L
larsegarots
Guest
Prolife people do value life out of womb, but prolife people value life in the womb as more valuable than life out of the womb.
- Status
J
josephdavid
Guest
Read the post above from the CCC. ALL LIFE BOB is to be defended!
Social issues which limit adequate healthcare to its children and to all it citizens is a life issue. The list goes on.
Deregulating the environment that pollutes our air and waters and adversly affects the health of it’s citizens so they can save their corporate donors money… That is a life issue.
Shall I continue? Especially when Pres. Bush was asked about the mistake of invading Iraq. He said “So what”. Ten’s of thousands of innocents died in that war.
Sorry overall when you look at their voting records and rhetoric, they are not very much pro-life out of the womb. Same with Democrats. Pretty much the whole lot except a few are hypocrites and have damaged this country.
E
estesbob
Guest
I fear the discussion ismoving towards the usual pro-abortion argument of “unless you adopt my views on social programs the chilren will continue to die.”
at any rate i dont see anywhere in Church teaching that abortion i ok until certain levels of social spening are reached. In fact the opposite is true-the Church says that we can not vote fo a pro-abortion canidate regardless of how great we think he may be on other social issues. That is becuase they, like myslef, realize that without the right to life the amont of social spending is irelevant to those denied ife.
J
josephdavid
Guest
Perhaps to end the argument as you have time and time before you twist what I say here to make people believe I am for abortion and ok the voting for a pro-abortion politician? I hope I am wrong here when I feel that way but it appears so.
Not once have I evern condoned abortion or said to vote for Obama or other pro-abortion politicians is ok.
Children will die in the womb with abortion and children will die from lack of healthcare, illegal wars, pollution.
J
jmcrae
Guest
How about the born child’s right to life, even though his mother has to go on welfare to support him?
But no - the conservatives want to cut her off and starve her and her child to death, because she made poor choices during her teen years - she and her child must be thrown to the wolves and punished to death for getting caught being a foolish teenager. As an example to others who might dare to do something dumb during their teenage years, of course!!
And then we stand there and wonder why teens want to hide their mistakes, even to the point of murdering their own children …
L
larsegarots
Guest
Let’s also not forget that even if there are no human abortions, God allows 10-25% of all pregnancies to be aborted through miscarriages. source: americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html
To vote on only one issue is extremely dangerous.
K
kage_ar
Guest
Can you produce this statement in the party platform of either major party? I’ve never met anyone, from any party, who wants to starve parents and children to death. Please, wild allegations do nothing for honest debate.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I’m not talking about politicians. I’m talking about lower-case “c” conservatives that I have encountered here on this Forum, from time to time.
E
estesbob
Guest
And the point is?
I dont know of anyone that votes on a single issue. However as the Church teaches being pro- abortion disqualifies a canidate from receiving a catholics vote
K
kage_ar
Guest
My, I have never encountered people on this forum who want to starve teenagers and babies.I’m not talking about politicians. I’m talking about lower-case “c” conservatives that I have encountered here on this Forum, from time to time.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Sorry to the original poster for this somewhat off-topic response to another poster who is also off topic. The original poster has already clearly stated she opposes abortion.
I recently had a miscarriage. I will not forget that child. How *incredibly insensitive *(and illogical) of you to compare miscarriage with the intentional killing of pre-born humans.
The medical community refers to miscarriages as “spontaneous abortions”, which contrasts starkly with “induced abortion”. There is a vast difference between a natural death and an intentional killing.
I recently had a miscarriage. I will not forget that child. How *incredibly insensitive *(and illogical) of you to compare miscarriage with the intentional killing of pre-born humans.
E
estesbob
Guest
You and your child are in my prayers.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Thanks, estesbob.
E
Ender
Guest
I think these two positions are basically the same. Estesbob has already identified the problem with them; I’m just expanding on what he said.
Abortion is the intentional killing of the innocent; it is intrinsically evil and is the direct cause of 1.2 million deaths a year in the US. That is on one side of the scales. On the other side are issues like universal health care, the war, environmental regulations, etc. As Bob said, these are prudential issues about which the Church takes no position as to what is the best solution. I do not consider them life issues but if they are they are quality of life and not sanctity of life concerns and clearly the latter are more important. Would you really trade the lives of 1.2 million children in exchange for better health insurance?
One thing is certain: it is wrong to assume that you alone are on the side of right and the people who disagree with you are greedy, malicious, selfish SOB’s. The canard that Republicans simply don’t care about the poor has been repeated for so long people are blind to the fact that the charge is not only untrue but un-Christian. The battle is not between those who want to help and those who don’t care but between those who disagree on how help can best be given.
Ender
J
josephdavid
Guest
Show me in Scripture, CCC and Catholic Social Teaching where it says it is ok to sacrifice one life for another?
As for #2 just look at the Republican voting record.
E
estesbob
Guest
False dichotomy as no one is suggesting one or the other. We have shown you ample evidence of Church teaching on the primacy of abortion when voting, Can you please show us where the Church has endorsed the Democrat party’s approach to solving social issues?
J
josephdavid
Guest
Bob,
Come on now, you keep asking that and I have posted dozens of times countless excerpts from Scripture, CCC and Catholic Social Teachings in this website, within numerous threads.
Your turn now please.
Also, yes Bob you have posted ample evidence why not to vote for a pro-abortion candidate and guess what, I did not vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
E
estesbob
Guest
Not as single one which endorsed either party’s approach to social issues.Bob,
Come on now, you keep asking that and I have posted dozens of times countless excerpts from Scripture, CCC and Catholic Social Teachings in this website, within numerous threads.
Your turn now please.
Also, yes Bob you have posted ample evidence why not to vote for a pro-abortion candidate and guess what, I did not vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
J
josephdavid
Guest
In your opinion and a few others yes.
However, just a … I disagree even if the quotes come directly from Popes saying “unions are good” and “the government has a responsibility to ensure this or that”
E
Ender
Guest
Lives are made harder when social problems are unresolved; (more) lives are ended where abortions are legal. The calculation made by those who support a pro-abortion candidate because of his social agenda is precisely what you deplore above: they trade the lives of the unborn for the hope of improving the lives of those lucky enough to have survived until birth. There is no tradeoff necessary for Republicans: they get to support someone who both opposes abortion and proposes solutions to social problems that seem more likely to work. There is no sacrifice of the interests of one group to the needs of another.
I’m happy to. I think the best example of intentions versus results is the Great Society’s war on poverty. Enormous sums were poured into welfare programs for the best of reasons but the programs made life for the poor worse and created generations of welfare dependents. In the '90s the Republicans in control of Congress passed legislation putting limits on how long people could stay on welfare. The cry at the time was that they were insensitive and cruel but the results were very beneficial. Neither the Democrats who worsened the welfare mess nor the Republicans who ameliorated it intended harm, both worked from the best of intentions, it is simply that one set of solutions worked better than the other.
There is no sacrifice of the poor, the environment, or anything else at stake; it is one set of proposals versus another and the only immorality involved is on the side of those who trade the lives of the unborn as the cost of implementing their political preferences.
Ender
- Status