Nuns get involved in the battle for the White House

[estesbob]

Which points of mine did you miss? Nobody is asking you to pay for abortions - the president specifically signed a directive to that effect. Increasing insurance coverage will only mean that some people will find it easier to use THEIR own money to pay for abortion. Do I think that the uninsured/under-insured should continue to suffer, die or go destitute just to NOT prevent something that people have been doing legally for decades anyway? My answer is a resounding, “No”.

So none of our Tax dollars go to overseas abortion providers? Employers like myself are not forced to cover abortificant drugs as part of our health coverage for employees?

i’m also curious as to how planned parenthood could possibly allocate their expenses so as to assure no government money was used for abortions. Do they allocate their utility bills between the portion that covers the abortuary and the portion that covers the rest of their facilities? h\How do they handle the salary of their receptionist ,management, and other employees-is there some way they can wall off the abortion providing part of their job from the rest of their job or, as i suspect, is all the money both public and private just thrown into a single bank account and spent on whatever the facility needs?

 

[seekerz]

This a a logic fallacy you seem to like using them ]

You are attempting to blame the Republican party for tentative budget cuts. In such as Social Security.

YET! Mr Obama has no plan to protect / keep Social Security.
weeklystandard.com/blogs/axelrod-admits-obama-doesnt-have-plan-keep-social-security-going-bankrupt_652998.html

All I am attempting to do is clarify why the other poster is opposed to so-called ‘entitlements’ when he clearly believes that those who work deserve recompense. What is the logical fallacy in that?

 

[kimmielittle]

Abortion funding is already supposedly separate from general health insurance coverage in some insurance companies, so what is unbelievable about government also keeping it separate?

Ahhhhhhhhhh…where do you think that separate ? question mark because I don’t think, you can prove that claim ] fund comes from?

I don’t see where the health care law is forcing people to pay for abortion

Sorry, I wasn’t asking for an opinion - I was asking you to support your claims with FACTS you know, like I furnished you with ].

Originally Posted by seekerz
Nobody is asking you to pay for abortions

YOUR second Claim was that :

Originally Posted by seekerz
the president specifically signed a directive to that effect.

 

[seekerz]

So none of our Tax dollars go to overseas abortion providers?

Already dealt with in a recent post.

Employers like myself are not forced to cover abortificant drugs as part of our health coverage for employees?

Maybe your question would seem more relevant to me if the drugs which can be used to induce abortion could all be neatly excluded from drug coverage in insurance plans. The fact is, doing so would also revert normal childbearing (and licit treatment of female pathology) halfway to the Stone Age.

i’m also curious as to how planned parenthood could possibly allocate their expenses so as to assure no government money was used for abortions. Do they allocate their utility bills between the portion that covers the abortuary and the portion that covers the rest of their facilities? h\How do they handle the salary of their receptionist ,management, and other employees-is there some way they can wall off the abortion providing part of their job from the rest of their job or, as i suspect, is all the money both public and private just thrown into a single bank account and spent on whatever the facility needs?

Perhaps the same way that some private insurance companies/underwriters claim to simultaneously provide for plans that exclude abortion coverage and plans that include it…

 

[kimmielittle]

You do realize Mr Obama AND HHS do not support your claims?

Nor do Your Catholic Bishops :

READ THE FULL LETTER mrconservative.com/2012/0…for-abortions/

I dono why Catholic Bishops would lie to Catholics…BUT I do KNOW why MSM would.

‘Darn Tooting!’ Obama Brags About HHS Reg Catholic Bishops Call Attack on Liberty

cnsnews.com/news/article/darn…attack-liberty

Let’s make it simple:

Are taxes used to pay for abortions?
Yes
No

If NO; please provide verifiable evidence supporting your claim.

 

[Elizabeth502]

One could, perhaps, be more understanding of these nuns’ having become de facto appendages of the Democrat party if the latter actually did anything for the poor other than provide them with abortions. But it doesn’t.

It is my obseration that the “social safety net” is inadequate for many, excessive for many.
But improve SSI for the poorest of the poor? No.
Improve Medicaid funding for those who need it? No.
Give the “clunkers” to the poor who could have used them for transportation? No.

So, let’s not pretend that the Dem party serves the cause of “social justice”. It doesn’t.

What I have been saying all along.

Now, we have a dying breed of nuns who don’t mind riding around the country in a $100,000+ bus …(just to carry two nuns) directly supporting abortion and homosexual “marriage”-promoting candidates, and we have to wonder why they would aid in promoting some of the worst moral positions any political party has ever taken.

Those truly committed to social justice (which include lay and religious) have zero time to make campaign tours. They are way too busy serving the poor. And most of those religious ARE faithful to the moral teachings of the Roman Church.

The Nuns on the Bus do not represent most consecrated religious (thankfully). In their political positions they are a rogue group. Nor do they represent (in those positions) the Church. Nor do they represent (in those positions) the teachings of Jesus. So, using the example of this “group” of sisters to provide “Christian” rationalization for the immoral positions of the Democratic Party platform lacks credibility, not to mention rationality.

 

[seekerz]

2 Thess. 3:10 “In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.”

Jesus is specifically talking about the spirit of ceasing to work for a living, different reasons for this fact but same result with these Thessalonians people and those addicted to welfare and other government handouts. The Thessalonians stopped working and providing for their own families because they were expecting the “second coming” very soon. Paul recognized the need to get them back to work, so he used the fraternal correction spelled out in this chapter. The same result is here and now. How do we end this cycle of dependence on the government? Jobs and training for those jobs right? How do we get someone who has no ambition to work to go out and work? You answer that one.

Are all people on social programs addicted to the system, no not at all. Many are required, because of disability or any such reason. But many have no reason to continue on these programs except lack of will. Bad people or hated people? Not in the least, uneducated maybe, or uninformed, maybe. That is just speculation.

But to think that people who have a different solution is disdain, is just wrong. St. Paul was guilty as charged, just like me I guess.

And you accused me just recently of misrepresenting you? Where did I say that those who have a different solution are disdainful? I gave crystal clear, concrete examples which you choose to not deal with. Instead you are placing yourself alongside St Paul (of all people!) as being guilty of something alleged by nobody in this conversation (that I am aware of).

I guess the basic salient theological facts on the evaluation of the presidential candidates is less interesting than fending off non-existent charges of ‘guilt’…

 

[estesbob]

Already dealt with in a recent post.

Maybe your question would seem more relevant to me if the drugs which can be used to induce abortion could all be neatly excluded from drug coverage in insurance plans. The fact is, doing so would also revert normal childbearing (and licit treatment of female pathology) halfway to the Stone Age.

Perhaps the same way that some private insurance companies/underwriters claim to simultaneously provide for plans that exclude abortion coverage and plans that include it…

So you agree we are already funding abortions but its OK because if we didnt women would have to bear their children in caves. Right…

 

[Elizabeth502]

But to think that people who have a different solution is disdain, is just wrong.

It violates charity, truth, and justice. This, from the “charity” crowd.

 

[seekerz]

So you agree we are already funding abortions but its OK because if we didnt women would have to bear their children in caves. Right…

Whose post are you reading? It cannot be mine. I never said nor implied the words in your ‘response’.

What I clearly said is that*** all*** drugs which can be used to induce abortion cannot be withdrawn from any insurance coverage because (it was implied in my statement but let me be clearer) they are also part of normal, licit, modern care for pregnancy (to be more specific, delivery) and other types of women’s health problems.

I highlight ‘all’ because obviously, if only the ones clearly labelled ‘abortion pills’ were withdrawn from coverage, that would not = not covering abortifacient drugs. Shoot, the new trend since Texas tightened up on abortion clinics is to seek stomach ulcer drugs (legal both here and there, but needing prescriptions here) from Mexico to procure abortions.

Simply put, drug coverage cannot exclude abortive drugs without also excluding certain licit treatments, but it can make us feel better by not covering those with abortion as their main use.

 

[estesbob]

Whose post are you reading? It cannot be mine. I never said nor implied the words in your ‘response’.

.

You said “The fact is, doing so would also revert normal childbearing (and licit treatment of female pathology) halfway to the Stone Age.”

I dropped my employees insurance altogether rather than fund evil. If I notice any of my pregnant employees slinking off to a cave Ill call 911.

 

[CMatt25]

“Deserves no respect”? I’m puzzled, we are not to respect the ‘misrepresentation of early Christianity’ with regard to abortion…and what else? What about respect for those who misrepresent the nature and history of God Himself and His relation to human beings, including the main figures of our Catholic faith? Is it okay to respect them as long as they do not misrepresent abortion?

Don’t worry about it seekerz nor be too puzzled.

I personally just think of it as a form of nitpicking and in my view clearly anyone who thinks calling a position, movement, or group of people “Christ-like” as I did, that it has no credibility and deserves no respect, simply has no concept of what a figure of speech is.

Obviously none of us are fully “Christ-like” in the literal sense. None of us for instance have turned water into wine, raised Lazarus from the dead, brought sight back to the blind, risen ourselves from the tomb on the 3rd day, ascended into heaven, and are seateth at the right hand of the Father.

None of us IOW are God.

So when I read such things I sometimes just shake my head, offer it up to Him and let Him handle the puzzle. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Do I think that the uninsured/under-insured should continue to suffer, die or go destitute just to NOT prevent something that people have been doing legally for decades anyway? My answer is a resounding, “No”.

Your answer is my answer. seekerz. NO.

 

[estesbob]

Don’t worry about it seekerz nor be too puzzled.

I personally just think of it as a form of nitpicking and in my view clearly anyone who thinks calling a position, movement, or group of people “Christ-like” as I did, that it has no credibility and deserves no respect, simply has no concept of what a figure of speech is.

Obviously none of us are fully “Christ-like” in the literal sense. None of us for instance have turned water into wine, raised Lazarus from the dead, brought sight back to the blind, risen ourselves from the tomb on the 3rd day, ascended into heaven, and are seateth at the right hand of the Father.

None of us IOW are God.

So when I read such things I sometimes just shake my head, offer it up to Him and let Him handle the puzzle. Peace.

No reason to shake your head. God did not leave this on our own. When jesus ascended into heaven he didn’t yell ‘figure it out for yoursleves’. He left the Apostles in charge. He founded a Church and guaranteed apostolic succession so that we would always know the truth. A truth that does not require one to be constantly searching for a denomination that is compatible with their political views. A truth that doesn’t change with the culture.

The church teaching on this issue has been posted ad nauseuem in this and other threads with voluminous documentation. The only thing we have gotten to rebut that is either" my conscience tells me different" or" there is a one line footnote in a letter written by then cardinal Ratzinger that my personal interpretation of tells me the Church teaching is wrong" . That’s right-they would have us believe that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a long and detailed letter and inavlidated the whole letter in a one line footnote. But then this is the mental gymnastics archbishops Chaput refers to when describing so-called pro-choice Catholics who always find an excuse to rationalize supporting evil.

 

[CMatt25]

Simple, Peter stayed with the Truth, Jesus, even though he didn’t understand what Jesus was teaching him. Peter conformed his way to that of Christ, he didn’t leave to find a group of people who he could agree with. The ones who left in Jn 6 did that. This is formation of conscience. If our conscience puts us at odds with Mother Church, it puts at odds with Christ the Head. So if we choose to follow our wrongly formed consciences we choose to follow something other than Jesus’ teachings.

Does that help?

Not really but thanks for trying.

 

[seekerz]

None of us IOW are God.

Thanks for the reassurance…it is very timely.

 

[seekerz]

Your answer is my answer. seekerz. NO.

Nice to know that there are other people who can see a cup as half full rather than as half empty. Thanks for adding a smile to my day…

 

[CMatt25]

She is allowed but it is false, she does not conform to Catholic social teaching or the teaching on moral issues. This group of nuns, in defiance of the Magisterium, supports the democrat party platform and candidates on intrinsic evil. She dodged the question because she wants her cake and eat it too. If she had answered she would have been hailed as queen of the democrat party, but hammered by the Churches leaders rightfully so. She and this group bring public scandal to the Church.

One can call ones self whatever they want, but it doesn’t make it so. You like her simply because she espouses what you believe, even though it is in direct conflict with the Church and Jesus; remember, He is the head of His Church.

No Lapey it is not false and yes it does make it so that Sister Simone is a Catholic. If you have difficulty with this teaching of your church, you’ll have to take it up with the Pope or Someone higher than me. Because changing your church’s teaching on who is Catholic in order to say it doesn’t make it so for Sister, is to use a phrase of Sister Simone’s, beyond my pay grade.

 

[estesbob]

Nice to know that there are other people who can see a cup as half full rather than as half empty. Thanks for adding a smile to my day…

Nice to know a Non-Catholic agrees with you on what Catholic teachings is? Is he a higher authority than the Church?

 

[CMatt25]

Disdain for the poor is a generalization? I’ve been posting my views about it for months on this forum and the attitudes I criticized seemed rather specific. Besides, in how many ways does Romney have to say it? Before the 47% comment there was, the not caring about the poor because they have a ‘safety net’ (which incidentally, is up for the axe), and liking to fire people (unemployment tends to contribute to poverty) - a repetitive theme, not just one statement. Romney was not alone either, during the primaries, Gingrich was actually the worst in his condescending attitude to the poor.

Call it a generalization if you like, I call it an ideological stance which goes something like this: the poor are losers (victims…choose your synonym), their predicament is their fault (they are lazy, lack ambition, lack work ethic, are jealous of the ‘haves’) or perhaps even a result of not being ‘blessed’ by God; helping them is voluntary* for Christians* (we can skip the major prophets and all the Gospels 'cause only the Bible had genuinely poor people)…I could go on: just from this forum alone I have learned that some posters do not even believe that the poor are really poor because they are not thin as rakes…and on and on.

All this leaves me to wonder is: how is it possible to genuinely care for the babies of those for whom such contempt is expressed? Who is fooling who here?

Excellent post! :clapping: