I'm very liberal, considering Catholicism.

[jmcrae]

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?

Not at all - but if we want these children to live past the first day out of the womb, their mothers need to have some kind of accessible health care plan - at the very least, a nurse or a midwife who can teach the mothers how to breastfeed.

This isn’t just “quality of life” either - big house vs. small house - this is the difference between surviving the first day, or not. Fine, you can say that you reduced abortions, but if your infant mortality rate jumps by the same number of kids, then what have you gained?

 

[seekdatruth]

Hello, DOUBTFIRE:

The position of the Catholic Church is: if you have the knowledge and information that voting for a pro-abortion candidate is a grave sin, and there are two candidates to vote for, and one candidate is against abortion while the other is not - you must vote for the anti-abortion candidate. Doing otherwise causes immediate, and without notice, excommunication. You would then have to go through the steps to regain communication, starting with a priest.

The problem we had in the past election, is that many Catholics (and Christians) actually did not know that Obama was pro-abortion and subsequently voted for him on other issues. We are expected to do all that is reasonably possible to get answers to such important questions, but, the president-elect played it very smart. From his statements, many folks did not realize that he was pro-abortion. Hence, a number of Catholics voted for him.

If a Catholic is honestly ignorant (the Church calls this invincible ignorance), at voting time, then a vote for the pro-abortion candidate would not result in self-induced, immediate excommunication, and no sin would have been commited.

It would be prudent, once you found out that you had voted incorrectly, that you vow to do more to find out about a candidate and this issue for future elections, and not vote wrongly again.

This was the common statement of belief from the letters that our American Bishops stated in letters prior to the election, letters that were to be read to each priest’s congregation. I believe those letters might still exist somewhere on CAF.

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
JD

Just jumping in here, haven’t read everything past this, but wanted to ask. So what do you do when you feel that neither candidate would have truly abolished abortion? In this past election, while I consider abortion wrong and that we should eliminate laws protecting the legality of it, it seemed as if there was no clear “pro-life” PRESIDENTIAL candidate, even though the VP candidate was, but she would not be the major decision maker, and even so, any candidate would have been hard-pressed to get that past COngress and the Supreme Court. It is a known fact that most abortions are for financial reasons, and that under Republican administrations, especially GWB, there was actually a marked INCREASE in abortion for this reason. Under “conservative” government, support for healthcare, WIC, and unemployment benefits get slashed. People are left without many clear choices when they fall on hard times, and sadly resort to abortion. There are some religious programs, but it seems those resources are limited, few, and far between, or people just don’t hear about them. There is no excuse for abortion, but when you can’t really stop it, all you’re left with is to do something to improve the environmental conditions that contribute to it. I feel that better serving the weak and poor will reduce the instance of abortion in the short-term as we continue to raise awareness of the truth about its cruelty and grave sinfulness. I feel raising moral awareness on such matters is indeed the role of the Church, yet trying to force the CHurch’s will on the secular public is wrong. Who would decide which religion is right? What if the JW’s got the bid for government influnce? WHat about LDS? Then would we be complacent on the influence of church on state? I think not in such a case. ABORTION IS HORRIBLE, WRONG, EVIL! Keep shouting it, keep informing, keep fighting! for the unborn!

 

[seekdatruth]

Not at all - but if we want these children to live past the first day out of the womb, their mothers need to have some kind of accessible health care plan - at the very least, a nurse or a midwife who can teach the mothers how to breastfeed.

This isn’t just “quality of life” either - big house vs. small house - this is the difference between surviving the first day, or not. Fine, you can say that you reduced abortions, but if your infant mortality rate jumps by the same number of kids, then what have you gained?

 

[josephdavid]

Just jumping in here, haven’t read everything past this, but wanted to ask. So what do you do when you feel that neither candidate would have truly abolished abortion? In this past election, while I consider abortion wrong and that we should eliminate laws protecting the legality of it, it seemed as if there was no clear “pro-life” PRESIDENTIAL candidate, even though the VP candidate was, but she would not be the major decision maker, and even so, any candidate would have been hard-pressed to get that past COngress and the Supreme Court. It is a known fact that most abortions are for financial reasons, and that under Republican administrations, especially GWB, there was actually a marked INCREASE in abortion for this reason. Under “conservative” government, support for healthcare, WIC, and unemployment benefits get slashed. People are left without many clear choices when they fall on hard times, and sadly resort to abortion. There are some religious programs, but it seems those resources are limited, few, and far between, or people just don’t hear about them. There is no excuse for abortion, but when you can’t really stop it, all you’re left with is to do something to improve the environmental conditions that contribute to it. I feel that better serving the weak and poor will reduce the instance of abortion in the short-term as we continue to raise awareness of the truth about its cruelty and grave sinfulness. I feel raising moral awareness on such matters is indeed the role of the Church, yet trying to force the CHurch’s will on the secular public is wrong. Who would decide which religion is right? What if the JW’s got the bid for government influnce? WHat about LDS? Then would we be complacent on the influence of church on state? I think not in such a case. ABORTION IS HORRIBLE, WRONG, EVIL! Keep shouting it, keep informing, keep fighting! for the unborn!

Great post. Also I may note it is sad that several countries are way ahead of us in infant mortality rates. Even Cuba is ahead of us in this category!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

By the way I believe all the countries that have a better infant mortality rate than us all (if not vast majority) have universal or equal healthcare for all it’s citizens.

By the way Iraq has a 81:1000 infant mortality rate which has jumped significantly since our invasion into Iraq. Sad but true.

 

[josephdavid]

I just read an article from Catholic.org

Sad but true.
catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=24791&section=Cathcom

The Catholic Health Assoc. say some 18,000 each year (about 49 each day) die because they do not have health insurance.

Pretty sad being that we are the wealthiest most democratic nation in the world.

Fortunately the Catholic Bishops agree that affordable and equal healthcare should be a basic human right and the government should be influencial in orchestrating this.

 

[kage_ar]

I just read an article from Catholic.org

Sad but true.
catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=24791&section=Cathcom

The Catholic Health Assoc. say some 18,000 each year (about 49 each day) die because they do not have health insurance.

Pretty sad being that we are the wealthiest most democratic nation in the world.

Fortunately the Catholic Bishops agree that affordable and equal healthcare should be a basic human right and the government should be influencial in orchestrating this.

If that makes you sad, sit down and try to wrap your mind around this.

In 2000, more than 97 people died from abortion EVERY HOUR OF EVERY DAY (this number is low because not very state would report their stats to the CDC.)

That number is staggering.

cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm

 

[seekdatruth]

Just wanted to say that if anyone wants to help the cause against abortion, please donate money, volunteer time, or needed items to your local pregnancy crisis center/clinic that provides ALTERNATIVES to abortion, (be sure they do not perform abortions or support them.) (eg. I gave my unwanted maternity clothes, since I had too, too much) They like baby clothes and stuff too. Call and ask what they need to be sure, and make their day!

 

[josephdavid]

If that makes you sad, sit down and try to wrap your mind around this.

In 2000, more than 97 people died from abortion EVERY HOUR OF EVERY DAY (this number is low because not very state would report their stats to the CDC.)

That number is staggering.

cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm

Both are sad and unwarranted. All deaths should be defended and fought for. In the womb or out of the womb.

According to God ALL HIS CREATION is sacred and should be defended. Not only the child in the womb but the child out of the womb.

 

[Ender]

The Catholic Health Assoc. say some 18,000 each year (about 49 each day) die because they do not have health insurance.

This is a truly absurd claim. First, every state in the country has an approved SCHIP program where health insurance is provided for otherwise uninsured children of parents with an income up to twice the poverty level. Second, not having insurance doesn’t mean not getting treatment. One of the problems illegal immigrants are causing is the strain they put on health care facilities because they can go to any public hospital in the country and get medical treatment and I’m pretty sure that if illegals can get treatment then so can uninsured citizens.

Fortunately the Catholic Bishops agree that affordable and equal healthcare should be a basic human right and the government should be influencial in orchestrating this.

It is hard to believe that the bishops have agreed on something so absurd but if they have it highlights the insignificance of their prudential opinions: they carry no moral weight whatever.

Ender

 

[josephdavid]

This is a truly absurd claim. First, every state in the country has an approved SCHIP program where health insurance is provided for otherwise uninsured children of parents with an income up to twice the poverty level. Second, not having insurance doesn’t mean not getting treatment. One of the problems illegal immigrants are causing is the strain they put on health care facilities because they can go to any public hospital in the country and get medical treatment and I’m pretty sure that if illegals can get treatment then so can uninsured citizens.

It is hard to believe that the bishops have agreed on something so absurd but if they have it highlights the insignificance of their prudential opinions: they carry no moral weight whatever.

Ender

Yes every state has the SCHIP program but it is increasing becoming short of funds. Republicans including the President voted against expanding it which would reach even more children. That is absurd.

Yes you can get treatment in the emergency room. Can you get chemo in an emergency room? Can you get dental work in an emergency room? I believe there was a story of a boy in Minnesota that died from an infected tooth because his parents had no dental insurance.

Sure illegals can get treatment but only in emergency cases. But in relations to deeper treatment of the problem (heart disease, cancer, etc) that will require insurance and more money. Neither illegals have.

Well the bishops do agree on universal healthcare for all. Sorry but its true.

 

[Ender]

Republicans including the President voted against expanding it which would reach even more children. That is absurd.

Republicans and the president voted against raising the coverage level to families making $60k/year. Where would you draw the line?

I believe there was a story of a boy in Minnesota that died from an infected tooth because his parents had no dental insurance.

Your claim was that 18,000 children die each year because they have no insurance and to prove your claim you provide us with a vague anecdote involving one child. The boy didn’t need dental insurance; he could have been treated at any public hospital.

Well the bishops do agree on universal healthcare for all. Sorry but its true.

Surely you can provide a reference to the document that supports your claim.

Ender

 

[josephdavid]

.

Surely you can provide a reference to the document that supports your claim.

Ender

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n16_v110/ai_13766686/pg_1

govinfo.library.unt.edu/chc/recommendations/orgs/usccb.pdf

Distributive justice requires that the allocation of income, wealth, and power in society be evaluated in light of its effects on persons whose basic material needs are unmet. The Second Vatican Council stated: “The right to have a share of earthly goods sufficient for oneself and one’s family belongs to everyone. The fathers and doctors of the Church held this view, teaching that we are obliged to come to the relief of the poor and to do so not merely out of our superfluous goods”.

Minimum material resources are an absolute necessity for human life. If persons are to be recognized as members of the human community, then the community has an obligation to help fulfill these basic needs unless an absolute scarcity of resources makes this strictly impossible. No such scarcity exists in the United States today. from: Economic Justice for All, #70

A consistent theme of Catholic social teaching is the option or love of preference for the poor. Today, this preference has to be expressed in worldwide dimensions, embracing the immense numbers of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without medical care, and those without hope. from: On Social Concern (Donders), #42

 

[JDaniel]

Not at all - but if we want these children to live past the first day out of the womb, their mothers need to have some kind of accessible health care plan - at the very least, a nurse or a midwife who can teach the mothers how to breastfeed.

This isn’t just “quality of life” either - big house vs. small house - this is the difference between surviving the first day, or not. Fine, you can say that you reduced abortions, but if your infant mortality rate jumps by the same number of kids, then what have you gained?

Just a suggestion: you might want to thoroughly investigate what you’re debating before jumping out and making statements that are, well, rather silly:

“While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that “First, it’s shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[3] And some countries don’t reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.”[4] However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.[5]” - Wikipedia

Further online resources:
iht.com/articles/2008/10/15/healthscience/16infant.php

You can’t compare our stats with those of most other countries because they don’t report every infant death the way we do. Those countries have a lower infant mortality rate but also have a higher stillborn death rate than we do. One of the reasons for this is technology. In many countries, when a baby is born that appears stillborn, it is immediately classified as “stillborn”, regardless of whether he/she has a pulse or not.

Add to that the ethnic predilection of certain minorities, in the US, who choose not to avail themselves of adequate health care during pregnancy and this country adds more infant deaths that could easily have been avoided under the present system. Free health care is available everywhere in the US for mothers unable to pay for private care. (My daughter availed herself of such, in Florida, and had her baby in the best hospital in the area where she lived. She had superb care, superb facilities, and superb medical practitioners. BTW, she did this on her own, before and without asking me for anything. If she had asked me, we would never have found out about the level of care available in the States.)

Nevertheless, 28,000 infant deaths post birth per year is a gnat on an elephant’s behind, as the saying goes, when compared to the number of abortions each year!

God bless,
jd

 

[josephdavid]

“While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that “First, it’s shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[3] And some countries don’t reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.”[4] However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.[5]” - Wikipedia

jd

Can we have the link to the Wikipedia site?

 

[Ender]

A consistent theme of Catholic social teaching is the option or love of preference for the poor. Today, this preference has to be expressed in worldwide dimensions, embracing the immense numbers of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without medical care, and those without hope. from: On Social Concern (Donders), #42

I should have been more specific. Regarding universal health care - we have it today in the form of public, non-profit hospitals. Now I’m quite sure that this is viewed as inadequate, which it may well be, but the devil is in the details and the citations you provided list the objectives toward which we should aim but are utterly silent on the means to be used to accomplish them. This is my point. The bishops insist on the preferential option for the poor but that cannot be interpreted to mean there is a moral obligation to support nationalized health care or any other specific proposal to resolve our health care issues.

The political argument has always been over the means; it is not about the ends. The bishops are speaking of ends, not means, which is why the debate is prudential, not moral. It is also why neither party can claim to be closer to Church teaching on these issues. The Church has neither opinion nor expertise about which actions will bring about the ends she desires.

Ender

 

[josephdavid]

I should have been more specific. Regarding universal health care - we have it today in the form of public, non-profit hospitals. Now I’m quite sure that this is viewed as inadequate, which it may well be, but the devil is in the details and the citations you provided list the objectives toward which we should aim but are utterly silent on the means to be used to accomplish them. This is my point. The bishops insist on the preferential option for the poor but that cannot be interpreted to mean there is a moral obligation to support nationalized health care or any other specific proposal to resolve our health care issues.

The political argument has always been over the means; it is not about the ends. The bishops are speaking of ends, not means, which is why the debate is prudential, not moral. It is also why neither party can claim to be closer to Church teaching on these issues. The Church has neither opinion nor expertise about which actions will bring about the ends she desires.

Ender

Read more into Catholic Social Teaching you will find the Pope’s and Bishops say the Government has a direct responsibility to care for all it citizens.

 

[estesbob]

Just a suggestion: you might want to thoroughly investigate what you’re debating before jumping out and making statements that are, well, rather silly:

“While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that “First, it’s shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[3] And some countries don’t reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.”[4] However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.[5]” - Wikipedia

Further online resources:
iht.com/articles/2008/10/15/healthscience/16infant.php

You can’t compare our stats with those of most other countries because they don’t report every infant death the way we do. Those countries have a lower infant mortality rate but also have a higher stillborn death rate than we do. One of the reasons for this is technology. In many countries, when a baby is born that appears stillborn, it is immediately classified as “stillborn”, regardless of whether he/she has a pulse or not.

Add to that the ethnic predilection of certain minorities, in the US, who choose not to avail themselves of adequate health care during pregnancy and this country adds more infant deaths that could easily have been avoided under the present system. Free health care is available everywhere in the US for mothers unable to pay for private care. (My daughter availed herself of such, in Florida, and had her baby in the best hospital in the area where she lived. She had superb care, superb facilities, and superb medical practitioners. BTW, she did this on her own, before and without asking me for anything. If she had asked me, we would never have found out about the level of care available in the States.)

Nevertheless, 28,000 infant deaths post birth per year is a gnat on an elephant’s behind, as the saying goes, when compared to the number of abortions each year!

God bless,
jd

50% if the “infant mortality” is due to infants born under 23 weeks gestation. Like you said another one of those statistics that mean nothing unless looked at in context. for instance although Canda is shown as having a lower infant moratlity rate in their western provinces premies are sent to the United states for care .

 

[Ender]

Read more into Catholic Social Teaching you will find the Pope’s and Bishops say the Government has a direct responsibility to care for all it citizens.

This says nothing about how that care is best delivered. The political arguments are not about whether care should be provided but about how to best accomplish it. Again, you conflate ends with means. There are no Church positions on which specific solutions should be adopted.

Ender

 

[seekdatruth]

This is a truly absurd claim. First, every state in the country has an approved SCHIP program where health insurance is provided for otherwise uninsured children of parents with an income up to twice the poverty level. Second, not having insurance doesn’t mean not getting treatment. One of the problems illegal immigrants are causing is the strain they put on health care facilities because they can go to any public hospital in the country and get medical treatment and I’m pretty sure that if illegals can get treatment then so can uninsured citizens.

Yeah, and if you make $1 over their “poverty limit”, yet the cost of living is already killing you, then you’re out of luck. Even if you have SCHIP, it pays so low, most doctors will not accept patients on that plan if there are plenty of other patients on regular insurance, because they know they can get paid better by the other patient. When we were on it last year after my husband left the service and we couldn’t find work for 6 months, our only option was the ER, which will also let you die in the waiting room before they care for anything that isn’t gushing blood if they have other patients on other insurance. we couldn’t find a FP doctor that would take us for 200 miles, and that included big cities like Phoenix and Tucson.

It is hard to believe that the bishops have agreed on something so absurd but if they have it highlights the insignificance of their prudential opinions: they carry no moral weight whatever.

Ender

The Pope said if there is a clear choice of pro-life or pro-choice then take the former. It’s clear to me that a “conservative” in office is not necessarily “pro-life”, since environmental pollution (something they care nothing about and constantly relax the regulations on to give big business more leeway to profit on, check the voting records) is dangerous to human life and has been directly linked to miscarriages. If a woman who exposes herself to environmental hazards during pregnancy such as cigarette smoke and alcohol, is morally responsible for her miscarriage and therefore is committing abortion, well then anyone who votes for a candidate who allows more pollution that causes miscarriages and we cannot escape is accessory to our miscarriage abortions too. Same with health care. We seriously have the highest infant mortality rate among industrialized countries. There’s just no excuse for that. The republican candidate wanted to tax employers’ contributions to insurance premiums over $5000. Right now, there is no cap on that. That’s a raise in taxes for employers which would have cause them to drop health care benefits or severely reduce them, maybe put a cap on how many children we can have and still be covered! That’s like the most un-Catholic stuff I can think of. No thanks, I’ll not feel guilty for who I chose. I have no money to loose, only my conscience. Whatever I have extra can go to the poor, who are me, 1 year ago, and always Jesus.
Peace.

 

[Elizabeth502]

DOUBTFIRE, FREE UP YOUR PM SPACE! (Please):banghead: