Down Syndrome babies but others with disabilities, deformities, or who present undue challenges to parents.

Peter Singer’s Bold Defense of Infanticide

I would note that he has aroused the attention of some disability rights groups, as they consider themselves next on the hit list.

Yes, that’s the ONE I alluded to. But who else among serious or not-so-serious academics has agreed with him?

 

[JimG]

A disability rights activist meets with Peter Singer. This is not a new article; his views are not new.

“He insists he doesn’t want to kill me. He simply thinks it would have been better, all things considered, to have given my parents the option of killing the baby I once was, and to let other parents kill similar babies as they come along…”

 

[meltzerboy]

How many “serious academics” proposed that two men could be called a married couple 30 years ago? How many “serious academics” proposed that it was a woman’s inalienable right to kill her unborn child 100 years ago? We’ve already got “serious academics” claiming that there is no problem with pedophiles engaging in sex with children - how long until that “right” is discovered in the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution?

The point is that apart from having passed through the birth canal, there is no real difference between a child in the womb and an infant when one looks at the excuses put forth for a woman to be allowed to kill her child.

I understand that some branches of Judaism do allow for abortion, but there is no requirement to seek one out as a condition of faith. Given that, isn’t it better to err on the side of caution and do all we can to prevent an abortion?

It is the Orthodox branch of Judaism which REQUIRES abortion if the mother’s life is in danger, even in the latter stages of pregnancy, since the life and personhood of the mother takes precedence over that of the unborn child. It permits abortion in cases of incest and rape, but there is some disagreement regarding the requirement. Likewise, severely disordered unborn babies may be aborted. The other branches of Judaism–Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist–do NOT require abortion but permit it in emergency cases. In general, abortion should be a last–never first–resort according to Jewish law. Abortion on demand is strictly prohibited by ALL branches of Judaism.

But what about the teachings of other religions with regard to abortion: Quakerism, Native American religions, certain Protestant denominations, Unitarians? Their religious rights should not be hindered, in my view, and neither should those of the Catholic Church.

 

[Monkey1976]

But what about the teachings of other religions with regard to abortion: Quakerism, Native American religions, certain Protestant denominations, Unitarians? Their religious rights should not be hindered, in my view, and neither should those of the Catholic Church.

Is there any recognized religion today - other than the Democratic Party - that requires abortion on demand as a tenet of faith?

 

[meltzerboy]

Is there any recognized religion today - other than the Democratic Party - that requires abortion on demand as a tenet of faith?

Not that I know of. This brings us back to the individual woman, her family, and her physician, who may be acting not according to her faith or may not have any faith. Should she be allowed to make this most personal choice or should the law of the state step in and tell her what is best for her and her family?