Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

[vern_humphrey]

Yeah but if ya live in the Ozarks, you can’t be far from that Evil Empire, obscene profit taker, and slave master of the working poor entity known as Wal-Mart!

I’ll tell ya what, if they turned Health Care over to Wal Mart we’d all be better off. It would be cheap, and plentiful. LOL.

Well , Wal-Mart took the first step – if you’re over 65, they will sell you any generic drug for $4.00 a month.

Of course, Senator Chuck Schuemer immediately attacked them – it’s not fair to other drug suppliers, you know. Apparently one of Wal-Mart’s many sins is their refusal to cheat and gouge the customer for the benefit of the retail drug stores.

 

[BamaRider]

Not only will I call you optimistic, but I will also say it seems like you may have lived a sheltered life. (which is not a bad thing). I personally know people who have been left to fend for themselves…children. My mother in law was one. She slipped through the “system’s” cracks. My nieces almost did too, if their Grandmother hadn’t stepped in.

So what you’re telling us, they took your MIL to the ER, and she was dismissed and sent home?

If anyone falls through the cracks, it is not because of the lack of govt program, or greedy doctors, drug companies, or hospitals. But perhaps someone on the family end dropped the ball.

I have/had a good life. I was raised by caring parents, that taught me lifes lessons. My father layed bricks for a living, and my mom was a part time waitress. And though they never made alot of money, it was THEY who taught me to be optimistic and hopeful, that I could succeed. Something liberal govt abhors is hope and optimism. “Let us care for you, we know what’s best, you can’t make without us” etc.

My “sheltered” life included 26 years in the fire dept. I was assinged many years on the ambulance. I transported thousands of sick and uninsured people to the ER. NOT ONE in all that time was EVER dismissed. This includes derelicts, winos, drug users, and hobos. They were/are are provided access to the finest care in the world, no questions asked. I’ve seen million dollar a year surgeons work just as hard and dedicated to these people as their insured patients. The hospitals and doctors know the entire time they will never see a dime for the effort, but it doesn’t matter to them, and I take exception when some dismiss what they do. And when they take steps to recover any compensation they are villifed as greedy and uncaring. Are you kidding me?

Hospitals taking 20 dollars a month from patients owing hundreds of thousands of dollars, with liberals moaning and groaning it ain’t right. I just don’t understand.

But anyway, I still stand by the belief no one in this country is denied health care directly by any hospital or doctor because of the insurance.

I think the correct statement is, " but Guy, they do get care, but they gotta pay for it." Well imagine that.

 

[estesbob]

I am going to use this one. I just hope ribeye remembers this as he or she ages.

I dont know who to atrtribute the one about liberals and age-originally I though it was Churchill but have since found out that is not correct.

The line about term papers I stole from Rush Limbaugh.

When I was ribeyes age i was campaigning for GeorgeMcGovern!

 

[pennsylvan]

Any legislation I’ve seen to oulaw abortion includes penalties to incarcerate women and doctors. I would not vote for that.

Abortion can remain a moral wrong but that does not necessarily mean it should be a crime. Look at the contraceptive and divorce statutes…

Don’t forget, Roe v. Wade is at its center a criminal case.

If the bill was renamed The Imprison Women and Doctors Act rather than The Right to Life Act, how many here would vote for the candidate who proposed it?

 

[dmelosi]

Any legislation I’ve seen to oulaw abortion includes penalties to incarcerate women and doctors. I would not vote for that.

Abortion can remain a moral wrong but that does not necessarily mean it should be a crime. Look at the contraceptive and divorce statutes…

Don’t forget, Roe v. Wade is at its center a criminal case.

If the bill was renamed The Imprison Women and Doctors Act rather than The Right to Life Act, how many here would vote for the candidate who proposed it?

I don’t understand how you justify killing not being a crime.

 

[estesbob]

Any legislation I’ve seen to oulaw abortion includes penalties to incarcerate women and doctors. I would not vote for that.

Abortion can remain a moral wrong but that does not necessarily mean it should be a crime. Look at the contraceptive and divorce statutes…

Don’t forget, Roe v. Wade is at its center a criminal case.

If the bill was renamed The Imprison Women and Doctors Act rather than The Right to Life Act, how many here would vote for the candidate who proposed it?

Prior to Roe V Wade how many women were imprisoned for procuring an abortion? How many children have been slaughtered since Roe V Wade was forced on the Country. ?

If a canidate announced he was in favor of killing children how many people would support him?

 

[johnnykins]

I don’t understand how you justify killing not being a crime.

well, there’s self defense, just war, negligent homicide (tort only), execution pursuant to a judgment, unintentional homicide, …I’m sure I could think of others.

 

[rlg94086]

well, there’s self defense, just war, negligent homicide (tort only), execution pursuant to a judgment, unintentional homicide, …I’m sure I could think of others.

So, where does the killing of the innocent unborn fit in there?

 

[johnnykins]

Prior to Roe V Wade how many women were imprisoned for procuring an abortion?

Don’t know, but quite a few

How many children have been slaughtered since Roe V Wade was forced on the Country. ?

Millions and it’s terrible.

If a canidate announced he was in favor of killing children how many people would support him?

None - of course if she/he were to announce he’s in favor of a woman’s choice to have an abortion - many, many, many… That’s the whole nub of the matter. The overwhelming part of the population will not agree to treat an abortion as murder of a child - whether it is morally or not. In fact, by pushing an unrestrained, rigid plan for treating abortion as murder has brought forth “moral” arguments that claim it’s not morally wrong to kill the fetus/embryo/zygote. Without removing the talk of “murder” there is, IMHO, no hope of repealing Roe or making any serious headway in the actual reduction in the numbers of babies killed. All that’s happening is that the pro-abortionists are strengthened.

 

[johnnykins]

So, where does the killing of the innocent unborn fit in there?

I was simply answering a simple question that did not raise that issue.

 

[kitty_dee29]

What a lot of people don’t quite realize is that pro-choice is a) not pro-abortion, and b) as already stated quite a few times, many people don’t vote strictly on a pro-choice/pro-life basis. They vote for the person they think will do best, even if they are pro-choice. I am pro-choice myself, not because I think abortion is a “good thing,” but because situations do and will occur in which a pregnant woman will want or need an abortion. Let’s face it: abortion has been around since before anyone realized it, and voting for a pro-life candidate may ultimately cause the legality of abortion to be revoked. This would be a very bad thing to happen for a couple different reasons: women’s rights will take a huge step backwards, and women, despite the legality, will still find ways or aborting unwanted pregnacies.

I’m sorry if this upsets anyone, but facts are facts. If it happened before, it will happen again.:twocents:

 

[rlg94086]

What a lot of people don’t quite realize is that pro-choice is a) not pro-abortion, and b) as already stated quite a few times, many people don’t vote strictly on a pro-choice/pro-life basis. They vote for the person they think will do best, even if they are pro-choice. I am pro-choice myself, not because I think abortion is a “good thing,” but because situations do and will occur in which a pregnant woman will want or need an abortion. Let’s face it: abortion has been around since before anyone realized it, and voting for a pro-life candidate may ultimately cause the legality of abortion to be revoked. This would be a very bad thing to happen for a couple different reasons: women’s rights will take a huge step backwards, and women, despite the legality, will still find ways or aborting unwanted pregnacies.

I’m sorry if this upsets anyone, but facts are facts. If it happened before, it will happen again.:twocents:

Some of us just see that as taking a “practical approach” to allowing the murder of innocents. Sort of like saying, “well if we put a stop sign in that intersection someone will still run it and kill a pedestrian, therefore we shouldn’t put a stop sign up.”

Sorry if that upsets you, but facts are facts. An unborn child is still a child, and we shouldn’t make it legal for them to be exterminated.

 

[estesbob]

What a lot of people don’t quite realize is that pro-choice is a) not pro-abortion, and b) as already stated quite a few times, many people don’t vote strictly on a pro-choice/pro-life basis. They vote for the person they think will do best, even if they are pro-choice. I am pro-choice myself, not because I think abortion is a “good thing,” but because situations do and will occur in which a pregnant woman will want or need an abortion. Let’s face it: abortion has been around since before anyone realized it, and voting for a pro-life candidate may ultimately cause the legality of abortion to be revoked. This would be a very bad thing to happen for a couple different reasons: women’s rights will take a huge step backwards, and women, despite the legality, will still find ways or aborting unwanted pregnacies.

I’m sorry if this upsets anyone, but facts are facts. If it happened before, it will happen again.:twocents:

Lets face the facts-where is no such thing as pro-choice. those who use that euphanism support the killing of children. Now they will tell you that its not “their” children they are in favor of killing-its just the right of other people(mainly black and brown) to kill their children they support.

The idea that the a woman not having the right to kill their child would be a step backwards for womens rights is about the biggest insult to women i can imagine.

 

[dmelosi]

well, there’s self defense, just war, negligent homicide (tort only), execution pursuant to a judgment, unintentional homicide, …I’m sure I could think of others.

I am not sure what this has to do with my question.

 

[stringbeanduck]

WOW!


You are darn wrong! Who are you to say it is women’s right to decide to murder a child. Its not their choice. He has a plan for every child in the world. You think its bad thing for abortion to be revoked. There is no moral logic in that. Every child deserves to live. Ideology like that is a step back for women and thier bodies.
Next time you write a report/ essay see if you can do it on abortion. Write your thought about how it should stay legal and how you support it. Then tell us what the teacher thinks. Or better yet read it infront of class. Sorry if it sounds rude(I try not to be) but its kinda rude to God and the Blessed Mother to support killing her children Am I wrong?

 

[dmelosi]

What a lot of people don’t quite realize is that pro-choice is a) not pro-abortion, and b) as already stated quite a few times, many people don’t vote strictly on a pro-choice/pro-life basis. They vote for the person they think will do best, even if they are pro-choice. I am pro-choice myself, not because I think abortion is a “good thing,” but because situations do and will occur in which a pregnant woman will want or need an abortion. Let’s face it: abortion has been around since before anyone realized it, and voting for a pro-life candidate may ultimately cause the legality of abortion to be revoked. This would be a very bad thing to happen for a couple different reasons: women’s rights will take a huge step backwards, and women, despite the legality, will still find ways or aborting unwanted pregnacies.

I’m sorry if this upsets anyone, but facts are facts. If it happened before, it will happen again.:twocents:

Some people fool themselves into believing that being pro-choice is not pro-abortion.

Abortion may be the most selfish act there is, but thankfully Christ forgives even that.

 

[elt1956]

How do people get charged with murder when “it is not a person”.

Hello, it has been explained to me that these charges of murder are applicable after the first tri-mester of a pregnancy. ie. if someone is charged with the murder of a pregnant woman and her baby has developed to the first trimester and beyond, the defendent can be charged with two murders. Apparently this law is up to the individual states to prosecute.

Although I have not read Peter Singer’s Practical Ethics, nor Pope Paul II’s Gospel of Life, this is some info. I picked up on the web. A bit confusing since I have read neither. What I have gleaned is that if a person does not believe in the Sanctity of Life at ALL stages, then abortion. to them, is acceptable. The only law standing between the killing and not killing of an innocent being is what one chooses to believe. Secular law, in this instance, will not uphold God’s laws and according to secularism, one can believe what one chooses and act as one wishes as long as both are within the confines of secular law. Flawd thinking, but this is the way pro-choice people can squirm around basic and undeniable truths. They let secular law determine their morals.

Excerpted from Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217
Peter Singer
I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show in this chapter, however, this is not something to be regarded with horror, and the use of the Nazi analogy is utterly misleading. On the contrary, ONCE WE ABANDON THOSE DOCTRINES ABOUT THE SANCTITIY OF HUMAN LIFE THAT - as we saw in Chapter 4 - collapse as soon as they are qeustioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some case. is horrific.

megaessays.com/viewpaper/49745.html
ABORTION THE POPE AND PETER SINGER Abortion is one of the most controversial issues today. It has become a question
of not only ethics, but morals. In the 1973 case of Roe v Wade the Supreme Court ruled
that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy by abortion within the first six
months of the pregnancy. However, conservative Presidents have changed the legislation
enough to allow states to restrict abortion in various ways (Practical Ethics, Peter
Singer). In the following paper, I will summarize the views on abortion of Pope John
Paul II and philosopher, Peter Singer. These two men have very conflicting opinions

This argument is very adamantly against abortion. It is also a RELIGIOUSLY (AND my note: I WOULD SAY MORALLLY)based argument. He uses exerpts from the Bible and other religious documents and quotes many different clergymen and priests to help defend his position. He starts by explaining how you must follow the ten commandments to live a
good life and have eternal life. “Jesus replied, ‘If you would enter life, keep the
commandments’” (Mt 19:17). The first of these ten commandments is “You shall not
kill”. On the contrary, you should ‘love respect and promote life’ (The Gospel of Life,
. . .
Of all crimes possible, abortion and infanticide are defined as “unspeakable crimes” by the Second Vatican Council. This direct and VOLUNTARY action will always be regarded as MORALLY EVIL and CAN NEVER BE CONSIDERED AS NECESSARY, EITHER AS AND END, OR AS MEANS TO A GOOD END.

The decision to have an abortion is often painful and tragic to the mother. However,
“these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, CAN NEVER JUSTIFY THE DELIBERATE KILLING OF AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING" (The Gospel of Life, Paul II). The taking of an innocent life, especially at it’s beginning or end, is gravely immoral. His whole argument shows the answer to the question of abortion “within the
bounds of non-religious ethics” (Practical Ethics, Singer). This means that a fetus is not a human
until it leaves the mother’s womb. But this ‘potential life’ is different from the actual life. However, an abortion does take away the fetus’ potential for
life. ” As time goes on, the Church will continue to teach the undeniable value on the first
commandment. WITHOUT SUCH RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES, quickening is not a strong dividing line to determine that the fetus is a human. NOTHING AND NO ONE CAN IN ANY WAY PERMIT THE KILLING OF AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING, WHETHER A FETUS OR AN EMBRYO OR AN INFANT OF AN ADULT. Ultrasounds have shown that a baby makes movements not felt by the mother as early as six weeks after
conception (Practical Ethics, Peter Singer).

More studies have shown the embryo is sensitve to light, sound and especially pain. No one can say this is not life. Peace

 

[ribozyme]

My “sheltered” life included 26 years in the fire dept. I was assinged many years on the ambulance. I transported thousands of sick and uninsured people to the ER. NOT ONE in all that time was EVER dismissed. This includes derelicts, winos, drug users, and hobos. They were/are are provided access to the finest care in the world, no questions asked. I’ve seen million dollar a year surgeons work just as hard and dedicated to these people as their insured patients. The hospitals and doctors know the entire time they will never see a dime for the effort, but it doesn’t matter to them, and I take exception when some dismiss what they do. And when they take steps to recover any compensation they are villifed as greedy and uncaring. Are you kidding me?

Hospitals taking 20 dollars a month from patients owing hundreds of thousands of dollars, with liberals moaning and groaning it ain’t right. I just don’t understand.

But anyway, I still stand by the belief no one in this country is denied health care directly by any hospital or doctor because of the insurance.

Well, it is against the law to turn away anyone from an emergency room due to inability to pay. But most liberal wonks aren’t complaining about that.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

What a lot of people don’t quite realize is that pro-choice is a) not pro-abortion, and b) as already stated quite a few times, many people don’t vote strictly on a pro-choice/pro-life basis. They vote for the person they think will do best, even if they are pro-choice. I am pro-choice myself, not because I think abortion is a “good thing,” but because situations do and will occur in which a pregnant woman will want or need an abortion. Let’s face it: abortion has been around since before anyone realized it, and voting for a pro-life candidate may ultimately cause the legality of abortion to be revoked. This would be a very bad thing to happen for a couple different reasons: women’s rights will take a huge step backwards, and women, despite the legality, will still find ways or aborting unwanted pregnacies.

I’m sorry if this upsets anyone, but facts are facts. If it happened before, it will happen again.:twocents:

So what you are saying is that it is OK to kill the innocent unborn if that is what the mother wants. In other words, its a choice, not a life. This is backwards. It is a life, not a choice.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Ender]

Any legislation I’ve seen to oulaw abortion includes penalties to incarcerate women and doctors. I would not vote for that.

I am unaware of any legislation either on the books or proposed that would imprison the women who had abortions. Clearly the doctors faced imprisonment, but I don’t believe the mothers did.

Abortion can remain a moral wrong but that does not necessarily mean it should be a crime. Look at the contraceptive and divorce statutes.

Abortion “can” remain a moral wrong? What does that mean? Either it is immoral to destroy a human fetus or it isn’t. If you believe it is morally permissible I would like to hear at what point you feel killing a person becomes immoral.

Ender