Too many right-wingers in this forum?

[Filius99993]

On a good day, I can hop on one foot and chew gum at the same time. Maybe not today though, as I have an ear infection…probably would fall on my butt.

I’m sick too! (And quite literally so)

 

[SoCalRC]

What Church teaching says it is immoral to have a law against abortion?

And how would that not also make laws against murder, rape, robbery and so on equally immoral?

None. I stated that I support such a law. The point is that I also think it is demonstrably the least effective way to actually reduce abortions.

 

[SoCalRC]

Thank you. Now perhaps you can explain that to others here?

Because it isn’t quite true. There are plenty of children available for adoption, but infants are in short supply. All my siblings have adopted. We planned on adopting until our youngest was born severely disabled.

That isn’t to say that adopting disabled children, etc. is for everyone. But if the extend of one’s love for life is waggling a finger at seemingly non-existant stereotypes, how deep is one truly loving one’s neighbor or serving the weakest among us?

 

[vern_humphrey]

None. I stated that I support such a law. The point is that I also think it is demonstrably the least effective way to actually reduce abortions.

When you use the word “demonstrably” you are asserting that you can demonstrate your case. Can you?

 

[SoCalRC]

There are those who use this argument to disguise support for abortion (or as an excuse to support pro-choice policies and politicians.) Therefore there is no point in explaining it to them – they already know it, but won’t accept it.

However, some people who aren’t committed to those policies and politicians may come to understand how dishonest this “If you oppose abortion you must adopt” argument is.

You know perfectly well that I oppose abortion. Further, I am more conservative in my acceptance of Church teaching than you. You are perfectly content with wholly preventive abortions in the case of ectopic pregnancy. I believe that is a bogus application of double effect and would insist that laws closer to what we see in predominantly Catholic nations - where tubal rupture must occur before medical intervention is licit, are in order.

Your insistance on always assigning false motives to arguments in order to avoid dealing with them honestly is not terribly helpful when it comes to meaningful discussion. But, each time you suggest (with varying degrees of intensity) that I am pro-abortion or an abortionist, I pray for you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If I may be pardoned for citing a Wikipedia article;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_in_the_United_States

The United States has a system of foster care by which adults care for minor children who are not able to live with their biological parents. Most adoptions in the U.S. are placed through the foster care system. In fiscal year 2001, 50,703 foster children were adopted in the United States, **many by their foster parents **or relatives of their biological parents. The enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997 has approximately doubled the number of children adopted from foster care in the United States.

(my emphasis)

Here in Arkansas, as in several states, however, there is a policy of moving children from one set of foster parents to the next, to keep them from “getting too attached to each other.”

Clearly, the problem is not lack of parents willing to adopt, but roadblocks placed in their way.

 

[SoCalRC]

When you use the word “demonstrably” you are asserting that you can demonstrate your case. Can you?

Yes abortions dropped more sharply during the 1990s, before more secular laws were passed using the restrictions permitted by Casey.

Further, state by state, there is no correlation between level of secular restrictions and abortion rates. Oregon has been labelled the most abortion-friendly state in the union by AUFL, but is a nation leader in terms of reducing abortion rates. Similiarly, California has seen reductions since 1990 well in excess of the national average.

I am sure that the howling ‘pro-abortion!’ and thumping your chest is a conditioned response, but remember that even Rush L. fairs poorly when he gets outside his normal echo chamber…

 

[SoCalRC]

Here in Arkansas, as in several states, however, there is a policy of moving children from one set of foster parents to the next, to keep them from “getting too attached to each other.”

Do you REALLY want to scrutinize foster care in Arkansas? Or does everyone there have a short memory?

The short term placement policy was, I believe, imposed by a court ruling.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You know perfectly well that I oppose abortion.

Did I mention you?

Further, I am more conservative in my acceptance of Church teaching than you.

You’re also holier than I am – and everyone else, too.

You are perfectly content with wholly preventive abortions in the case of ectopic pregnancy. I believe that is a bogus application of double effect and would insist that laws closer to what we see in predominantly Catholic nations - where tubal rupture must occur before medical intervention is licit, are in order.

No – I bow to those with more medical knowledge than I have – but at some point where both mother and child must inevatibly die if nothing is done, surely the Principle of Double Effect must hold.

Your insistance on always assigning false motives to arguments in order to avoid dealing with them honestly is not terribly helpful when it comes to meaningful discussion. But, each time you suggest (with varying degrees of intensity) that I am pro-abortion or an abortionist, I pray for you.

Did I mention you?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Do you REALLY want to scrutinize foster care in Arkansas? Or does everyone there have a short memory?

The short term placement policy was, I believe, imposed by a court ruling.

And this means it’s okay?:whacky:

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes abortions dropped more sharply during the 1990s, before more secular laws were passed using the restrictions permitted by Casey.

And are now at their lowest level in two or three decades.

Further, state by state, there is no correlation between level of secular restrictions and abortion rates. Oregon has been labelled the most abortion-friendly state in the union by AUFL, but is a nation leader in terms of reducing abortion rates. Similiarly, California has seen reductions since 1990 well in excess of the national average.

And how does this prove laws to restrict or eliminate abortion will not work, or be counter-productive?

I am sure that the howling ‘pro-abortion!’ and thumping your chest is a conditioned response, but remember that even Rush L. fairs poorly when he gets outside his normal echo chamber…

I am sure that the howling ‘pro-abortion!’ and thumping your chest is a conditioned response, but remember that even Rush L. fairs poorly when he gets outside his normal echo chamber…

 

[Agnes_Ainsworth]

I am a Christian, but aside from being pro-life, I would have to say my views lean leftwards. I am against the Iraq War (who would Jesus bomb?) and capital punishment. Remember, Jesus was killed under capital punishment.

Thumbing through some of the threads, I can’t help but notice a good bit of anti-leftism hanging around. There was once a guy who had some pretty radical views who didn’t get much respect from the churches either. I think his name was Jesus.

 

[CentralFLJames]

But, each time you suggest (with varying degrees of intensity) that I am pro-abortion or an abortionist, I pray for you.

Hmm, taking notes here on new salvation strategies. It seems to be: “find a good hearted Christian who believes in the power of prayer and provoke them into praying me into heaven and do all the heavy lifting”. “Salvation by extortion” . It seemed to work well for Saul when he persecuted St. Stephen since he later became St. Paul. I like it!

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Yes abortions dropped more sharply during the 1990s, before more secular laws were passed using the restrictions permitted by Casey.

Further, state by state, there is no correlation between level of secular restrictions and abortion rates. Oregon has been labelled the most abortion-friendly state in the union by AUFL, but is a nation leader in terms of reducing abortion rates. Similiarly, California has seen reductions since 1990 well in excess of the national average.

I am sure that the howling ‘pro-abortion!’ and thumping your chest is a conditioned response, but remember that even Rush L. fairs poorly when he gets outside his normal echo chamber…

I am not familiar with the data but is it a coincidence that these sates have had massive influxes of illegal aliens in these time periods and what we may be seeing is simple change of demographics? Could this be nothing but an statistical aberration where poor illegal immigrant Catholics from Mexico are having more children to wash out the abortion rate? A sudden large swelling in the population (by the combined effects of new births and immigration) could easily give the illusion that there was a sudden moral shift or change in domestic social responsibility.

It would be very ironic to find out that through the combined effects of an illegal immigration taken with a motive for illegals to anchor themselves through their naturalized US citizen babies and through a Church teaching that encourages having children we arrive at an “improved” per capita abortion rate. If my conjecture/theory is true then it would imply that the improved metric is an artifact of migrating social mores. That would in turn imply that we need the nation to be “more Catholic”. That implies that The Church needs to start focusing on evangelization rather than wasting its time on insincere politicians or else lobbying for a deliberate national policy that encourages importation of immigrants from poor Catholic nations.

QED:
The generalized solution is to simply out birth and out evanangelize the heathens.

James

 

[Agnes_Ainsworth]

Abortion is legal in western nations to counteract the undesirable effects of sexual pleasure which the laws of political correction deem to be necessary as a human right. The Catholic Church interprets the natural law of God that sex is only licit between a married man and a woman. You are deemed dysfunctional unless you are having regular sexual pleasure whatever your marital or sexual status is. Thus sexual harrassment is rife, adultery, fornication, prostitution, promiscuity, rape, family murders due to infidelity and child battering, frequently by a partner who isn’t a parent. Normal families are becoming increasingly rare. The law is an ***. Sex with a child under sixteen is illegal but what does the government do but supply contraceptives, morning after pills and abortions to children from twelve years old, without the parents knowledge. I call that government sanctioned paedophilia. Over ninety per cent of abortions are performed because of danger to the physical or mental health of the woman/child when research demonstrates that abortion is much more likely to cause physical or mental problems. Anti family legislation in England under Labour has reached such a point that many decide against any children for financial or “green” reasons. Those who reject the Church’s teachings are much more likely to be on the left. Exchanging insults is pointless, you either believe the unchanging teaching or not. We all have to face God eventually, there will be no excuses then. Sexual sin is very costly physically, psychologically and financially. The cost of sex education, provision of contraceptives, clinics for sexually transmitted diseases, clinics for infertility are all escallating. The only solution to the whole problem is a return to recognizing God’s law as taught by the Catholic Church. That is why it is essential always to stand firm regardless of insults by those who think they know better than the Church which will still exist when perhaps the west has contracepted itself out of existence. Incidentally Our Lady told the children at Fatima that more souls go to Hell through sins of the flesh than any other sin!

 

[Orionthehunter]

From SoCalRC:If we are going to profress to know the hearts and minds of others, we should at least keep our guesses in alignment with observable reality.

I just wish that liberals would be less accusatory of what is in the heart of those with whom they disagree.

From SoCalRC: Citizens United for Life has labelled Oregon the most pro-abortion state in the union. But Oregon is actually second only to Wyoming in reducing its abortion rate since 1990, with a reduction significantly above the national average.

But Oregon has a long ways to go to get them down to levels in those states that historically oppose abortion.

From SoCalRC: Elevating abortion to the point of compromise on other core teachings is seemingly no more logical than ignoring it in favor of other teachings. That is why I find arguments about “right” or “left” being more Catholic so silly. Both sides are chosing moral compromises at odds with the teachings of the Church, they are only arguing about the relative moral superiority of their choices on which parts of the faith to ignore.

I am a Catholic, I oppose abortion and I am a capitalist. I make no compromise on Catholic Teaching. I take very seriously the Church’s Teachings on Catholic Social Teaching.

From SoCalRC: We use monetary policy to adjust growth and combat inflation. This sometimes holds unemployment artificially high.

Financial need is the number one reported choice for early procurred abortions (this makes sense since the majority many are mothers living at or near poverty). This does not make their choices just, but it is a form of pressure towards sin.

So, if we are going to hold some people in deeper poverty for common economic good, or because we want to give $200B in tax breaks to the richest Americans, or spend $2B+ each week in a war of choice, we played a collective part in the sin. Just how big a part is debatable, but it is still a part in a grievous sin.

Keeping a country’s economy healthy over the long-term is the best welfare program there is. If it sometimes results in short-term dislocation, Christ called on us as individuals to respond. He did not say take a gun over to the wealthy and extract their wealth to mitigate it.

From SoCalRC: This gives us a moral obligation to mitigate the pressures we create towards sin. Further, as Catholics, we are given two directives of Love. To love God with all our hearts and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

I agree. This doesn’t mean that it gives us the right to extract from the wealthy. Doing an evil to solve a problem is contrary to Catholic Teaching.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Wow, I leave the office for a day and alot happens.

From cynic: don’t we all pay tax. We aren’t just obliging others, we oblige ourselves by supporting such a government. The problem is certain people don’t want to pay any tax, instead leaving the fate of the poor up to chance - whether enough people *feel *like giving enough to actually be an effective substitute for state assistance.

Not all of us do pay tax or very much of it. Furthermore, alot of people don’t mind increasing the services the government provides and demanding that others pay for it. This is often the crux of why I oppose many federal programs- Its advocates also demand that another pay for it.

From cynic: Look at some of these posts, it is not a matter of degree for the ‘right wingers’. Tax is theft. End of story. There is no room for a ‘reasonable’ level of assistance, or consensus on the use of tax. The ‘right’, in the context of economic libertarianism, hold a no-compromise position.

Please. I have never seen a practicing, practical Catholic advocate no taxes are just. They just believe that the current level is excessive and disproportionate.

From cynic: so would a catholic or non-denomenational charitable organization help him out with the rent or not? Would that help be guaranteed to all who require it? Specifics matter.

If there is insufficient resources in such charities, it is the consequence of what is lacking in our hearts (yours, mine and those around us). And if they are not, in my prudential judgment the problem is not morally solved by using the power of the state to take from the wealthy to solve this problem. If I am not willing to provide to the same percentage, I believe for me to demand greater than others is morally wrong. This is my prudential judgment and I ask that it at least be respected even though you may disagree.

From cynic: Not here it doesn’t. Read the posts.

While I doubt that you can find very many posts here of people who advocate abolishing public schools, if any, it is so few to be meaningless. Why do you attribute such extreme views to members of CAF? I urge you to read the section of the Catechism on “Offenses Against the Truth.” It is your Christian duty to give greater charity than this to others.

From cynic: again libertarism doesn’t allow for that kind of reasoning.

Again, you are mischaracterizing libertarianism, except for the most extreme. Ron Paul the libertarian running for President as a Republican is pretty mainstream among libertarians. You are describing the extreme fringe of a fringe group. Libertarianism allows for taxation for what they deem legitimate purposes of government. They just have a more extreme view of the principle of subsidiarity than most. So? They can even be good faithful Catholics excercising their prudential judgment. And, such extreme “subsidiarists” should be careful to examine their position in light of Catholic Social Teaching just as extreme “redistributionists” like Dorothy Day could reach extreme positions using their prudential judgment without being outside Catholic principles of subsidiarity. Personally, I love Dorothy even when I disagreed w/ her. I do wonder why those who oposethe policies of Catholics who support capitalism are so vitriol toward them. It certainly doesn’t show much respect.

From cynic: vouchers still need to be funded from tax.

You are so right. It is just that those who support vouchers have a broader concept on how their tax dollars can be used to educate kids. It at least proves your earlier assertion that we oppose universal education is false.

From Christine Blake: I’ve seen far more girls have abortions because of the condemnation of the “far right” than out of any “choice”…I think the way to get rid of abortion is to not only teach our youth, but embrace them when they error and not condemn them. When single mothers are given other choices - social programs by the democrats - there are a lot less abortions!

While you and I may disagree on what will lessen the demand for abortions, your anecdote that people on the right cause abortions is a scandalous attempt to demonize those you disagree with to serve your political agenda. Disgusting.

 

[Ignatius]

Dems =Godless .

Yup!

 

[Orionthehunter]

Who puts their own money where their mouth is? Looks like it is not liberals. I think anyone who wants to cast general broad-based aspersions on Catholic conservatives (by definition religious in the study) should at least consider the facts and read this book “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” which was written by an liberal academic as well as the Catechism on “Offenses against the Truth.”

abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730

beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

 

[ribozyme]

Who puts their own money where their mouth is? Looks like it is not liberals. I think anyone who wants to cast general broad-based aspersions on Catholic conservatives (by definition religious in the study) should at least consider the facts and read this book “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” which was written by an liberal academic as well as the Catechism on “Offenses against the Truth.”

abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730

beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

Well, look at what George Soros is doing and the Democracy Alliance.

As you can tell from my signature, I believe effective public policies are the best solution.