Three Positive Signs for Obama's Re-Election Chances

[stevegravy]

In the end the decision comes down to what is in it for me. Alleged “Catholics” who vote for pro-abortion candidates when an option is available must lie to themselves. IT IS ALL ABOUT MONEY.

I am harsh in my opinion, BECAUSE several attempts have been made to begin a discussion of supporting the “right to chose”with first principles and it never happens. What these almost 800 comments contain are Ad Homiums, absurd unsupported accusations, and endless circular discussion.

All the rhetoric aside no one can point at specific repub policies or party positions that propose killing the poor or are anti-life or push an agenda that wants to take away Americans God given rights, (with the exception of the dastereds who voted for the Defense Re-Authorization Act with the provisions Obama wanted). I digress.

So all I can surmise, these alleged “Catholics” are either on the dole, have family members on the dole, or actively administering the dole; they have a very keen interest in maintaining expansion of the welfare society. If that requires having to support the right of a woman to murder her baby so be it. They hold their nose and rationalize it away.

My last suggestion for all concerned; at least be honest about it.

For me it is my fear of the slippery slope. Once we trivialize these decisions, by that I mean, all end of life decisions we are headed to a very bad place, a utilitarian mechanistic philosophy of life and governance. Not dissimilar to Communist Russia or Nazi Germany and it ought to scare anyone worried about the future generations who follow us. However, if my opinion is the minority I accept it and the realization that the American experiment is not guaranteed a future. Forget our first principles and you can forget your past and probably the future. Mothers killing babies is the downward spiral of civilization. Peace

FROM MACAULAY

The day will come when, in the State of New-York, a multitude of people, none of whom has had more than half a breakfast, or expects to have more than half a dinner, will choose a Legislature. Is it possible to doubt what sort of Legislature will be chosen?
On one side is a statesman preaching patience, respect for vested rights, strict observance of public faith. On the other is a** demagogue ranting about the tyranny of capitalists and usurers, and asking why anybody should be permitted to drink champagne and to ride in a carriage, while thousands of honest folks are in want of necessaries.** Which of the two candidates is likely to be preferred by a working man who hears his children cry for more bread?
I seriously apprehend that you will, in some such season of adversity as I have described, do things which will prevent prosperity from returning; that you will act like people would, in a year of scarcity, devour all the seed-corn, and thus make the next year, a year not of scarcity, but of absolute famine. There will be, I fear, spoliation. The spoliation will increase the distress. The distress will produce fresh spoliation. There is nothing to stay you. Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor.
As I said before, when a society has entered on this downward progress, either civilization or liberty must perish. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand; or your Republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire was in the fifth; with this difference, that the Huns and Vandals, who ravaged the Roman Empire, came from without, and that your Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your country by your own institutions.I have the honor to be, dear Sir, Your faithful servant, T.B. MACAULAY.
Read MacAulay letter here americandigest.org/mt-archives/american_studies/lord_macaulay_on_american.php

 

[lynnvinc]

You are aware the Church does not put enviromentalism on the same level as abortion? In fact i can not find a single church document that eqautes enviromentalism with being “pro-life” The idea that the republcian party wants to destroy all life on earth is utter nonsense-the idea that holding this view gives a Catholic a proportionate reason to suport a pro-abortion canidate is specious.

What I understand is that the Church does not put killing and harm to the non-human part of creation as being equal to killing and harm of people.

But in fact we are killing and harming people through various environmental harms – some directly (like auto exhaust causing abortions and SO2 causing emphysema) and some indirectly (like global warming increasing intensity of hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, and disease vector spread, which go on to kill people and harm their property).

It’s in the 10 Commandments: “Thou shalt not kill.” It doesn’t specify whether by poison, knives, or guns (they didn’t even have guns back then).

People should understand that killing other people willy nilly on into the future for decades, centuries, and millennia is a vast moral evil.

While having a single abortion is surely worse sin because of the greater intentionality to kill the unborn child, killing vast swaths of humanity, even if the intentionality is not there as much (but people fail to stop even when they are told about it), is also pretty bad.

I guess we should distinguish between how sinful it is for a person to do this or that, and voting for a person who has a platform containing many issues.

In my thinking one has to vote for the person they sincerely think will reduce the killing and harm to humans more than the other candidate, and also (as the Church suggests) consider secondarily who will reduce the killing and harm to the non-human part of God’s creation. Voting for a particular candidate does not mean that a voter agrees with each and every aspect of that voter’s platform; that is ridiculous to assume. If Catholics who vote Republican are not holding their nose as the vote, as Catholics who vote Democrat surely are doing, then they really ought to.

 

[estesbob]

Honestly, I was thunderstruck. Not simply because such a baffling link was trying to be advanced but then to have it parroted by so many others as though it were a legitimate question. It was a rhetorical H bomb, dropped to make rational discussion scatter and for the most part it worked.

The legitimate wonder is how someone can honeslty say killing children is not as bad as molesting Children. the only answer we got to this question was that chopping these kids up is safe and legal medcial procedure-as if it matters, but I guess when trying to defend the indefinsible anything goes.

 

[estesbob]

Wow, this thread’s just full of gems lately isn’t it?

The more you press them to defend their support of abortion the more bizaare the defense gets.

 

[qui_est_ce]

No and I oppose slavery too. But there are other faiths and beliefs in the democracy that do not hold to the same beliefs and views about abortion and the start of human life or human life with a soul or personhood rights for the unborn vs a woman’s right as the Catholic Church does. Or as you or even I might. There are other Christians with differing beliefs and I think it was Meltzerboy who addressed for instance Jewish belief on the issue. Which was not the same as Catholic belief either. But no one I know thinks it’s ok to be a pedophile.

Do you know that some people today think slavery is ok? These people traffic in the human sex slave trade. Is this ok? There was a recent discovery of sex slaves in Philadelphia. Do you think you have a right to impose your morals on them?

There are many who think murder is ok. They kill people who get in their way. In Il, a man (Christopher Coleman) killed his wife and children because he wanted to marry his mistress. Is that okay?

The arguments put forth here against abortion are logical. Substitute X(pedophilia/slavery) for Y (abortion), and you see where your logic fails.

You are saying it’s okay to kill babies because many people think it’s ok. BUT you say slavery or pedophelia is wrong because the people YOU know don’t approve of it. But there are many who don’t think it is wrong.

Think about that and see where your logic leads you.

Peace

 

[qui_est_ce]

The legitimate wonder is how someone can honeslty say killing children is not as bad as molesting Children. the only answer we got to this question was that chopping these kids up is safe and legal medcial procedure-as if it matters, but I guess when trying to defend the indefinsible anything goes.

Bob-
They are saying that keeping abortion legal is keeping it safe. Not only are abortions lethal to babies, they are lethal to women. Safe? What a myth. Look at Dr. Gosnell’s clinic in Philadelpha. His wife recently pleaded guilty of performing illegal abortions.

New case in Baltimore.

This is the tip of the scandal called “safe” abortions.

 

[CMatt25]

Indeed. And, you are free to side with the abortionists. I just wish you were honest about it.

Honestly I don’t believe the Republican candidates for President, their party, nor President Obama, nor his party, are as perfect as Jesus. So if I were a Republican, I would not side with every possible element of their party either.

 

[rlg94086]

Honestly I don’t believe the Republican candidates for President, their party, nor President Obama, nor his party, are as perfect as Jesus. So if I were a Republican, I would not side with every possible element of their party either.

Nice straw man. I guess that’s all you’ve got…

 

[estesbob]

Honestly I don’t believe the Republican candidates for President, their party, nor President Obama, nor his party, are as perfect as Jesus. So if I were a Republican, I would not side with every possible element of their party either.

Speaking of Jesus:

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

 

[estesbob]

Nice straw man. I guess that’s all you’ve got…

The posts trying to defend abortion have been getiing more and more bizzarre. The “Republicans are not as perfect as Jesus” ranks right ups there with “The Republicans want to destroy all life on earth”

 

[rlg94086]

The posts trying to defend abortion have been getiing more and more bizzarre. The “Republicans are not as perfect as Jesus” ranks right ups there with “The Republicans want to destroy all life on earth”

He also makes abortion just another issue, of course. Killing of innocents? Ho hum…it’s a “personal, private choice.” I’ll just go down the list of issues and count them up, as if they are all equal.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The posts trying to defend abortion have been getiing more and more bizzarre. The “Republicans are not as perfect as Jesus” ranks right ups there with “The Republicans want to destroy all life on earth”

Didn’t you once say something on here like people hate Republicans more than they love the unborn? Very accurate.

 

[JimG]

If the issue of slavery were in play, I’d be a single-issue voter, disqualifying any candidate who supported it. I treat the issue of abortion in the same way.

In any case, lots of people are single issue voters with respect to less important issues. They’ll single-issue vote in favor of anyone who opposes cuts to Medicaid or Medicare; they’ll single-issue vote against anyone who opposes more bank regulation; they’ll single-issue vote in favor of an environmentalist candidate. Planned Parenthood and NOW and numerous pro-choice groups push for a single-issue vote against any pro-life candidate.

People tend to vote primarily on one or two issues. It’s just a matter of whether the killing of unborn children is important enough to be a deciding issue, isn’t it?

 

[CMatt25]

What if in the future pedophilia became acceptable in this pluralistic democracy of ours. Would you accept that?

Cmatt, I am trying (vainly it would seem) to show you where your own logic takes you. If you accept abortion now, then on what grounds would you oppose legal pedophilia?

Ishii

On the logical grounds that I never expect to see illogical comparisons become legal in the future nor to have the support to make them legal. But if you want to think they might, you’re free to believe so.

 

[rlg94086]

If the issue of slavery were in play, I’d be a single-issue voter, disqualifying any candidate who supported it. I treat the issue of abortion in the same way.

In any case, lots of people are single issue voters with respect to less important issues. They’ll single-issue vote in favor of anyone who opposes cuts to Medicaid or Medicare; they’ll single-issue vote against anyone who opposes more bank regulation; they’ll single-issue vote in favor of an environmentalist candidate. Planned Parenthood and NOW and numerous pro-choice groups push for a single-issue vote against any pro-life candidate.

People tend to vote primarily on one or two issues. It’s just a matter of whether the killing of unborn children is important enough to be a deciding issue, isn’t it?

Exactly the point we’ve been trying to make, but liberals won’t answer the question of slavery (or pedophilia). To them, it’s apples and oranges (or moon rocks, apparently). It is intellectually dishonest, but it is the only way they can justify their vote supporting intrinsic evil.

 

[JimG]

FROM MACAULAY

The day will come when, in the State of New-York, a multitude of people, none of whom has had more than half a breakfast, or expects to have more than half a dinner, will choose a Legislature. Is it possible to doubt what sort of Legislature will be chosen?
On one side is a statesman preaching patience, respect for vested rights, strict observance of public faith. On the other is a** demagogue ranting about the tyranny of capitalists and usurers, and asking why anybody should be permitted to drink champagne and to ride in a carriage, while thousands of honest folks are in want of necessaries.** Which of the two candidates is likely to be preferred by a working man who hears his children cry for more bread?

I seriously apprehend that you will, in some such season of adversity as I have described, do things which will prevent prosperity from returning; that you will act like people would, in a year of scarcity, devour all the seed-corn, and thus make the next year, a year not of scarcity, but of absolute famine. There will be, I fear, spoliation. The spoliation will increase the distress. The distress will produce fresh spoliation. There is nothing to stay you. Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor.

As I said before, when a society has entered on this downward progress, either civilization or liberty must perish. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand; or your Republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire was in the fifth; with this difference, that the Huns and Vandals, who ravaged the Roman Empire, came from without, and that your Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your country by your own institutions.I have the honor to be, dear Sir, Your faithful servant, T.B. MACAULAY.

Read MacAulay letter here americandigest.org/mt-archives/american_studies/lord_macaulay_on_american.php

“As I said before, when a society has entered on this downward progress, either civilization or liberty must perish.”

If Macaulay could see us now, he would be saying, “I told you so.” Although, not being a man who would gladly suffer the diminution of language into sound bites, he would be much more eloquent about it.

 

[estesbob]

Didn’t you once say something on here like people hate Republicans more than they love the unborn? Very accurate.

I was paraphrasing Golda Meir about suicide bombers. My version " Abortion wiil remain legal until Catholic Democrats come to love the unborn more than they hate the GOP "

 

[CMatt25]

You are saying it’s okay to kill babies because many people think it’s ok.

No I’m saying some people don’t call a zygote or an embryo or a fetus a baby. And others believe a woman should at least have a right to choose in cases of rape or incest or especially to save her own life. And a democratic society attempts to come up with an imperfect solution to balance the rights of the unborn with the rights of the woman. That is all I am saying.

 

[qui_est_ce]

No I’m saying some people don’t call a zygote or an embryo or a fetus a baby. And others believe a woman should at least have a right to choose in cases of rape or incest or especially to save her own life. And a democratic society attempts to come up with an imperfect solution to balance the rights of the unborn with the rights of the woman. That is all I am saying.

Please address the entire post, because what you are doing is taking one phrase out of context.

 

[estesbob]

No I’m saying some people don’t call a zygote or an embryo or a fetus a baby. And others believe a woman should at least have a right to choose in cases of rape or incest or especially to save her own life. And a democratic society attempts to come up with an imperfect solution to balance the rights of the unborn with the rights of the woman. That is all I am saying.

So the right to life is predicated on the labels we attach to stages of human life? Like zygotes, Jews and Gypsies aren’t human so they can be legally killed?