Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samson01
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We can argue till the cows come home about whether illegalizing abortion will fix the problem or not,
There is no doubt that illegalizing abortion will not fix the problem. But you can bet your bottom dollar that it will drastically reduce abortions.
but it’s NOT wrong to allocate those same resources and help pregnant women in distress during pregnancy and ensuring her some medical help afterwards as well.
Money and time has always been invested in this aspect…and it should increase.
And if government assistance (socialism) is the only way to discourage some of the abortions, then so be it.
You’re kidding right? The current socialist administration favors abortion on demand and infanticide. They are champions of funding for the abortion mill, Planned Parenthood. This has become the calling card of the Democratic party…and the Papal Nuncio has informed us that it is intrinsically evil.
 
Let’s make abortion unsafe, illegal & inaccessible to everyone?
Let’s make biological father’s financially responsible?
👍

And let’s encourage women to be real mothers again…instead of marketing abortion as just another contraceptive. Satan has attacked the women. He knows that if he can instill an abortive mentality into them…he can destroy the fabric of the family…and hence tear us away from God.

That is why…when BO decided to campaign on the lie that Mitt Romney is waging war on women to take away their right to contraception and abortion…it made me want to vomit!
 
👍

And let’s encourage women to be real mothers again…instead of marketing abortion as just another contraceptive. Satan has attacked the women. He knows that if he can instill an abortive mentality into them…he can destroy the fabric of the family…and hence tear us away from God.

That is why…when BO decided to campaign on the lie that Mitt Romney is waging war on women to take away their right to contraception and abortion…it made me want to vomit!
Sadly BO’s tactics worked…:(😦
 
Let’s make biological father’s financially responsible for child support
(I removed the question mark. There should be no question about it. That, plus some other repercussions for men, and they would stop using women so casually as prostitutes.)

However, naturally that will be only partly effective unless women stop making themselves cheaply available to irresponsible sperm donors. It’s in your hands, ladies.* (The power of No.)
  • (realizing that the fictional audience is not on this forum)
 
👍

And let’s encourage women to be real mothers again…instead of marketing abortion as just another contraceptive. Satan has attacked the women. He knows that if he can instill an abortive mentality into them…he can destroy the fabric of the family…and hence tear us away from God.

That is why…when BO decided to campaign on the lie that Mitt Romney is waging war on women to take away their right to contraception and abortion…it made me want to vomit!
Women are stronger than Satan. You should have more faith in us. God did.

Men never seem to understand.
 
Whoa. This shows such a poor understanding of the realities of cultural permissiveness encouraging first of all fornication, via handing out contraception to poor populations in urban public schools, and second of all of the statistics of who has abortions.

“Downward pressure to have abortions???” Un. Real. In fact, ironically the pressure to engage in fornication is coming from the Democratic Party, who is committed to the distribution of contraception to underage, unmarried poor women in urban areas, and an unwritten mandate to libertine sexual practices regardless of marital status.

Fact: These underage poor women are fertile, often in single-parent households, and sporadically use contraception, whose sporadic use often results in pregnancy. Their noncommitted sperm donors usually abandon them, which results in the separation of the pregnant girl from a desire to continue her pregnancy: no commitment, no future.

Poor urban populations in this country – mostly black and Hispanic – have been exploited for decades – first by the illegal drug trade, second by the assumptions of uncontrollable adolescent sexual desire among these populations. (Pressure to distribute contraception in rich public schools is virtually nil.)

Use of contraception is not linked to abortion rates. Rather, marital status is linked to abortion rates. Guttmacher studies confirm this.
I believe Al used the term “less economic downward pressure”. I don’t think he was commenting on “the pressure to engage in fornication” which is an altogether different issue.

Although I find your “fact” to be a broad generalization, I won’t ask you for a source.

I also find it quite interesting that you say in one paragraph that the Democratic Party “is committed to the distribution of contraception to underage, unmarried poor women in urban areas” and are thereby “exploit[ing]” them. You then note that “Pressure to distribute contraception in rich public schools is virtually nil”. Why would wealthy students need free or low-cost contraception? They wouldn’t, so why would the Democrats put “pressure” on them if indeed this “pressure” actually existed? Just curious.
 
Wrong! There were massive protests afterwards. Nixon’s court did some major irreparable damage to human life and created a devastating paradigm that 40 years has failed to fix. I’m saddened that you don’t see this.
Of course people protested after the Roe V Wade decision, but no, it wasn’t a hot button issue in the 1968 campaign nor was it in the '72 campaign with McGovern - you need to brush up on your political history. You were pointing out that Roe V Wade was decided by justices who were appointed by Nixon as if that speaks in some way to the current crop of Republicans and their ability and willingness to appoint justices who might overturn Roe V Wade. Your post was misleading and I called you on it. The paradigm has not been fixed in 40 years because over the years, catholics like Teddy Kennedy and others fought tooth and nail to kill the nominations of contructionist justices like Robert Bork. Also responsible are the Catholics who vote for such politicians. I hope you are not among that group - as they are in a way partly responsible for the continuing of the abortion slaughter in this country.
We can argue till the cows come home about whether illegalizing abortion will fix the problem or not, or whether we should squander 40 more years of our hard-earned money on political races, but it’s NOT wrong to allocate those same resources and help pregnant women in distress during pregnancy and ensuring her some medical help afterwards as well. And if government assistance (socialism) is the only way to discourage some of the abortions, then so be it. What’s our ultimate objective, anyway?
As Catholics, we ought to be working toward justice - and laws that protect the weakest and vulnerable among us - the unborn. What message does it send to a woman in a crisis pregnancy when the rhetoric from the dominant political party, the media, is " keep abortion legal" ?? It sends a message that its okay to have an abortion. And as much as you’d like to believe that government programs to “help” women will reduce abortions, it remains that laws have an effect on behavior - if a procedure is kept legal and the president fights tooth and nail to keep it that way, and the dominant message in the media is to keep it legal, then don’t be surprised, Provobis, if women keep having abortions.

I would rather we didn’t have to spend lots of money on political races - I would much prefer that Catholics actually vote pro-life, instead of voting for Obama and pro-abortion Democrats. I can see that you’d like to drop the whole battle against legal abortion - perhaps you wish the pro-life movement would go away. But the abortion lobby is evil. It needs to be opposed with every resource we have - spiritual, legal and political.

Ishii
 
Women are stronger than Satan. You should have more faith in us. God did.

Men never seem to understand.
Bellasbane, why do you reduce things to gender/sexism issues? This is a human rights issue - the unborn. Also a women’s issue in that most of the babies aborted are little girls who will never grow up to be women and mothers. I will leave you with this quote by a woman I admire a great deal: “if a mother can kill her unborn child, then I can kill you and you can kill me.” I certainly wouldn’t underestimate the power of the devil to lead people astray - including women.

Ishii
 
A candidate who supports unrestricted abortion on demand is so morally flawed no one, should support them. The idea that they can support this slaughter because they are benevolent or compassionate or enlightened in other areas is specious and is no way supported by the Church.
I need a little help interpreting this paragraph. The “them” in the first sentence refers to “candidate”, correct? Who are the “they” in the second sentence? Are they the candidates themselves or Catholics-who-voted-for-someone-other-than-the-Republican-nominee?
 
I need a little help interpreting this paragraph. The “them” in the first sentence refers to “candidate”, correct? Who are the “they” in the second sentence? Are they the candidates themselves or Catholics-who-voted-for-someone-other-than-the-Republican-nominee?

I am sure that estesbob will correct me if I’m wrong, but here is how I understand his post:

The “them” refers to the pro-abortion politicians: Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Biden, et al (overwhelmingly Democrats). The idea that Catholics can vote for such pro-abortion politicians because they (Obama, et al) are supposedly enlightened/benevolent in other areas is… specious and not supported by the Catholic Church.

In other words, those Catholics who say, " so what if Obama is pro-abortion and voted to keep infanticide legal. He supports healthy school lunches for needy kids." are using a specious argument that is not supported by the Church.

I hope this helps - let me know if you need further explanation.

Ishii
 
Except the question is not strategies to reduce abortion. Thats just a distraction from the real issue-can a Catholic support a candidate who supports unrestricted abortion on demand?

A candidates support of unrestricted abortion on demand does not happen in a vacuum. it tells us a lot about their moral fiber and their worldview. For example do you want someone in charge of foreign policy who believes a woman has the right to pay someone to kill her child? Would you want such a person in charge of appointing those who run HHS?

Abortion is not a single issue. The right to life is RIGHT from which all other rights flow. You can not support abortion without trampling on all other rights.
This is where one can get really confused. Concerning the first paragraph: Maybe it’s me, but isn’t finding concrete ways to reduce the number of abortions **more ** important than pointing out that Catholics-who-voted-for-someone-other-than-the-Republican-nominee could allegedly be supporting the idea of abortion, an “intrinsic evil”?

You say that abortion is not a single issue. I would argue that some have made it a single issue. So much argument is made about all other “proportionate” issues not equaling the one issue of abortion. How can a one-issue voter (the one issue being abortion) hypothetically vote for a candidate who would run roughshod over all other social and economic and environmental issues just because that candidate was pro-life? Let me add something here as an example. In 2000, I voted for Bush, a move I made solely because he was the “pro-life” candidate. Bush may have had a few “wins” for this stance for which I give him credit BUT where was his “sanctity of life” platform when 4500 of our servicemen and women were killed in Iraq, a war which was based on a pack of lies? And don’t give me numbers like I’ve seen on another post i.e. that voting for Romney this year was OK because he only was in favor of abortion in cases of rape, incest and health of the mother, which totaled only 1% of all abortions while Obama was the abortion-on-demand guy! (Still can’t believe someone actually said that.) If anyone wants to play the numbers game, here’s one: If we support a candidate who doesn’t believe in man-made global warming—or global warming, period—shouldn’t we be held accountable for the billions of human lives (the current world population is 7 billion) that will cease to exist or will never exist at all? That doesn’t even address the millions of other life forms on the planet that will die off. So, as much as it is theologically and morally true that “the right-to-life is the right from which all other rights flow”, we as responsible voters cannot ignore realistic concerns for other issues as well.
 
This is where one can get really confused. Concerning the first paragraph: Maybe it’s me, but isn’t finding concrete ways to reduce the number of abortions **more ** important than pointing out that Catholics-who-voted-for-someone-other-than-the-Republican-nominee could allegedly be supporting the idea of abortion, an “intrinsic evil”?
Since when is it either/or ? We can find concrete ways to reduce abortions. And we can also vote for the pro-life candidate - which apparently you have reduced to " pointing out that catholics who voted for a non-Republican could be supporting abortion…"
You say that abortion is not a single issue. I would argue that some have made it a single issue. So much argument is made about all other “proportionate” issues not equaling the one issue of abortion. How can a one-issue voter (the one issue being abortion) hypothetically vote for a candidate who would run roughshod over all other social and economic and environmental issues just because that candidate was pro-life? Let me add something here as an example. In 2000, I voted for Bush, a move I made solely because he was the “pro-life” candidate. Bush may have had a few “wins” for this stance for which I give him credit BUT where was his “sanctity of life” platform when 4500 of our servicemen and women were killed in Iraq, a war which was based on a pack of lies?
The difference, Needsmercy, is that leaders of both parties believe the premises upon which Bush sent troops into Iraq - Hillary Clinton among them - (and John Kerry, the 2004 nominee if I understand him correctly - of course he was for it before he was against it or some such). Iraq is not the cut and dry issue that abortion is, Needsmercey. That killing the unborn is wrong is a no-brainer: there is no controversey as there was surrounding the Iraq war.
And don’t give me numbers like I’ve seen on another post i.e. that voting for Romney this year was OK because he only was in favor of abortion in cases of rape, incest and health of the mother, which totaled only 1% of all abortions while Obama was the abortion-on-demand guy! (Still can’t believe someone actually said that.)
I said that - and I wasn’t the only one. I believe that a president who wants to protect 98% of the unborn from the abortionist’s vacuum is an improvement over the president who voted to keep infanticide legal. Wouldn’t you agree?
If anyone wants to play the numbers game, here’s one: If we support a candidate who doesn’t believe in man-made global warming—or global warming, period—shouldn’t we be held accountable for the billions of human lives (the current world population is 7 billion) that will cease to exist or will never exist at all? That doesn’t even address the millions of other life forms on the planet that will die off. So, as much as it is theologically and morally true that “the right-to-life is the right from which all other rights flow”, we as responsible voters cannot ignore realistic concerns for other issues as well.
Oh please. Deal with reality. Millions of babies are aborted every year. How many have died from so-called global warming? Let’s deal with the urgent moral question of abortion. Then we can deal with the question of global warming and the pseudo-science that is its basis.

Ishii
 
Correct. Thanks for pointing that out. The ability of some biased people to misread is truly amazing.
Even the most lucid or succinct and authentic clarification will be countered with amazing twists.
 
Even the most lucid or succinct and authentic clarification will be countered with amazing twists.
Interestingly, it is people of that biased attitude who then tend to accuse us of “misreading” the documents of the Catholic Church, while they are the ones who do the misreading…
 
Even the most lucid or succinct and authentic clarification will be countered with amazing twists.
Interestingly, it is people of that biased attitude who then tend to accuse us of “misreading” the documents of the Catholic Church, while they are the ones who do the misreading…
It is amazing that the Obama-Catholics accuse others of misreading and twisting documents and interpretations…as they misread and twist documents and interpretations to justify their vote for Obama and his agenda of abortion. Astounding! 🤷
 
It is amazing that the Obama-Catholics accuse others of misreading and twisting documents and interpretations…as they misread and twist documents and interpretations to justify their vote for Obama and his agenda of abortion. Astounding! 🤷
👍
 
It is amazing that the Obama-Catholics accuse others of misreading and twisting documents and interpretations…as they misread and twist documents and interpretations to justify their vote for Obama and his agenda of abortion. Astounding! 🤷
There is no group called Obama-Catholics; but there are many rabid Obama-haters in the USA and some of them claim to be Catholics though the Catholic faith considers hatred to be an intrinsic evil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top