Non-Negotiables Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter ctlw83
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheTrueCentrist said:
The health care bill does not fund abortions.
politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/28/john-carter/rep-john-carter-says-health-care-law-provides-full/
Click to expand...
As always Satan is in the details. Austin is the center of Texas liberalism. The Austin press has a well-documented history of supporting “choice”. Do we really expect them to accurately and completely report on their favorite stealth legislation? Simply put: Obama is dedicated to abortion like no other president in history. His administration is the most pro-abortion in history. The congress and senate are the most pro-abortion in history. Do you seriously think that there is no abortion in the health care bill? You are straining credulity here. Human life International and Priests for Life both disagree with you and the liberal Austin press. The USCCB asked for massive mobilization against the abortion in the health bill. Why? Were they all wrong?

usccb.org/prolife/CardRigali-AbortionNeutralReform-7-29-09.pdf

The Bishops opposed the bill. Why?
 
po18guy said:
As always Satan is in the details. Austin is the center of Texas liberalism. The Austin press has a well-documented history of supporting “choice”. Do we really expect them to accurately and completely report on their favorite stealth legislation? Simply put: Obama is dedicated to abortion like no other president in history. His administration is the most pro-abortion in history. The congress and senate are the most pro-abortion in history. Do you seriously think that there is no abortion in the health care bill? You are straining credulity here. Human life International and Priests for Life both disagree with you and the liberal Austin press. The USCCB asked for massive mobilization against the abortion in the health bill. Why? Were they all wrong?

usccb.org/prolife/CardRigali-AbortionNeutralReform-7-29-09.pdf

The Bishops opposed the bill. Why?
Click to expand...
I trust the bishops interpretation of the bible, as they have extensive training in that area, however I am less impressed with their training when it comes to reading legislation.

Basically, the bishops’ position is contradicted by several respectable groups, for example:
factcheck.org/2010/04/the-abortion-issue/
politifact.com/subjects/abortion/
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
I trust the bishops interpretation of the bible, as they have extensive training in that area, however I am less impressed with their training when it comes to reading legislation.

Basically, the bishops’ position is contradicted by several respectable groups, for example:
factcheck.org/2010/04/the-abortion-issue/
politifact.com/subjects/abortion/
Click to expand...
That is neither a Catholic, nor a “centrist” viewpoint. Are you accusing the Bishops of the sin of lack of due diligence in their examination of the legislation? Please explain how you are not.
 
po18guy said:
However, strictly interpreting this, and failing to use prudential judgment in voting has resulted in the situation we have today of almost maniacal devotion to the bloodshed of abortion. When it is necessary, our egos seem unable to cross political lines for the sake of the unborn.
Click to expand...
Beautiful! I could not have articulated the key issue as well in one sentence.
 
Originally Posted by po18guy
However, strictly interpreting this, and failing to use prudential judgment in voting has resulted in the situation we have today of almost maniacal devotion to the bloodshed of abortion. When it is necessary, our egos seem unable to cross political lines for the sake of the unborn.
TheRealJuliane said:
Beautiful! I could not have articulated the key issue as well in one sentence.
Click to expand...
I agree as well. It seems like all politicians on both sides of the aisle are more interested in preserving their political power and juice to feed their egos than in saving innocent lives.

On the republican side the supposed stalwarts of conservationism and supporters of the right to life-Reagan and the Bushes -did little to prevent in any real way the use of abortion. Clinton was a non player and in a weird sense the half-hearted acceptance of preventing federal funding for abortions by Obama in the healthcare was a “highlight” for pro-life forces.

And as long as abortion is legal in the US, the other issue that has to be considered is the efforts to prevent the demand for abortions. Those politicians that say they are pro-life and then do nothing to help prevent abortions from being seen as an alternative to bringing life into this world are just as guilty of snuffing out life as those that directly support abortion policies.

Refusing to use all the tools and methods available to prevent abortion for the sake of some other political ideal is actually a rejection of the pro-life concept as derived from Jesus’ teachings.

Peace
 
portarica said:
Originally Posted by po18guy
However, strictly interpreting this, and failing to use prudential judgment in voting has resulted in the situation we have today of almost maniacal devotion to the bloodshed of abortion. When it is necessary, our egos seem unable to cross political lines for the sake of the unborn.

I agree as well. It seems like all politicians on both sides of the aisle are more interested in preserving their political power and juice to feed their egos than in saving innocent lives.

On the republican side the supposed stalwarts of conservationism and supporters of the right to life-Reagan and the Bushes -did little to prevent in any real way the use of abortion. Clinton was a non player and in a weird sense the half-hearted acceptance of preventing federal funding for abortions by Obama in the healthcare was a “highlight” for pro-life forces.

And as long as abortion is legal in the US, the other issue that has to be considered is the efforts to prevent the demand for abortions. Those politicians that say they are pro-life and then do nothing to help prevent abortions from being seen as an alternative to bringing life into this world are just as guilty of snuffing out life as those that directly support abortion policies.

Refusing to use all the tools and methods available to prevent abortion for the sake of some other political ideal is actually a rejection of the pro-life concept as derived from Jesus’ teachings.

Peace
Click to expand...
There is little the President can actually do about abortion. The Congress can do some things, and the Republican Congress with the support of President Bush, did fund abstinence-only education programs in the schools. Grants were given out and organizations educated thousands of students about the risks of sex outside marriage. Of course that funding stopped when the Democrats gained the majority, and more was cut off once Obama was elected. Now some of the abstinence-only programs have found large donors, enabling them to keep going, but there may be further restrictions coming about them even having access to students in public school.

We do what we can, as we can, always working toward the day when babies are no longer murdered for convenience.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
There is little the President can actually do about abortion. The Congress can do some things, and the Republican Congress with the support of President Bush, did fund abstinence-only education programs in the schools. Grants were given out and organizations educated thousands of students about the risks of sex outside marriage. Of course that funding stopped when the Democrats gained the majority, and more was cut off once Obama was elected. Now some of the abstinence-only programs have found large donors, enabling them to keep going, but there may be further restrictions coming about them even having access to students in public school.

We do what we can, as we can, always working toward the day when babies are no longer murdered for convenience.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that abstinence program led to more abortions as teens skipped the condoms but didn’t skip the sex.

While the number having sex in the abstinence groups was down about a third, 33% still were having sex versus the 50% who were in regular sex ed classes.

Peace
 
Boy for a Catholic, you sure have some anti-Catholic positions. You get your statistics from the pro-aborts, too.

:confused:
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Boy for a Catholic, you sure have some anti-Catholic positions. You get your statistics from the pro-aborts, too.

:confused:
Click to expand...
Actually I don’t have any anti-catholic positions. But I do believe that we must prevent every abortion, even those that can only be prevented with common sense.

However, I don’t equate fundamentalist protestant evangelical positions with catholic doctrine or dogma.

Peace
 
portarica said:
Originally Posted by po18guy
However, strictly interpreting this, and failing to use prudential judgment in voting has resulted in the situation we have today of almost maniacal devotion to the bloodshed of abortion. When it is necessary, our egos seem unable to cross political lines for the sake of the unborn.

I agree as well. It seems like all politicians on both sides of the aisle are more interested in preserving their political power and juice to feed their egos than in saving innocent lives.

On the republican side the supposed stalwarts of conservationism and supporters of the right to life-Reagan and the Bushes -did little to prevent in any real way the use of abortion. Clinton was a non player and in a weird sense the half-hearted acceptance of preventing federal funding for abortions by Obama in the healthcare was a “highlight” for pro-life forces.

And as long as abortion is legal in the US, the other issue that has to be considered is the efforts to prevent the demand for abortions. Those politicians that say they are pro-life and then do nothing to help prevent abortions from being seen as an alternative to bringing life into this world are just as guilty of snuffing out life as those that directly support abortion policies.

Refusing to use all the tools and methods available to prevent abortion for the sake of some other political ideal is actually a rejection of the pro-life concept as derived from Jesus’ teachings.

Peace
Click to expand...
No politician has any authority over the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion. The Court is a stand-alone and untouchable. However, the President nominates and the congress and senate confirm justices to the Court. And, that is where abortion will be illegalized just as it was once legalized. Love him or hate him, George Bush was as pro-life in this regard as Obama is pro-death. Oh, rank and file politicians can seek that the Hyde Amendment is attached to medical legislation, but not this current crop in charge. They are pro-death to their core. I wonder how many have taken planned barrenhood cash?
 
portarica said:
Unfortunately that abstinence program led to more abortions as teens skipped the condoms but didn’t skip the sex.
Click to expand...
You really believe this? Teaching abstinence leads to not only sex; not only to unwanted pregnancies, but abortions? Wow. I don’t recall seeing this anywhere…
 
po18guy said:
No politician has any authority over the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion. The Court is a stand-alone and untouchable. However, the President nominates and the congress and senate confirm justices to the Court. And, that is where abortion will be illegalized just as it was once legalized. Love him or hate him, George Bush was as pro-life in this regard as Obama is pro-death. Oh, rank and file politicians can seek that the Hyde Amendment is attached to medical legislation, but not this current crop in charge. They are pro-death to their core. I wonder how many have taken planned barrenhood cash?
Click to expand...
Bush and Reagan paid lip service to the anti-abortion movement and why do you think the republicans in this election cycle want the pro-life voters to turn down the rhetoric? The republican may be marginally better on the PR side, but as far as accomplishing stuff they are in the same boat as the Dems.

At least some of the Dems had the courage to get some anti-abortion sentiment in the healthcare bill. The republicans could have made a very strong anti-abortion plank in the bill, but their handlers from the insurance companies and drug companies and employers wouldn’t allow it.

So a few more babies get executed, that’s OK as long as the corporations get their way.

Peace
 
I absolutely agree with you, po18guy, Candidate B is a better choice because it supports life more than the other. But, I am getting confused when candidates’ positions are “Life, but…” or 'Death, but…" For example, here is my dilemma (issue 1 is abortion, and issue 2 is gay marriage)

Candidate A:
  1. Death
  2. Death
  3. no stated position
  4. no stated position
  5. no stated position
Candidate B
  1. Death, but supports parental notification for minors;
  2. Life, but supports same-sex civil unions and will honor previously legally granted Gay marriages.
  3. no stated position
  4. no stated position
  5. no stated position
Both of Candidate B’s stances don’t seem genuine to me-- just strategy to try to please people on both sides.

As you can also see, those two issues are the only non-negotiables I can find answers for. Candidate B looks, a little more in favor of life, but I seriously question that candidate’s fidelity to life due to actions the candidate has taken in other areas.

I am so confused. I want to vote faithfully around the non-negotiables and not get side-tracked by other issues. On other issues, I like Candidate A better. But I am afraid I am doing mental gymnastics here…

Anybody have advice?

Thanks!
po18guy said:
Here are two candidates, and their positions on the non-negotiab****les:

Candidate A
  1. Death
  2. Death
  3. Death
  4. Death
  5. Death
Candidate B
  1. Life
  2. Life
  3. Death
  4. Life
  5. Death
One will be elected. So why do certain Catholics engage in monu-Mental contortions of logic to vote for candidate A? Is there another label, an affiliation that means much more to them, that overshadows the simplicity of moral choice here?
Click to expand...
 
portarica said:
Bush and Reagan paid lip service to the anti-abortion movement and why do you think the republicans in this election cycle want the pro-life voters to turn down the rhetoric? The republican may be marginally better on the PR side, but as far as accomplishing stuff they are in the same boat as the Dems.

At least some of the Dems had the courage to get some anti-abortion sentiment in the healthcare bill. The republicans could have made a very strong anti-abortion plank in the bill, but their handlers from the insurance companies and drug companies and employers wouldn’t allow it.

So a few more babies get executed, that’s OK as long as the corporations get their way.

Peace
Click to expand...
Bitter, like quinine.
 
NoelleC said:
I absolutely agree with you, po18guy, Candidate B is a better choice because it supports life more than the other. But, I am getting confused when candidates’ positions are “Life, but…” or 'Death, but…"
Click to expand...
Sometimes, blunt questions are needed before a blunt answer can be received. Oppressive tax laws threaten the Church if they speak out on candidates. What we need is a Catholic party. Then watch them tilt at windmills!
 
portarica said:
Unfortunately that abstinence program led to more abortions as teens skipped the condoms but didn’t skip the sex.

While the number having sex in the abstinence groups was down about a third, 33% still were having sex versus the 50% who were in regular sex ed classes.

Peace
Click to expand...
Please post links to this research. You are drawing these statements directly from the pro-aborts, who always say that abstinence education isn’t effective, because they cannot in any way imagine that teens can actually make a decision to stay in control of their impulses and their bodily urges. Yet teens are hungry for this information and most of them, when asked, state that they WANT more information on how to stay pure - they see the damage that pre-marital sex causes and they really don’t want to be one of those statistics.

All the abstinence programs I have researched do not just tell kids “don’t have sex,” they instruct them on CHARACTER issues, which is really the back-story of pre-marital sex. The failing of parents to teach kids what their sexuality is FOR, that is the purpose of God, and not just for their own pleasure, is what necessitates a program to help with that instruction. Planned Parenthood and SEICUS have curricula that teach 5th graders about using dental dams to help protect against STDs, and involve VERY explicit information taught in mixed groups. This is being done IN THE SCHOOLS, where most parents want the teachers to concentrate on academia, and leave the sex education to us.
 
po18guy said:
No politician has any authority over the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion. The Court is a stand-alone and untouchable. However, the President nominates and the congress and senate confirm justices to the Court. And, that is where abortion will be illegalized just as it was once legalized. Love him or hate him, George Bush was as pro-life in this regard as Obama is pro-death. Oh, rank and file politicians can seek that the Hyde Amendment is attached to medical legislation, but not this current crop in charge. They are pro-death to their core. I wonder how many have taken planned barrenhood cash?
Click to expand...
We call it Klan Barrenhood since PP was established by a known racist eugenicist whose stated goal was to wipe out “human weeds.”

Even without the Roe v. Wade overturn which we pray for, there is a lot of legislation that can be passed which will remove the profit from abortion and thus end the holocaust…hmmmm…funny that the anti-corporate crowd doesn’t seem to rail against the corporation of death, Klan Barrenhood…but I digress. One great bill that is pending in Texas mandates that a woman considering abortion be shown her ultrasound before making that decision. Unlike being shown graphic pictures of someone else’s dead baby after an abortion, this would be HER baby, moving in HER womb. Incredibly powerful.

Nebraska is attempting to pass legislation that will mandate that a baby 20 weeks and older MUST be given anesthesia before an abortion, the “fetal pain” approach. I think this is a little weaker than the mandatory US bills. There is also the “personhood” effort, to finally define an unborn baby as a person according to the Constitution, so that they can be fully protected from conception. that would of course eliminate the possibility of abortion for anything but a true emergency, a life and death situation for the mother.

We fight on, with the help of Christ. His is the battle anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top