Hillary Clinton Thread

[Lily_Bernans]

Slave owners probably were hoping slavery would go on forever. It did not.

Abortion WILL end. People will realize that abortion does not solve ANYTHING and does more harm than good. We are missing doctors, teachers, scientists, mothers, fathers, maybe even some priests and religious. 50+ MILLION are missing from this country.

People often wonder why we don’t yet have a cure for cancer or parkinsons or Alzheimers. Well, I think GOD’s answer would be…“I sent them, but you aborted them!”

This is only my opinion, but there is a big difference between abortion and slavery. With slavery, people knew they were withholding rights from a human being, a child of God with an immortal soul. When something is stolen, we can p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact moment when the crime took place - when an article belonging to someone else was taken without his or her consent.

With abortion, no one knows when God infuses the newly created life with an immortal soul. There is no Church document that tells us when because no one knows. So no one really knows if the world is being deprived of a human being or not. Does God infuse the soul at conception? At birth? At viability? No one knows. Opinions differ. Of course the Church still says the newly created life must be protected, I realize that.

And how do we reconcile abortion with Matthew 10:28-29: "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father."

I believe the world is unfolding to God’s plan, as difficult as that may be to comprehend at times.

 

[carpenter383]

Closed minds are usually accompanied by closed ears but have open mouths. This condition is usually brought about by praising people and their behaviors who are completely undeserving of praise. Factual matters are distorted in order, for the promoter to continue spewing argument in favor of their chosen champion. “Taken out of context” is a repeated cop out.

Pretending to have a love of unborn life, and yet be eager to abandon the need to prevent abortion through the discussion and education of God’s Love, is knowingly or unknowingly, spreading evil. So, criticizing those who will not stop speaking against abortion on this Catholic forum, by claiming “enough already”, “talk about other issues”, doesn’t fit.

Hillary Clinton is covered from head to toe in promoting abortion up to and including the birth of the baby. She and the Democrat Party endorse the organization Planned Parenthood (that traffics in selling the baby’s body parts) and garnered tremendous amounts of money. This has been exposed and revolted the country but still has not been eradicated.

I got way behind in the killary thread, I haven’t made it through all the posts yet but I had to give you kudos for this post, short and sweet
And don’t forget Bernie:
Out of 101 votes on a wide range of pro-life issues, as scored by the National Right to Life Committee, Sanders has a six percent pro-life voting record. The only times Sanders has ever voted pro-life were times when he supported a ban on human cloning. Otherwise, on issues from abortion funding to banning partial-birth abortions and pro-abortion Obamacare to pushing abortion on an international scale, Sanders has been a staunch abortion activist.
Sanders employes the typical war on women arguments when defending abortion.

“The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family and physician to make, not the government,” he says. “The right-wing in this country is waging a war against women and, let me be very clear, it is not a war that we are going to allow them to win. But if they want political warfare, we must expand the field of battle, and we must be on the offensive. We are not going back. Not only are we not going to retreat on women’s rights, we are going to expand them. We are going forward, not backward.”

lifenews.com/2015/04/30/pro-abortion-socialist-bernie-sanders-running-for-president-as-a-democrat/

.

 

[JimG]

This is only my opinion, but there is a big difference between abortion and slavery. With slavery, people knew they were withholding rights from a human being, a child of God with an immortal soul. When something is stolen, we can p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact moment when the crime took place - when an article belonging to someone else was taken without his or her consent.

With abortion, no one knows when God infuses the newly created life with an immortal soul. There is no Church document that tells us when because no one knows. So no one really knows if the world is being deprived of a human being or not. Does God infuse the soul at conception? At birth? At viability? No one knows. Opinions differ. Of course the Church still says the newly created life must be protected, I realize that.

And how do we reconcile abortion with Matthew 10:28-29: "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father."

I believe the world is unfolding to God’s plan, as difficult as that may be to comprehend at times.

We know from biology that a new individual of the human species–i.e., a new human being—has its beginning at conception. Some do not even believe in the existence of a soul, but it doesn’t matter: we still know when a new human being begins.

And from a philosophical standpoint, the soul is the animating principle of the body, and the two are united and indivisible. Since a new human being has its beginning at conception, it must have a soul, or else it would be dead, with no animating principle.

There is mom. There is dad. The new human being is distinct, genetically and individually–a new and distinct individual of the human species.

 

[sallybutler]

I got way behind in the killary thread, I haven’t made it through all the posts yet but I had to give you kudos for this post, short and sweet
And don’t forget Bernie:
Out of 101 votes on a wide range of pro-life issues, as scored by the National Right to Life Committee, Sanders has a six percent pro-life voting record. The only times Sanders has ever voted pro-life were times when he supported a ban on human cloning. Otherwise, on issues from abortion funding to banning partial-birth abortions and pro-abortion Obamacare to pushing abortion on an international scale, Sanders has been a staunch abortion activist.
Sanders employes the typical war on women arguments when defending abortion.

“The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family and physician to make, not the government,” he says. “The right-wing in this country is waging a war against women and, let me be very clear, it is not a war that we are going to allow them to win. But if they want political warfare, we must expand the field of battle, and we must be on the offensive. We are not going back. Not only are we not going to retreat on women’s rights, we are going to expand them. We are going forward, not backward.”

lifenews.com/2015/04/30/pro-abortion-socialist-bernie-sanders-running-for-president-as-a-democrat/

.

It is wrong of you to rename Hillary as Killary. As far as you know, she has never had an abortion. Yes, she may support the current legal situation. But so do most Republicans. Of course, they say it in the terms of exceptions or by supporting birth control. A difference without a distinction.

 

[Darryl1958]

There is no difference between hiring an hitman and going to an abortion clinic. In both cases, the death of someone is being arranged.

Well, I have already answered what the difference is, but people who raise such rhetorical question choose to ignore such answers.

That is fine with me.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I got way behind in the killary thread, I haven’t made it through all the posts yet but I had to give you kudos for this post, short and sweet
And don’t forget Bernie:
Out of 101 votes on a wide range of pro-life issues, as scored by the National Right to Life Committee, Sanders has a six percent pro-life voting record. The only times Sanders has ever voted pro-life were times when he supported a ban on human cloning. Otherwise, on issues from abortion funding to banning partial-birth abortions and pro-abortion Obamacare to pushing abortion on an international scale, Sanders has been a staunch abortion activist.
Sanders employes the typical war on women arguments when defending abortion.

“The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family and physician to make, not the government,” he says. “The right-wing in this country is waging a war against women and, let me be very clear, it is not a war that we are going to allow them to win. But if they want political warfare, we must expand the field of battle, and we must be on the offensive. We are not going back. Not only are we not going to retreat on women’s rights, we are going to expand them. We are going forward, not backward.”

lifenews.com/2015/04/30/pro-abortion-socialist-bernie-sanders-running-for-president-as-a-democrat/

.

It seems like women have already won the war to do as they please with regard to abortion. I don’t approve of abortion personally, but I do think it’s constitutional, so I think the justices who upheld Roe v. Wade made the right decision. All Catholic parents, and maybe the Church, need to educate children more than they’ve done. The children who have been born have been let down when he comes to education about sanctity of life.

The majority of Americans, and the majority of women, are pro-choice:

gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx

Not saying abortion is the right thing to do, just stating it’s becoming more and more accepted among Americans.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

It is wrong of you to rename Hillary as Killary. As far as you know, she has never had an abortion. Yes, she may support the current legal situation. But so do most Republicans. Of course, they say it in the terms of exceptions or by supporting birth control. A difference without a distinction.

I agree that renaming Hillary is wrong. And, it’s against forum rules. I also agree with you on “a difference without a distinction.”

 

[Darryl1958]

That’s true. I don’t know why people fail to see that. They call abortion “murder,” so how could it be any different from hiring a hitman? I agree with you.

Your stance is that women who abort are murderers, and ought to be punished as such.
Trump has mused about that kind of position as well, and were reprimanded by the more traditional pro-life base on that accord.

His musings have gained traction among CAF members.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

We know from biology that a new individual of the human species–i.e., a new human being—has its beginning at conception. Some do not even believe in the existence of a soul, but it doesn’t matter: we still know when a new human being begins.

And from a philosophical standpoint, the soul is the animating principle of the body, and the two are united and indivisible. Since a new human being has its beginning at conception, it must have a soul, or else it would be dead, with no animating principle.

There is mom. There is dad. The new human being is distinct, genetically and individually–a new and distinct individual of the human species.

That’s what I believe, but some Catholic philosophers and bioethicists disagree. Varying opinions are held.

And, grass is alive; parrots are alive; monkeys are alive, yet none of those things have immortal souls. If the Church knew when God infused a soul into a human being, it would say so.

If you go to the Website of the National Catholic Bioethics Center you can read that they say no one knows when human life is infused with a soul. Even if it’s not at conception, the potential for a new life and a new soul exists at conception.

The “Declaration on Procured Abortion,” published in 1974 states:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent.”

catholiceducation.org/en/science/ethical-issues/do-embryos-have-souls.html

 

[sallybutler]

Your stance is that women who abort are murderers, and ought to be punished as such.
Trump has mused about that kind of position as well, and were reprimanded by the more traditional pro-life base on that accord.

His musings have gained traction among CAF members.

Perhaps because some CAF members realize that being against abortion is harder than just saying doctors should be punished. Of course, as others have pointed out, that is not the politically correct pro-life thing to say.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Your stance is that women who abort are murderers, and ought to be punished as such.
Trump has mused about that kind of position as well, and were reprimanded by the more traditional pro-life base on that accord.

His musings have gained traction among CAF members.

And…

 

[JimG]

That’s what I believe, but some Catholic philosophers and bioethicists disagree. Varying opinions are held.

And, grass is alive; parrots are alive; monkeys are alive, yet none of those things have immortal souls. If the Church knew when God infused a soul into a human being, it would say so.

If you go to the Website of the National Catholic Bioethics Center you can read that they say no one knows when human life is infused with a soul. Even if it’s not at conception, the potential for a new life and a new soul exists at conception.

Yes, and if a human sperm and a human egg could unite to make grass, parrots, or monkeys, that might be a reasonable conjecture. But a human egg and a human sperm can only make a new human being. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to get around that, whether from a biological or a philosophical perspective.

 

[Peter_J]

It is wrong of you to rename Hillary as Killary.

Yeah. Only a frontrunner can do that stuff.

Heh, no really I agree. This should be a grownup discussion.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Yes, and if a human sperm and a human egg could unite to make grass, parrots, or monkeys, that might be a reasonable conjecture. But a human egg and a human sperm can only make a new human being. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to get around that, whether from a biological or a philosophical perspective.

Only a monkey’s sperm can unite with a monkey’s egg to create a monkey. Same with a giraffe, a cow, a pig, a horse, etc. And, I didn’t make a conjecture.

No mental gymnastics required.

If the NCBC and the Church’s Magisterium cannot come to a definite conclusion, I don’t think we can.

Each person has to hold his or her own unprovable opinion.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

That’s what I believe, but some Catholic philosophers and bioethicists disagree. Varying opinions are held.

And, grass is alive; parrots are alive; monkeys are alive, yet none of those things have immortal souls. If the Church knew when God infused a soul into a human being, it would say so.

If you go to the Website of the National Catholic Bioethics Center you can read that they say no one knows when human life is infused with a soul. Even if it’s not at conception, the potential for a new life and a new soul exists at conception.

The “Declaration on Procured Abortion,” published in 1974 states:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent.”

catholiceducation.org/en/science/ethical-issues/do-embryos-have-souls.html

I’m not sure why you are referring to the “soul” in trying to make a legal argument.

Roe v Wade doesn’t mention soul at all.

BUT the Church has taught that life and ensoulment begins at conception.

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Mary was conceived without sin. She had a soul at conception. She had no sin on her soul at conception.

It isn’t the Dogma of the Immaculate Ensoulment.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Perhaps because some CAF members realize that being against abortion is harder than just saying doctors should be punished. Of course, as others have pointed out, that is not the politically correct pro-life thing to say.

I think the whole question of abortion is very complex, Sally. Much more complex than just shutting down abortion centers.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I’m not sure why you are referring to the “soul” in trying to make a legal argument.

Roe v Wade doesn’t mention soul at all.

BUT the Church has taught that life and ensoulment begins at conception.

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Mary was conceived without sin. She had a soul at conception. She had no sin on her soul at conception.

It isn’t the Dogma of the Immaculate Ensoulment.

The Church teaches that life begins at conception, but nowhere does the Church teach that ensoulment begins at conception. Nowhere. It teaches that life must be protected from conception, but it teaches that no one knows when the soul is infused:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent.”

catholiceducation.org/en/science/ethical-issues/do-embryos-have-souls.html

To me, Hillary seems more in line with the Catholic Church when she said that the “potential” for human life exists from the moment of conception:

shark-tank.com/2015/08/12/marco-rubio-offends-hillary-clinton-with-his-abortion-stance/

No one really knows. While the Church says human life must be protected from conception, it does not teach when the soul is infused because it doesn’t know - see quote above.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The current occupant had no problem handling the press. It’s the world he can’t handle.

You’re welcome to your opinion.

 

[sallybutler]

I think the whole question of abortion is very complex, Sally. Much more complex than just shutting down abortion centers.

Yes it is. But it is easier to think shutting down clinics will solve the problem than addressing the real problem.

1. Not everyone thinks life begins at conception.
2. Not everyone believe people have souls.
3. Rape and incest are mitigating situations.
4. When a choice between the life of the mother and the child, the mother comes first.
5. If the woman doesn’t realize what she is doing, she isn’t culpable.

 

[Sy_Noe]

It seems quite clear by this point that I can’t do anything to stop the demagoguery on this forum (if you want to call it a forum) but I guess I still have the power to “boycott” it by not responding to your posts. Good day.

And a good day, actually a night now, to you as well.