Will voting for Liberals lower poverty, unemployment and the deficit?

[LisaA]

They did not cite poverty as a cause of abortion, they cited it as a reason for it. IE, someone who can’t financially support a child chooses instead to end its life before it begins.

Sorry this is yet another lame excuse. Choosing to end the life of a child “because you cannot support it” is utter baloney. Again, there is substantial assistance in this country,particularly for women and minor children. If someone in a tenuous financial situation (which is a HECKUVA lot of people these days) needs help to feed, clothe and educate a child, not only are there many local, state and federal programs, but for many generations, people looked to family members, churches and other charities.

An even better situation FOR THE CHILD (certainly better than killing him or her!) is adoption. I assure you TI, that any preganant woman in this country who wished to give life to her child and unselfishly consider his or her best interests would be able to find loving parents ready to adopt. There is an absolute dearth of adoptable babies and children in this country…hence I know many who have spent tens of thousands to adopt overseas.

If these women would simply be willing to carry the child to term, they need have no further financial concerns, not to mention having the financial support during the pregnancy itself.

Calling baloney on that one too.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Maddow comes up with her number by including the stimulus spending in Obamas first year as actually belonging to Bushs last year

Remember when all else fails, “IT’S BUSH’S FAULT!!!”

Lisa

 

[estesbob]

Remember when all else fails, “IT’S BUSH’S FAULT!!!”

Lisa

Even after 9 years! And of course the stimulus in question was passed by a democrat congress and signed by Obama.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

First thank you Elizabeth for doing the hard work of bringing facts and Scripture and the Church’s teaching into this argument. Your post was as usual clear and based on facts not opinion pieces.

TI, you are surely a man of strong opinions but I just shake my head at your belief that “Catholics” can either create a new and perfect political party, get Roe reversed (as Elizabeth and others have said this will NOT ban abortion) or that voting for some obscure purist (in your opinion) political candidate that you can actually impact the culture of this country.

Sadly I think that ship sailed LONG ago, back in the 60s (I get the impression you are young and idealistic instead of old and cynical like me). Abortion a feature of people having sex in situations that the Church would have prohibited not by poverty, not by lack of access to contraception, or ignorance of how babies are made. BECAUSE it is easy to obtain, relatively inexpensive or free and because of popular media nearly guilt free, there is a lot of it.

As to “Catholics” being a force for this movement you propose, I have to wonder at the members of your Parish, your Archdiocese or your state, much less your country. The members of my Parish can’t even agree on what kind of music is appropriate for Mass much less some kind of national political movement. Further the number of Catholics who are willing to vote for the most RADICAL PRO ABORTION PRESIDENT IN HISTORY tells me your ideas are not going to get much traction. The sad truth is TI, your fellow Catholics have inflicted Obama on us for another four years and I suspect Catholics also elected Sebelius, Biden, Pelosi and Cuomo another bunch of abortion advocates. We can’t even seem to get Catholics to vote for pro life candidates in LOCAL elections.

Sorry to burst your bubble (although I suspect you think it’s still intact) but I don’t think your theories are based on the real world.

Lisa

I quoted that article and then provided the empirical data (Guttmach) from which they made the claim that I quoted. By all means, question the source, but it hardly constitutes that none of what I’ve said in this thread is true.

I’ve been type-casted as idealist zealot whose stances are based in sanctimonious conjecture, but it seems every time I bring up something valid, you guys simply just choose not to address it. I proved Romney was a profiteer of abortion. Are you glad you voted for him?

Again, President Obama is not pro-abortion. The notion is sickening. He doesn’t want people to get abortions, but he also doesn’t want them to resort to dangerous means if that is their prerogative. The idea that his policies somehow promote abortion are just not looking at the facts; unlike the Republican platform, he’s dedicated millions to abortion alternatives.

If you honestly believe voting Republican does anything at all to help curb abortion in this country by even the slightest, then you are the one who’s not living in the real world.

I pray God will grant both me and everyone else in this conversation more insight to the issue and perhaps we can find more common ground.

 

[LisaA]

I quoted that article and then provided the empirical data (Guttmach) from which they made the claim that I quoted. By all means, question the source, but it hardly constitutes that none of what I’ve said in this thread is true.

I’ve been type-casted as idealist zealot whose stances are based in sanctimonious conjecture, but it seems every time I bring up something valid, you guys simply just choose not to address it. I proved Romney was a profiteer of abortion. Are you glad you voted for him?

Again, President Obama is not pro-abortion. The notion is sickening. He doesn’t want people to get abortions, but he also doesn’t want them to resort to dangerous means if that is their prerogative. The idea that his policies somehow promote abortion are just not looking at the facts; unlike the Republican platform, he’s dedicated millions to abortion alternatives.

If you honestly believe voting Republican does anything at all to help curb abortion in this country by even the slightest, then you are the one who’s not living in the real world.

I pray God will grant both me and everyone else in this conversation more insight to the issue and perhaps we can find more common ground.

No common ground when you and I live in different universes. If you’ve been type cast, it’s because of your stated philosophy that you hold like a dog with a bone, despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary.

Obama is PRO ABORTION. By his words, his actions, his votes, his appointments and his contributors. Who received HUGE sums from Planned Parenthood? Not Romney. Please give me one bit of evidence…not B.S. from the DNC or Obama supporters or even Obama. I do not care what people say if their actions are directly opposite of their stated claims. Obama said he honors religious freedom…you believe that?

I’m sorry that you take the words of a heretical blogger over the Bishops and Scripture itself.

Oh and yes I’m glad I voted for Romney. He is a good and decent and COMPETENT man.

Lisa

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Sorry this is yet another lame excuse. Choosing to end the life of a child “because you cannot support it” is utter baloney. Again, there is substantial assistance in this country,particularly for women and minor children. If someone in a tenuous financial situation (which is a HECKUVA lot of people these days) needs help to feed, clothe and educate a child, not only are there many local, state and federal programs, but for many generations, people looked to family members, churches and other charities.

An even better situation FOR THE CHILD (certainly better than killing him or her!) is adoption. I assure you TI, that any preganant woman in this country who wished to give life to her child and unselfishly consider his or her best interests would be able to find loving parents ready to adopt. There is an absolute dearth of adoptable babies and children in this country…hence I know many who have spent tens of thousands to adopt overseas.

If these women would simply be willing to carry the child to term, they need have no further financial concerns, not to mention having the financial support during the pregnancy itself.

Calling baloney on that one too.

Lisa

This is almost comical. I wasn’t saying that if a poor woman chose to have the abortion because she can’t afford to take care of a child was a justified position. It IS a motivator, claiming otherwise would only prove your unwillingness to consider any other perspective than your own.

And then you talk about government assistance to help these woman avoid abortion…THAT’S BECAUSE OF DEMOCRATS, NOT REPUBLICANS.

So you adore Reagan, the mass murderer, and Romney, the profiteer of abortion? I just don’t understand.

Can any of you provide me with some objective, empirical data that proves Republicans are pro-life in practice and not just in name?

I’ve used the catechism and direct quotes from the Pope, but apparently the only source I used was that one blog? Apparently it doesn’t matter that I used the source of data to support the only quote I presented from that blog?

 

[estesbob]

I quoted that article and then provided the empirical data (Guttmach) from which they made the claim that I quoted. By all means, question the source, but it hardly constitutes that none of what I’ve said in this thread is true.

I’ve been type-casted as idealist zealot whose stances are based in sanctimonious conjecture, but it seems every time I bring up something valid, you guys simply just choose not to address it. I proved Romney was a profiteer of abortion. Are you glad you voted for him?

Again, President Obama is not pro-abortion. The notion is sickening. He doesn’t want people to get abortions, but he also doesn’t want them to resort to dangerous means if that is their prerogative. The idea that his policies somehow promote abortion are just not looking at the facts; unlike the Republican platform, he’s dedicated millions to abortion alternatives.

If you honestly believe voting Republican does anything at all to help curb abortion in this country by even the slightest, then you are the one who’s not living in the real world.

I pray God will grant both me and everyone else in this conversation more insight to the issue and perhaps we can find more common ground.

Obama Is ‘Proponent’ of What is 'Shameful and Criminal in the Eyes of Almighty God.
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio
*
CATHOLIC BISHOP: VOTING FOR OBAMA, DEMS COULD PLACE ‘ETERNAL SALVATION OF YOUR OWN SOUL IN SERIOUS JEOPARDY*

ct.dio.org/bishops-column/59-think-and-pray-about-your-vote-in-upcoming-election/text.html

 

[LisaA]

This is almost comical. I wasn’t saying that if a poor woman chose to have the abortion because she can’t afford to take care of a child was a justified position. It IS a motivator, claiming otherwise would only prove your unwillingness to consider any other perspective than your own.

And then you talk about government assistance to help these woman avoid abortion…THAT’S BECAUSE OF DEMOCRATS, NOT REPUBLICANS.

So you adore Reagan, the mass murderer, and Romney, the profiteer of abortion? I just don’t understand.

Can any of you provide me with some objective, empirical data that proves Republicans are pro-life in practice and not just in name?

I’ve used the catechism and direct quotes from the Pope, but apparently the only source I used was that one blog? Apparently it doesn’t matter that I used the source of data to support the only quote I presented from that blog?

No, as Elizabeth pointed out, correlation does not equal causation. Poverty does not “cause” abortion. The stated reason that a woman “can’t afford” a child simply points out the fallacy of this “cause” of abortion. The Guttmacher provides what box a woman checked, not the real reasons.

Reagan the mass murderer…Romney the profiteer of abortion? When you make such outrageous, specious and hysterical claims, the rest of your argument loses credibility.

As to government programs for poor women and children, WIC originated under Nixon as I recall. And “welfare as we know it” ending occurred during the Clinton era. That being said, you too seem to have selective comprehension. As I stated, the preferable source of assistance is the family, followed by the churches and other charities. Now when we look at which party supports family structure and charities helping the poor, how about those Democrats withholding funds from Catholic Charities because it will not refer women for abortion? What about the sudden uptick in audits of charities by the Democrat administration? What about the HHS Mandate and other restrictions on the operation of charities? What about Obama’s promotion of the “Freedom of Choice Act.”? The Democrat party as it is now, not as it was when I grew up in a very liberal Democrat household, the party of government control from womb to tomb. Their policies seem against local, family or charity action to help the poor and marginalized.

Further it’s very easy to spend OTHER PEOPLES MONEY. So the Democrats focus on using yours and my taxdollars to buy votes through playing Lady and Lord Bountiful. They are not nearly as interested in focusing on the REASONS for poverty…and golly Elizabeth nailed that one too…MARRIAGE is the best anti-poverty program in existence.

As to Republicans living the pro-life way…I dunno ask yourself how many of the volunteers in Crisis Pregnancy Centers, sidewalk counsellors, or volunteers in the Mother and Child shelters are at peace with the Democrat party? I haven’t found too many of them. As to Republican legislation, do your own work. This was discussed at length during the election. If you are unable to access the pro-life legislation let me know. I don’t think you really care about the answer or you wouldn’t have made that ridiculous claim.

Here it is in a nutshell: Obama voted against BABIES BORN ALIVE from being saved. That is barbaric and all I needed to know about him in 2008 to cross him off my list of viable candidates. He’s gotten even more radical and sadly those who voted for him including a lot of uninformed Catholics have forced us to fight even harder against him and the merchants of death he endorses.

Lisa

 

[meltzerboy]

This is almost comical. I wasn’t saying that if a poor woman chose to have the abortion because she can’t afford to take care of a child was a justified position. It IS a motivator, claiming otherwise would only prove your unwillingness to consider any other perspective than your own.

And then you talk about government assistance to help these woman avoid abortion…THAT’S BECAUSE OF DEMOCRATS, NOT REPUBLICANS.

So you adore Reagan, the mass murderer, and Romney, the profiteer of abortion? I just don’t understand.

Can any of you provide me with some objective, empirical data that proves Republicans are pro-life in practice and not just in name?

I’ve used the catechism and direct quotes from the Pope, but apparently the only source I used was that one blog? Apparently it doesn’t matter that I used the source of data to support the only quote I presented from that blog?

In what sense did Reagan become a mass murderer?

 

[ProVobis]

Reagan the mass murderer

For one thing, legalized abortion in California before he decided to sell pro-life books and con money from pro-life forces.

One needs to know that even if Roe vs Wade is overturned and abortion rights are given back to the states, California will still allow abortions.

 

[Darryl1958]

…, someone who can’t financially support a child chooses instead to end its life before it begins.

:

More correctly, they choose to end the life of the child before it becomes illegal. Life begins at conception according to God and science.

Legality cannot define life. Life simply is.
What legality defines is what we value, and what we don’t.

We live in a world in which finances are valued more than life, and your arguments makes that crystal clear for us.

Thanks for that, I guess

 

[estesbob]

For one thing, legalized abortion in California before he decided to sell pro-life books and con money from pro-life forces.

Again we hear the argument that those of us who are pro-life are dupes.

 

[ProVobis]

Again we hear the argument that those of us who are pro-life are dupes.

Yeh, imagine if Reagan and Nixon were Democrats, how much would the Republicans and pro-lifers be so forgiving then.

 

[estesbob]

Yeh, imagine if Reagan and Nixon were Democrats, how much would the Republicans be so forgiving then.

Having already described me as a “dupe” why would you care what my opinion is?. Evidently i am just not smart enough to know when i am being duped.

When Tom Delay headed our fundraiser for Houston CPCs I didn’t realize I was being duped. When he helped block a Democrat attempt to regulate CPCs out of business I didn’t realize I was being duped . When Rick Perry signed into a law a Republican initiative to cut off all funding to planned parenthood I didn’t realize I was being duped. When george Bush reinstated the Mexico City policy cutting off ten of millions of dollars to overseas abortion providers I didnt realize I was being duped. In my 40 years of working in the pro-life ministry I realize now all the people I worked with over the years were just dupes like myself. Cant think for ourselves. i guess if we were smart we just vote Democrat-at then we’d know we were supporting abortion-we wouldn’t be dupes

 

[LisaA]

Yeh, imagine if Reagan and Nixon were Democrats, how much would the Republicans and pro-lifers be so forgiving then.

Are you kidding? Do you know how much we would WELCOME anyone, either party, who came out of the ignorant and horrifically cruel pro abortion ranks? Truly are you of the mind that we care more about party affiliation than saving babies? I guess not only are we dupes but political hacks as well…nice ProVobis, how very charitable of you!

FWIW the pro life world honors, supports, and praises those who have changed their position. Why you and so many others PRESUME that the only reason a mind or heart would be changed is for political advantage. Maybe you have to be in those shoes to believe ProVobis, but I can attest as a former pro abortion, feminist, atheist, my conversion is ANYTHING but insincere and ANYTHING that somehow benefits me.

Just to provide examples, how has the pro life movement treated Abby Johnson? Or how did they treat Dr Nathienson?

Isn’t there something about how much the shepherd celebrates the return of a lost sheep? I pray for a change in Obama’s heart. I would welcome the zeal he expresses when supporting abortion, abortion providers and abortion mandates if he were to turn it toward a pro life agenda.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

More correctly, they choose to end the life of the child before it becomes illegal. Life begins at conception according to God and science.

Legality cannot define life. Life simply is.
What legality defines is what we value, and what we don’t.

We live in a world in which finances are valued more than life, and your arguments makes that crystal clear for us.

Thanks for that, I guess

Excellent point Darryl. I think Elizabeth502 also made a good case that our culture seems to greatly value the ability to fornicate when, where, with whom,and with no consequences far more than we value life.

Clearly the priorities of this administration are prevent pregnancy by providing free ABC and if that doesn’t work there’s always Plan B. Further as marriage is a shield against abortion, demean marriage by refusing to act on behalf of DOMA, pressure Congress and private organizations to promote homosexual sex which by definition cannot create life. Have the country’s biggest abortion provider Planned Parenthood and NARAL center stage for your party’s convention. Your spokesperson is a single female who is bright enough to be admitted to Georgetown and who has the money for the high tuition, yet she is apparently so helpless she can’t walk down the street to find $8 birth control pills…not to mention free condoms in every bar within 25 miles.

It’s a macabre and really dark outlook isn’t it? Choose death, choose to be barren, choose not to marry. Brave new world…

Lisa

 

[Zosimus41]

No comparison. Besides the deregulated airline and trucking industries, Carter left Reagan with a powerful Fed chairman (Volcker) who was most instrumental in raising the interest rates to quell the Nixon inflation then slowly lowering them to stimulate the economy. Reagan did okay but then blew it by appointing Greenspan, whom the market tested immediately by dropping the Dow by over 30%, 22% in one day.

Contrast that with what Obama inherited. Zero-percent interest rate economy after a complete banking and housing collapse. What are your options when you can’t drop interest rates any further? At least the stock market recovered.

ProVobis,

Its not so much what Obama has inherited it whats hes spending. Heres a title on Forbes.com (Peter Ferrara,contributer) has to say about President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History.

Our debt will be over 20 trillion before this guy is done.To start with theres nothing free about Obama Care.

What liberals want is socialism.

Bottom line short and simple I bet I can name more socialist government run countries
worse off than we are (financially and poverty stricken) than you could name any socialist run government that is better off financially and lower poverty levels than our country.

Even Hitler tackled unemployment and brought financial gain to Germany under a dictator/socialistic umbrella. We can agree that left a huge scar both on Germany and the world over.

“We the people” not “we the government”

In the words of Winston Churchill

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churchill

As for me and my family we prefer freedom and freedom does not come with Big Government.

My possessions were not given to me by the government I earned them. Through education and hard work. I suspect yours were too.

Some are poor and sick beyond their control we dont need huge government national health care programs to take care of them.

Pax et bonum

 

[estesbob]

ProVobis,

Its not so much what Obama has inherited it whats hes spending. Heres a title on Forbes.com (Peter Ferrara,contributer) has to say about President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History.

He did inherit a mess- a mess he created in his first term. At least, however, women now get free birth control

 

[LisaA]

He did inherit a mess- a mess he created in his first term. At least, however, women now get free birth control

Ah but do the trains run on time?

Lisa

 

[Jeanne_S]

Are you kidding? Do you know how much we would WELCOME anyone, either party, who came out of the ignorant and horrifically cruel pro abortion ranks? Truly are you of the mind that we care more about party affiliation than saving babies? I guess not only are we dupes but political hacks as well…nice ProVobis, how very charitable of you!

FWIW the pro life world honors, supports, and praises those who have changed their position. Why you and so many others PRESUME that the only reason a mind or heart would be changed is for political advantage. Maybe you have to be in those shoes to believe ProVobis, but I can attest as a former pro abortion, feminist, atheist, my conversion is ANYTHING but insincere and ANYTHING that somehow benefits me.

Just to provide examples, how has the pro life movement treated Abby Johnson? Or how did they treat Dr Nathienson?

Isn’t there something about how much the shepherd celebrates the return of a lost sheep? I

pray for a change in Obama’s heart. I would welcome the zeal he expresses when supporting abortion, abortion providers and abortion mandates if he were to turn it toward a pro life agenda.

Lisa

Right on!