No. of Recommendations: 13
The message you're trying to access has been removed from the boards. The most likely reason for this is that the message violated our Fool's Rules about appropriate content. Either that or it was swallowed up by intergalactic space beasts from the planet Xeenu.

Please check out The Motley Fool's Terms and Conditions of Service.




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
unfortunately, like the Jewish - Catholics vote predominantly Democrat. I have no idea why.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
There are more than 77 million Catholics in this country. It takes an estimated 50 million Catholic votes to elect a president. I am asking all of you to go to the polls in 2014 and be united in replacing all Senators and Reps with someone who will respect the Catholic Church, all Christians, and all Religions besides Islam.

I'm one those Catholics, and I'm pretty confident I'll vote Democrat.

Also, while I know you are just reprinting an email you received, you might want to think about this:

Muslim Clinic
http://www.ummaclinic.org/

History of the Muslim Hospital:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/islamic_medical/islamic_12...

Muslims had a tremendous impact on math and science, historically.

Muslim Boy and Girl Scouts:
http://www.pluralism.org/reports/view/99

Muslim charities:
http://islam.about.com/od/activism/tp/charities.htm

Amazing what one can learn when one crawls out from under their rock.

Just to be clear: I absolutely denounce terrorists who are Muslim, just as I would denounce any criminal, regardless of their religion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Oh, by the way, on MUSLIM HERITAGE IN America ...



Have you ever been to a Muslim hospital ?



Have you heard a Muslim orchestra?



Have you seen a Muslim band march in a parade?



Have you witnessed a Muslim charity?



Have you seen Muslims shaking hands with Muslim Girl Scouts?



Have you seen a Muslim Candy Striper?



Have you seen a Muslim do anything that contributes positively to the American way of life?


Have you seen Muslim schools which teach hate for America?

Have you seen Muslim terrorist camps around the world?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
unfortunately, like the Jewish - Catholics vote predominantly Democrat. I have no idea why.

Because they don't live their faith. They don't walk the talk. And many Catholics are liberal, which takes precedence over biblical truth.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
unfortunately, like the Jewish - Catholics vote predominantly Democrat. I have no idea why.

Because they don't live their faith. They don't walk the talk. And many Catholics are liberal, which takes precedence over biblical truth.


Or it's because we recognize that the central message of Jesus had a lot more to do with taking care of each other, loving one another, etc. and much less to do with the NRA and tax breaks to the rich.

Maybe a lot of Catholics and Jews aren't so much voting FOR Democrats but AGAINST Republicans.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
unfortunately, like the Jewish - Catholics vote predominantly Democrat. I have no idea why.
===================================
Sounds like you haven't talked to many Catholics or Jews. If you did, you would know it's because of:

1. The Republican Party's long domincance by WASPs, with a long history of discrimination against Catholics and Jews.

2. The Republican Party's long opposition to the rights of organized labor, when most laborers were immigrants of Catholic or Jewish backgrounds.

3. The Republican Party's unholy alliance with the religious right, who want their narrow view of Christianity to be the law of the land, and who want education dumbed down to fit their notion of biblical truth.

4. Catholics and Jews believe in social programs to provide a safety net for all people. Republicans believe in "every man for himself."

5. Catholics and Jews value education. They don't think it's cute to be dumb. (Remember all those Catholic universities mentioned in the OP?) So candidates like George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachmann are not appealing to them.

Bill
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
That was the biggest load of Horsesh!t I've read in a long time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
we are a Christian Nation founded on Judeo-Christian values



This is a lie.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Because they don't live their faith. They don't walk the talk. And many Catholics are liberal, which takes precedence over biblical truth

I tend to think they don't live their faith because in most cases it ISN'T their faith. The practice of the Catholic church is to Baptize it's members into the church as infants and confirm the faith when still adolescents. Most Catholics therefore are called Catholics not by their own decision to adopt that faith but becasue their parents chose it for them. This is all to the best of my ex-Catholic knowledge.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
unfortunately, like the Jewish - Catholics vote predominantly Democrat. I have no idea why.

Because they don't live their faith


You can't be a Democrat and a devout Catholic or Jew? What an ignorant and horrid thing to say.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
"5. Catholics and Jews value education. They don't think it's cute to be dumb. (Remember all those Catholic universities mentioned in the OP?) So candidates like George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachmann are not appealing to them. "

Yet Al Gore, who flunked out of both divinity school and law school does appeal. As compared to GWB who has an MBA. Interesting distortion of the record.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Or it's because we recognize that the central message of Jesus had a lot more to do with taking care of each other, loving one another, etc. and much less to do with the NRA and tax breaks to the rich.



_______________________________________

Miss Edith,
The central theme of a lot of your posts is to bash the rich.
It's getting really tiresome. It may gain you tons of recs on the
LBYM board but not here.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Miss Edith,
The central theme of a lot of your posts is to bash the rich.
It's getting really tiresome. It may gain you tons of recs on the
LBYM board but not here.


Wasn't looking for recs, sweetie. Feel free to P-box me any time you like if you don't care for my posts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That was the biggest load of Horsesh!t I've read in a long time.
_______________________

I did not find it any dumber than the typical ode to ignorance that liberals who feel they are the elite seem to believe

IT really never ceases to amuse that these folks with the beliefs they actually REALLY COMMIT TO and endorse feel that anyone else on the planet can possibly compete for the title of kings of ignorance
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"Miss Edith,
The central theme of a lot of your posts is to bash the rich.
It's getting really tiresome. It may gain you tons of recs on the
LBYM board but not here."

And ironically the easiest way to LBYM is to become rich and increase your means. LOL But the politics of liberalism is the politics of envy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
I was born and raised as a Catholic, and 64 years later I still am. I have not and cannot vote Democrat. No way.

Very few of my Catholic pals can stand Obama. They mostly believe that he is the most pathetic president we have ever had. We cannot believe what he says most of the time to say the least.

America is the most popular, successful, and productive country in history. Obama wants to change it big time and we don't.
Sully
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Or it's because we recognize that the central message of Jesus had a lot more to do with taking care of each other, loving one another,

...and sticking guns in people's faces to compel them to do the things that YOU think constitute "taking care of each other".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
Libs want to force others to "take care of one another." Not very loving at all. Unless you have a benevolent tyrant or dictator that is. Charity comes from the heart, not at the point of a gun. Libs never get this. Jesus didn't force anyone to give to others, he left it up to the individual, nor did he call for the government to tax people so that other people can be helped by the government. Libs love government more than they do Jesus, at least the ones who fancy themselves Christians.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"...and sticking guns in people's faces to compel them to do the things that YOU think constitute "taking care of each other"."

Nobody is sticking a gun in your face.

You are enjoying the benefits of living in this civilized society, you are not forced to live here.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
xlife:
You can't be a Democrat and a devout Catholic or Jew? What an ignorant and horrid thing to say.


I can't speak for devout Jews, but as far as devout Catholics are concerned, the answer to your question is, or at least should be: No.

Because any Catholic who is truly "devout" would not vote for a politcal party that aggresively supports and promotes a "pro-choice" platform.

If Catholics (such as MissEdith) suggest they are not so much voting FOR democrats as they are AGAINST republicans, then they're still doing it wrong, quite frankly.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
MissEdith:
Or it's because we recognize that the central message of Jesus had a lot more to do with taking care of each other, loving one another, etc. and much less to do with the NRA and tax breaks to the rich.

As a Catholic, what's your stance on the abortion issue?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
As a Catholic, what's your stance on the abortion issue?

Feel free to comb back through my old posts if you'd like to know. And if you don't like my answers, feel free to turn me in.

The church does not require that I be a single-issue voter vis-à-vis abortion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
And ironically the easiest way to LBYM is to become rich and increase your means. LOL But the politics of liberalism is the politics of envy.

________________________________________

Exactly!
They don't call Envy the green eyed monster for nothing.
My husband said that a former boss of his stated that he
had never gotten a job from a poor person. I lived in an apartment building where the residents hired others to watch their children while they went to work or do their laundry. I did my own laundry in the basement of the building and became friendly with the women who were the hired help. They hated the rich and they made no bones about it.
In our family we don't bite the hand that feeds us. If we are employed by the rich as many of us are, we are grateful for the opportunity to work at all.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
MissEdith:
Or it's because we recognize that the central message of Jesus had a lot more to do with taking care of each other, loving one another, etc. and much less to do with the NRA and tax breaks to the rich.
___________________________

Oh Man, she better watch out, Felix gonna be along any time know to explain her ignorance to her, oh no!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Liberal Catholics like MissEdith generally precede the words "Give to the poor" with the words, "Take other people's money and"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 19
MissEdith:
Or it's because we recognize that the central message of Jesus had a lot more to do with taking care of each other, loving one another, etc. and much less to do with the NRA and tax breaks to the rich.


Taking care of each other; loving one another, etc. is least accomplished via the government (the government sucks at it). Conservatives know this and that is why conservatives give to charity at an alarmingly higher rate than liberals.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"I can't speak for devout Jews, but as far as devout Catholics are concerned, the answer to your question is, or at least should be: No.

Because any Catholic who is truly "devout" would not vote for a politcal party that aggresively supports and promotes a "pro-choice" platform.

If Catholics (such as MissEdith) suggest they are not so much voting FOR democrats as they are AGAINST republicans, then they're still doing it wrong, quite frankly."


Of course that is only looking at it through the lense of a single issue which is quite silly. In reality the world is much more complicated. For example according to your poor logic, no Republican Catholics should have voted to re-elect Bush in 2004 because of his invasion of Iraq.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Or it's because we recognize that the central message of Jesus had a lot more to do with taking care of each other, loving one another, etc. and much less to do with the NRA and tax breaks to the rich.

Maybe a lot of Catholics and Jews aren't so much voting FOR Democrats but AGAINST Republicans.




Maybe intelligent, conservative Catholic Christians understand that Jesus was not about setting up a state-run religion. Maybe they understand that following the first two commands is encumbent on an individual, and that all the state should be doing is maintaining a climate of individual freedom, personal property rights, etc.

God wants you to choose to love your neighbor. If He wanted to force you to, He would have done that. By the way, when the government confiscates your property against your will and distributes it to those it sees fit, how is that you loving your neighbor?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
You are enjoying the benefits of living in this civilized society

Translation:

"You are enjoying our idea of liberal utopia foisted on you against your will and you will like it. We call it civilized so that the unthinking masses will swallow it whole. But make no mistake, if you don't pay up for our wonderful society you WILL go to jail"

Your benevolent wolf in sheep's clothing.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
As a Catholic, what's your stance on the abortion issue?

Get ready for some serious liberal sidestepping, bobbing and weaving, and when it's all done, she will make you feel that she is both pro choice and an orthodox Catholic. Of course it all hinges on what the meaning of "is" is.

Popcorn anyone?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
hahahahahahahaha

Like I said!

I know liberals better than every square inch of my glorious naked body. (to borrow a phrase)

LOL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Liberal Catholics

Oxymoron, as she and others so aptly demonstrate on a daily basis.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
no Republican Catholics should have voted to re-elect Bush in 2004 because of his invasion of Iraq.

You reveal your ignorance of Catholic doctrine and scriptural teaching for over 2,000 years.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Did she respond to this great post?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Miss Edith,
The central theme of a lot of your posts is to bash the rich.


What was that thing about coveting?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Miss Edith,
The central theme of a lot of your posts is to bash the rich.


What was that thing about coveting?
______________________________________

You think that's a good one? Wait until you get to bearing false witness
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Miss Edith,
The central theme of a lot of your posts is to bash the rich.


What was that thing about coveting?
______________________________________

You think that's a good one? Wait until you get to bearing false witness


Heck, just wait till you get to thou shall not murder. LOL. But-but I am not a one-issue blah, blah, blah.

Liberalism, rather in life or in the Church, is a mental disorder laced with constant rationalization on inconsistent positions with the Church or with reality. So much cognitive dissonance, so little relief.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The practice of the Catholic church is to Baptize it's members into the church as infants and confirm the faith when still adolescents. Most Catholics therefore are called Catholics not by their own decision to adopt that faith but becasue their parents chose it for them. This is all to the best of my ex-Catholic knowledge.

I think this is true. It's certainly true with respect to salvation. Most Catholics believe that if they're "good Catholics," they're redeemed. It's corporate salvation.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And ironically the easiest way to LBYM is to become rich and increase your means. LOL But the politics of liberalism is the politics of envy.

Yay!! (Have a rec.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Taking care of each other; loving one another, etc. is least accomplished via the government (the government sucks at it).

The government does a lot better than charity ever did. Charity is arbitrary and reactionary...a lot like conservatives, actually. SS alone has almost mitigated poverty among the elderly. Systemic solutions for systemic problems...

Conservatives know this and that is why conservatives give to charity at an alarmingly higher rate than liberals.

Heh, keep patting yourself on the back with those lies. Yelling "it's mine!" out of one side of your mouth and "I'll give to charity" out of the other...everyone can see through your charade.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"God wants you to choose to love your neighbor. If He wanted to force you to, He would have done that."

Yes. Jesus did not force the young man to surrender his riches. I Believe Jesus knew the young man loved his money more than Jesus and was given a chance to change. In the end Jesus allowed him to walk away... freedom of choice, the way we come to Jesus.

"By the way, when the government confiscates your property against your will and distributes it to those it sees fit, how is that you loving your neighbor?"

It isn't, as you know, its about power and control.

"Matthew 19
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16 And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man *said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

23 And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?” 26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
... that is why conservatives give to charity at an alarmingly higher rate than liberals.

Except they don't.

September 12, 2012 - In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148033
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Because any Catholic who is truly "devout" would not vote for a politcal party that aggresively supports and promotes a "pro-death penalty" platform.

Also did you know the Roman Catholic leadership in the U.S. has opposed restrictions on immigration.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What was that thing about coveting?

______________________________________________

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.

I went to Catholic school too!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.

The primary reason liberals and atheists are democrats. This command goes against their core beliefs.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.

The primary reason liberals and atheists are democrats. This command goes against their core beliefs.
_________________________________

Sincerely, I am not sure you are correct.

I do not think they want what others have. They just hate to see other people having things that they do not control

They would rather everyone be poor than to have people have more than they do and have everyone be rich. They are very very screwed up, mere greed would be such a drastic improvement that I would love to see it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Taking care of each other; loving one another, etc. is least accomplished via the government (the government sucks at it). Conservatives know this and that is why conservatives give to charity at an alarmingly higher rate than liberals.

Sorry, you can only recommend a post to the Best of once.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Heh, keep patting yourself on the back with those lies. Yelling "it's mine!" out of one side of your mouth and "I'll give to charity" out of the other...everyone can see through your charade.

_____________________________________________

Actually it's a fact that conservatives give more generously to charities. Just ask Joe Biden how much he gave to charity last year.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Heh, keep patting yourself on the back with those lies. Yelling "it's mine!" out of one side of your mouth and "I'll give to charity" out of the other...everyone can see through your charade.
_______________________________________________________

Please, it is very hard to refrain from calling you an idiot.

You can't see through Barrack Obama and he is the most transparent liar in the world.

And saying, I would like to give my money to the charities I believe in not the charities YOU believe in, is a pretty obvious and easy to decipher message. Above you of course, so maybe you should just shut up? Just because you do not give to charities is not reason to project that upon others.

Everyone can see? You are among the blindest people in the world, you can't even see your own reflection. Pretty pathetic IMO
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I just found this on Philanthropy.

Red states are more generous than blue states. The eight states where residents gave the highest share of income to charity went for John McCain in 2008. The seven-lowest ranking states supported Barack Obama.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
"The government does a lot better at stealing people's money than charity ever did."

Fixed that for ya but we knew what you meant.

" The gub'mint is arbitrary and reactionary...a lot like Liberals, actually."

Fixed that for ya too.

"SS alone has almost mitigated poverty among the elderly."

SS alone, or any other entitlement program, has NOT mitigated poverty in the least among the elderly or anyone else as poverty has remained at 15% since the War on Poverty started.

"Heh, keep patting yourself on the back with those lies. Yelling "it's mine!" out of one side of your mouth and "I'll give to charity" out of the other...everyone can see through your charade."

Yet it is a proven and well documented fact that conservatives give to charity way more than liberals. It isn't even a contest. So you are really talking about yourself. Liberals are great at donating other people's money but not so much their own. Fact.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Because any Catholic who is truly "devout" would not vote for a politcal party that aggresively supports and promotes a "pro-choice" platform.

I guess that would be true if there is only one issue that you care about, and all others are irrelevant. Since that is rarely true for most people, your statement seems at odds with reality.

f Catholics (such as MissEdith) suggest they are not so much voting FOR democrats as they are AGAINST republicans, then they're still doing it wrong, quite frankly.

When there are only two parties with any realistic chance of taking office, people are often maneuvered into "voting against" rather than "voting for." I daresay some Catholics would support many of the Democratic positions except for "choice", and therefore vote against Democrats on that basis.
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"SS alone has almost mitigated poverty among the elderly."


This individual is actually touting Social Security as a success story? What does "Almost mitigated" mean? I read it as if it only would have worked it would have mitigated (that is lessened the effect of not eliminated poverty)? So it has done nothing for poverty. This bankrupt system that has stolen the liberty along with the financial futures of hard working Americans?

SS has confiscated working people's money throughout their lifetime and squandered it. The payoff is that the government tells you how much you have to put toward your retirement, when you are allowed to retire and what you will get in return for your "investment".

The returns are a mere fraction of what they would be had the individual been allowed to keep their hard earned money and invested it, even in the most conservative way.

This does not even mention the other half of the confiscation that is taken from the employers.

This person is obviously a socialist from another planet.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
"Heh, keep patting yourself on the back with those lies. Yelling "it's mine!" out of one side of your mouth and "I'll give to charity" out of the other...everyone can see through your charade. "

But conservatives do actually give more to charity.

Liberals pat themselves on the back with their (actual) lies: "Hey, I care about the poor." and then turn around and give .2 of 1% of their money while insisting that "the rich" must be forced to give 30-30% of THEIR income.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
any Catholic who is truly "devout" would not vote for a politcal party that aggresively supports and promotes a "pro-choice" platform.




True Americans don't try to legislate their religion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
God wants you to choose to love your neighbor. If He wanted to force you to, He would have done that.




Same thing goes for abortion--women should have a choice.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Heh, keep patting yourself on the back with those lies. Yelling "it's mine!" out of one side of your mouth and "I'll give to charity" out of the other...everyone can see through your charade.


Charade? No. Fact? Yes. Perfectly consistent rationale? Yes.


Many (most?) conservatives aren't against the government taking excessive amounts of their income because they're selfish. They simply believe 1) in personal property rights, and 2) they believe that they should have the right to decide how the money they have worked for is used. Turns out they tend to choose to give more of it away than others.


Taking care of each other; loving one another, etc. is least accomplished via the government (the government sucks at it).

The government does a lot better than charity ever did.



Better job at what? Maybe they do a better job of re-distributing wealth (maybe...the idea that some beaurcrats in DC can make beter choices on where and how to distibute to the needy than those in the community in which the needy actually live is doubtful), but cultivating a system in which everyone assumes it's "the government's job" to care for the needy does not foster charity/love. Just the opposite. Go to Eurpoe and see how much people there give to charity vs the U.S.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Also did you know the Roman Catholic leadership in the U.S. has opposed restrictions on immigration.



Citation, please?

For "opposing restrictions on immigration" would be complete and utter nonsense, incompatible with an orderly society. If the were simply no restricions, then one could just fire all border security and immigration officials, and leave the borders unattended, right? And if a half a billion foreigners decided they want to come here? Great! No restrictions.

I'm thinking you have no idea what you're talking about, and putting your own words into the mouths of the "Catholic leadership".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
When there are only two parties with any realistic chance of taking office, people are often maneuvered into "voting against" rather than "voting for." I daresay some Catholics would support many of the Democratic positions except for "choice", and therefore vote against Democrats on that basis.


Pro-abortion.

For removing every vestige of Christianity from society.

For programs like handing out condoms to school kids.

For homosexual marriage.

All kinds of stuff a devout Catholic should support.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
any Catholic who is truly "devout" would not vote for a politcal party that aggresively supports and promotes a "pro-choice" platform.


True Americans don't try to legislate their religion.




It is pure nonsense to call voting for politicians who believe in defending the rights of the unborn as "legislating their religion".


It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with convictions. Legislating religion would be to support laws that force church attendance or sacraments or the like.

It is quite presumptous for you to believe your convictions are better than someone else's. Indeed, in your necessarily-relativistic worldview, there can be no conviction that is "better" than anyone else's.

(As an aside, it is simply ignorance to think that "true Americans" have not had their convictions influenced by their religious beliefs since the founding on the country)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Bingo! Hypocrisy drips from the mouth of libs.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
True Americans don't try to legislate their religion.

Poppycock!

Thou shall not steal.
Thou shall not murder.

Well embedded in our laws as it should be. Of course libs really hate those two commands which goes against their sacrament of abortion and their lust to take other people's money, so I could understand a socialist/lib's twisted view of what a true American should be.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
God wants you to choose to love your neighbor. If He wanted to force you to, He would have done that.
===================================================================

Same thing goes for abortion--women should have a choice.


Wrong, God is always against the murder of innocent people.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm thinking you have no idea what you're talking about, and putting your own words into the mouths of the "Catholic leadership".

His opinion surely isn't coming from the side of the horse where the mouth is.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Same thing goes for abortion--women should have a choice.
___________________

I have always agreed with this

Women should have a choice not to get pregnant, and anyone making it happen without their implicit approval should spend a massive amount of time in jail
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
"Many (most?) conservatives aren't against the government taking excessive amounts of their income because they're selfish. They simply believe 1) in personal property rights, and 2) they believe that they should have the right to decide how the money they have worked for is used. Turns out they tend to choose to give more of it away than others."

AND they have the (entirely correct) belief that THEY can decide how those charity dollars should be best spent than the government can decide, after turning those charity dollars into tax dollars. But it is only the Buffetts of the world who get to decide what their money will be spent on rather than the government - while hypocritically nattering about how other people don't put enough money at the disposal of the government.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
me: Also did you know the Roman Catholic leadership in the U.S. has opposed restrictions on immigration.


commoncents33:
Citation, please?

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignit...

In January 2003, the U.S. Catholic Bishops released a pastoral letter on migration entitled, "Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope." In their letter, the Bishops stressed that, "[w]hen persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right." No. 35. The Bishops made clear that the "[m]ore powerful economic nations…ave a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows." No. 36.



For "opposing restrictions on immigration" would be complete and utter nonsense, incompatible with an orderly society. If the were simply no restricions, then one could just fire all border security and immigration officials, and leave the borders unattended, right? And if a half a billion foreigners decided they want to come here? Great! No restrictions.

WOW! This is a fantastic way to kill a discussion.
Take the other person's position and push it to the extreme. Then be amazed at how extreme their position is.

Forgive me if I don't apply the same method to your argument.

I'm thinking you have no idea what you're talking about, and putting your own words into the mouths of the "Catholic leadership".

In your opinion what is the position of the Catholic leadership on immigration? Do you understand that they favor the Republican view or the Democratic view?

On this and many other issues the Catholic Church much more favors the policies and positions of the Democrats over the Republicans. Abortion and birth control being the most talked about exceptions.

Do you dispute this?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Please, it is very hard to refrain from calling you an idiot.

Do you lie about *everything*? It's never very hard for you to refrain from name calling when you don't agree.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
True Americans don't try to legislate their religion.

Poppycock!

Thou shall not steal.
Thou shall not murder.

Well embedded in our laws as it should be.


If you think restrictions on stealing and murder originated from your religion than you need to attend an introduction to philosophy class.

Even then your religion allows for stoning adultery and protocol for taking slaves.

It is very frustrating that you hold one or two ideas in your religion that everyone agrees with, and pretend that (a) your religion invented it and (b) there is some clear delineation between these sensible rules and the ridiculous ones.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Wrong, God is always against the murder of innocent people.


You are going to just pretend the OT does not exist?

I guess you could argue that since no person is without sin against god, he is free to kill everyone at any time.

Do you have a different position?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
tango:
As a Catholic, what's your stance on the abortion issue?

MissEdith:

Feel free to comb back through my old posts if you'd like to know. And if you don't like my answers, feel free to turn me in.

The church does not require that I be a single-issue voter vis-à-vis abortion.


Wow, you're pretty touchy.
I don't even know who you are, quite frankly. I don't read this board every day.

Why didn't you just answer the question? In the time it took you to write your three-sentence response, you could have simply answered in ONE sentence, "I am a pro-choice Catholic" or you could have expanded and qualified that one statement with "but only in cases of rape or incent", and had you done that, you would have given me (and maybe others) the benefit of the doubt since I (we) don't know you or what your take on things is since, perhaps contrary to your belief, not everyone here follows you and your posts here so closely as to keep up with what's going on in YOUR little world.

That said, I presume from the dodginess of your response that you are, in fact, an abortion supporter, because if you were not an abortion supporter, you would have simply answered my question with a simple "I don't support abortion."

If you are, in fact, a "Catholic" who supports abortion, how do you respond to the idea that supporting abortion isn't exactly compatible with "taking care of each other, loving one another, etc."?

If you are one of these Catholics who believes that abortion is secondary to other social issues such as, say, gay marriage, then I can understand (although I wouldn't agree with) your decision to support Democrats. However, if -- as you claim -- you and others like you might be voting more against Republicans than for Democrats, that would suggest to me, at least, that you think abortion and gay marriage, etc. are equal issues, in which case, I would then ask you why pick between the lesser of two evils? This is America, after all, and if you can't find someone running for POTUS whose views match your own, you could always write yourself in on the ballet.

???
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
tango: Because any Catholic who is truly "devout" would not vote for a politcal party that aggresively supports and promotes a "pro-choice" platform.

If Catholics (such as MissEdith) suggest they are not so much voting FOR democrats as they are AGAINST republicans, then they're still doing it wrong, quite frankly.



Umm: Of course that is only looking at it through the lense of a single issue which is quite silly. In reality the world is much more complicated. For example according to your poor logic, no Republican Catholics should have voted to re-elect Bush in 2004 because of his invasion of Iraq.


My logic was not poor.
You assume that because I said truly devout Catholics would not vote for a political party that supports abortion (i.e., Democrats), that I necessarily imply that truly devout Catholics would therefore only vote for Republicans...

Nice try.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
CCinOC: I think this is true. It's certainly true with respect to salvation. Most Catholics believe that if they're "good Catholics," they're redeemed. It's corporate salvation.


Most Catholics, especially in the United States, simply do not know the Catholic Faith. Most that know a little something about the Catholic Faith simply reject it.

"Liberal Catholicism" is inherently "Cafeteria Catholicism," and "Cafeteria Catholicism" is simply not Catholicism. Period.

This is why concern over the Catholic vote in presidential elections is misplaced. When Catholics aren't really "Catholic" in the first place, it's a moot point.

I'm not sure if I remember this correctly, but I want to say that I read a quote from a California Latino voter, saying, "Yes, I'm Catholic. But I'm Latino first." Something like that.

So there ya go.

Catholic vote? WHAT Catholic vote?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
hrse (editing tango):
Because any Catholic who is truly "devout" would not vote for a politcal party that aggresively supports and promotes a "pro-death penalty" platform.

Also did you know the Roman Catholic leadership in the U.S. has opposed restrictions on immigration.


Yes, I'm aware of it. I don't find it particularly surprising.

Did you know that the Cathechism states that the death penalty is justified in some cases?

Personally, I have become increasingly anti-death penalty .. there are way too many cases these days where DNA evidence has come back to prove the innocence of some people on death row.

Jodi Arias, on the other hand....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
tango: Because any Catholic who is truly "devout" would not vote for a politcal party that aggresively supports and promotes a "pro-choice" platform.

Goofy: I guess that would be true if there is only one issue that you care about, and all others are irrelevant. Since that is rarely true for most people, your statement seems at odds with reality.

No.
Catholics may certainly have concerns for more than one issue, but for the truly devout, abortion is #1. Make no mistake about that. Then again, there are few truly devout Catholics in the U.S.. As I said in a previous response, the vast majority of Catholics in the U.S. are 'cafeteria Catholics'.


tango: if Catholics (such as MissEdith) suggest they are not so much voting FOR democrats as they are AGAINST republicans, then they're still doing it wrong, quite frankly.

Goofy: When there are only two parties with any realistic chance of taking office, people are often maneuvered into "voting against" rather than "voting for." I daresay some Catholics would support many of the Democratic positions except for "choice", and therefore vote against Democrats on that basis.

I totally agree with your first sentence there.. About your second sentence, I'm know there are *some* Catholics who do go that route. Most these days simply vote Democrat. Some will still vote for a Ron Paul-type as a 3rd party candidate, even when they know it's a 'wasted vote'.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
WOW! This is a fantastic way to kill a discussion.
Take the other person's position and push it to the extreme. Then be amazed at how extreme their position is.




All you said was that US Catholic Bishops oppose restrictions on immigration. Period.


Maybe if (from the link you just now provided) you had qualified it with this essential aspect, you would have not been taken as an extremist:

"Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."

If you want serious discussion, start serious discussions, not mis-representing generalities.



(Reading your citation, their stance seems very aligned with...Marco Rubio. Who I believe is a leader of the Republican party.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you are one of these Catholics who believes that abortion is secondary to other social issues such as, say, gay marriage, then I can understand (although I wouldn't agree with) your decision to support Democrats. However, if -- as you claim -- you and others like you might be voting more against Republicans than for Democrats, that would suggest to me, at least, that you think abortion and gay marriage, etc. are equal issues, in which case, I would then ask you why pick between the lesser of two evils? This is America, after all, and if you can't find someone running for POTUS whose views match your own, you could always write yourself in on the ballet.


The more relevant issue is why someone who is pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage would even be Catholic in the first place, as that Church clearly and officially disagrees with those beliefs. Why not be part of a church that fits your views?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This is why concern over the Catholic vote in presidential elections is misplaced. When Catholics aren't really "Catholic" in the first place, it's a moot point.


Indeed.

I am sure that if you tallied the voting preference of those "Catholics" who 1) understand and accept with conviction the central teachings of the Catholic Church, and 2) go to Mass regularly and actually stay until the end, you would find an overwhelmingly Republican majority.

But like you say, that is a tiny majority of those who self-identify as "Catholic".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
commoncents:
The more relevant issue is why someone who is pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage would even be Catholic in the first place, as that Church clearly and officially disagrees with those beliefs. Why not be part of a church that fits your views?


Agreed.
I didn't want to go there because I thought it'd be a real shift in the scope of the thread.

It really doesn't make sense to 'play Catholic' when folks could go right across the street to, say, the Lutherans or Episcopalians.
Those folks put on a pretty decent Sunday morning show that doesn't deviate too terribly far from the novus ordo Mass.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
All you said was that US Catholic Bishops oppose restrictions on immigration. Period.

I assumed that I was talking to someone familiar with the Catholic Church, and not someone who wanted to spend time arguing if I qualified my statements enough. The statement that the bishops are against restrictions on immigration is true. It would be more complete with the added "as favored by the GOP and the far right". It would continue to be right with “As they are enacted today”. If I wanted to convey an extreme position, I would have stated it as such. Perhaps even adding the word 'period' at the end as you did, to show the extreme position that I did not take.

But if you can't argue your position, then I guess finding semantically and grammatical errors in statements is what you fill you're time with (see what I did there?).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The more relevant issue is why someone who is pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage would even be Catholic in the first place, as that Church clearly and officially disagrees with those beliefs. Why not be part of a church that fits your views?


And that is a big part of why I am no longer a member of the Catholic Church.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Pro-abortion.
For removing every vestige of Christianity from society.
For programs like handing out condoms to school kids.
For homosexual marriage.
All kinds of stuff a devout Catholic should support.


And yet there are plenty of Catholics who believe in exactly that. Devout? How about "nuns"? Do they count? How about "priests"? Do they count?

Or are you only counting people who agree with you as "devout"?

Vatican Cracks Down on US Nuns for Pro-Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage Views

The largest organization of Roman Catholic nuns in the U.S. has been hit by a Vatican-ordered crackdown that brands the Leadership Conference of Women Religious as too "radical" and diverging from several core pillars of Catholic faith.

Among a number of "feminist themes" the official report claims against the Leadership Conference is its lack of support for the traditional definition of marriage, as well as pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia positions.

http://global.christianpost.com/news/vatican-cracks-down-on-...

I know plenty of Catholics who are in favor of women's choice. Of gay marriage. Of keeping religion and state separate. I guess they aren't "devout" either, at least by your definition.
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It is pure nonsense to call voting for politicians who believe in defending the rights of the unborn as "legislating their religion".
It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with convictions.


That may be true, but there's an unsurprising alignment between "religion" and "those convictions." It is the Catholic church which proclaims that life begins at conception, something that Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, or any other mainstream religion doesn't. (Indeed, even Catholics didn't until very recently, it is a newfound "teaching" which post-dates almost the entire history of the church.)

It is quite presumptous for you to believe your convictions are better than someone else's.

I couldn't agree more.

Therefore, it is quite presumptuous of you to believe your convictions are better than someone else's.

If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. If you don't want to have a gay marriage, don't have one. But by insisting that no one else can either and by codifying it in law, you are presuming that your convictions are better than theirs.

Now, was that so hard to understand?
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Therefore, it is quite presumptuous of you to believe your convictions are better than someone else's.

If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. If you don't want to have a gay marriage, don't have one. But by insisting that no one else can either and by codifying it in law, you are presuming that your convictions are better than theirs.

Now, was that so hard to understand?

_______________________________________

Rarely do I agree with you

On this case I do.

I have no problem saying you should not murder a baby. You think it is not a baby.

Or do you believe in killing babies, like Obama and Gosnell?

IT is still equally presumptuous for me to believe you do not have the right to murder. Same rules apply right?

When people use garbage to make this argument, rather than the simple truth that one side believes it is murder and the other does not, or condones murder, it gets really stupid.

Stop being a jerk about it, frame the argument honestly, I know that is a lot to ask, but it is not too late to change everything about your political persona.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Some will still vote for a Ron Paul-type as a 3rd party candidate, even when they know it's a 'wasted vote'.

Look, if your goal is to get people with policies and attitudes you believe in into elected office, which is more of a wasted vote?

A vote for a candidate who doesn't share them, but merely opposes them slightly less viciously than someone else?

Or a candidate who does share them but is very unlikely to be elected?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Some will still vote for a Ron Paul-type as a 3rd party candidate, even when they know it's a 'wasted vote'.

Look, if your goal is to get people with policies and attitudes you believe in into elected office, which is more of a wasted vote?


A vote for a candidate who doesn't share them, but merely opposes them slightly less viciously than someone else?

Or a candidate who does share them but is very unlikely to be elected?
_______________________________________

IMO, It depends it that vote for a candidate who merely opposes them less viciously stops something really really bad from getting done.

Say, the destruction of a third of the economy and perhaps the pharmaceutical industry and health care and ....

Then the Middle East going fully unstable and costing us billions of dollars and thousands of lives

and immigration issue getting even more out of hand and ....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
commoncents:
Pro-abortion.
For removing every vestige of Christianity from society.
For programs like handing out condoms to school kids.
For homosexual marriage.
All kinds of stuff a devout Catholic should support.


Goofy:

And yet there are plenty of Catholics who believe in exactly that. Devout? How about "nuns"? Do they count? How about "priests"? Do they count?

Or are you only counting people who agree with you as "devout"?

Vatican Cracks Down on US Nuns for Pro-Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage Views
_____________________
The largest organization of Roman Catholic nuns in the U.S. has been hit by a Vatican-ordered crackdown that brands the Leadership Conference of Women Religious as too "radical" and diverging from several core pillars of Catholic faith.

Among a number of "feminist themes" the official report claims against the Leadership Conference is its lack of support for the traditional definition of marriage, as well as pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia positions.
http://global.christianpost.com/news/vatican-cracks-down-on-......
_____________________
I know plenty of Catholics who are in favor of women's choice. Of gay marriage. Of keeping religion and state separate. I guess they aren't "devout" either, at least by your definition.


.. and who are in favor of things like ‘women priests’… the list goes on and on.

Typically, these are also the same people who do not believe in the necessity of confession, who adhere to Relativism, who do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and who arguably don’t go to Mass every Sunday (I’ll resist lumping them into the Christmas-Easter-Only group)..

They call themselves Catholics, but c’mon… who’s kidding whom?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Wow, you're pretty touchy.
I don't even know who you are, quite frankly. I don't read this board every day.

Why didn't you just answer the question? In the time it took you to write your three-sentence response, you could have simply answered in ONE sentence, "I am a pro-choice Catholic" or you could have expanded and qualified that one statement with "but only in cases of rape or incent", and had you done that, you would have given me (and maybe others) the benefit of the doubt since I (we) don't know you or what your take on things is since, perhaps contrary to your belief, not everyone here follows you and your posts here so closely as to keep up with what's going on in YOUR little world.




No, I was not being touchy with my response… it’s just that every time issues with Catholicism come up, and if I say something that someone perceives as being out of step with orthodox Catholic teaching, it’s pile on time. And every time that happens, someone brings up abortion, and the conversation just devolves from there. And this conversation has come up time and time again on these boards. One person thinks you’re “not Catholic enough,” or you’re not a “real Catholic,” or says something along the lines of what’s been said in this thread, “if you can’t adhere to the teachings on homosexuality and abortion, just go across the street and be an Anglican, for Pete’s sake.” Of course there's so much more to being Catholic other than the abortion issue and homosexuality and the priest scandals.

Yes, I am Catholic. I’m a Catholic convert, actually, so I made the choice, as an adult, to become Catholic. After being an atheist/agnostic, too. I didn’t grow up going to church. And while I’m a Catholic, I also recognize that I’m also not what a lot of Catholics would call a “good Catholic.” (But if we’re all honest with ourselves—are any of us truly good Catholics/Baptists/Anglicans/Buddhists?)

I’ll spare you the details of my life story. But I will say that it’s not so simple to answer “yes or no” to the question “do you believe in the Church’s stance on abortion?” Hence my suggestion to go back and read other posts that I’ve made on the topic.

I actually do, much to my surprise, believe in the Church’s stance on abortion. My thinking on abortion, birth control and other things with respect to the sanctity of life have changed a lot, even since I’ve become Catholic. I would not have an abortion (easier to say at this point in my life, at my age). I would not drive someone to the clinic to get an abortion. If a family member or friend expressed a desire to have an abortion, I’m pretty sure I would try to talk them out of it.

That said, however, I don’t think it’s my place to impose my religious convictions on others. I believe absolutely nothing good comes from making abortion illegal. People in my family had abortions when they were illegal. I have friends who have had legal abortions. Some have been because of unwanted pregnancies, some have been because of birth defects of the fetus. I would prefer that no woman (or man) in America would have to make that choice. I would prefer that every woman in America who is faced with that choice makes the choice not to undergo and abortion because they are supported by family and friends and the community to NOT make the choice to have an abortion, that they have sufficient economic support, medical support, adoption support, job training support, and anything else that they need not to make that choice. These are the things that I think about when I cast my generally Democrat vote.

And at what point does my sin end and someone else's begin? Ok, so the Catholic take is that "abortion is an intrinsic evil" and the Church pretty strongly says that you probably shouldn't vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil. But at what point is it no longer my responsibility, as a Catholic? If it's my responsibility when I vote, does it end there? Should I continue to pay taxes to a government where abortion is legal? Should I continue to live in a city/county/state/country where abortion is still legal?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Yes, I'm Catholic. But I'm Latino first."

Note that in spite of all the "we want to become American citizens" rhetoric this voter chose to identify as Latino rather than American.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
And yet there are plenty of Catholics who believe in exactly that. Devout? How about "nuns"? Do they count? How about "priests"? Do they count?

Or are you only counting people who agree with you as "devout"?



No. I'm counting people who believe in the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church isn't and never has been a democracy, nor based on a consensus of opinion.

One is free to believe and practice whatever one wants in life. But if you call yourself Catholic, yet deny it's teachings, you are confused at a minimum, maybe a hypocrite, or worse...you're evil by trying to tear down a 2000 year old institution and remake it according to your desires, rather than just being honest and saying you don't believe in it and moving on

It's got nothing to do with my own personal beliefs. It's simply what the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years, that the authority to make definitive doctrine rests with the teaching Magisterium of the Church.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Therefore, it is quite presumptuous of you to believe your convictions are better than someone else's.

If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. If you don't want to have a gay marriage, don't have one. But by insisting that no one else can either and by codifying it in law, you are presuming that your convictions are better than theirs.

Now, was that so hard to understand?



Oh, please Goofy. Are you that misguided?

Of course those citizens who have the conviction of that the unborn have the right to life just like everyone else cannot simply say "to each his own"...if you want to murder your unborn child, that's your choice.

You may disagree with their conviction, but to suggest that they turn their backs is absurd. If you wanted to commit infanticide, should they ignore that to? (Oh yeah, many, including our president and news media, have done just that)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Note that in spite of all the "we want to become American citizens" rhetoric this voter chose to identify as Latino rather than American.

____________________________________________

I am not at all surprised. I lived in an apartment building that was staffed pretty much by people from other countries and as much as they seemed to love New York, their loyalty was to their country of origin.
I used to ask them about current events and they had no clue. We lived in the Big Apple and there was always news, always something going on but in their own minds they still lived "back home". At times they seemed like displaced persons. They came to this country for freedom and economic opportunity but their hearts would remain with their homeland.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. If you don't want to have a gay marriage, don't have one. But by insisting that no one else can either and by codifying it in law, you are presuming that your convictions are better than theirs.

Let's reframe this argument.

If you want to stop the killing of babies, too fknd bad. If you want to protect the institution of marriage, too fknd bad.

My convictions are the convictions that prevail.

I'm so proud of how immoral society and I are.

There, isn't that much clearer,


Remember,
Faith in God
Hope in the future based on knowing the truth
Charity to our fellow men and women
Duty to ourselves, our community, and our country.

Gilbert
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Thanks for going into all that.

But I'm still at least mildly confused by your previous statement..

BenHurJudah wrote:
Because they don't live their faith. They don't walk the talk. And many Catholics are liberal, which takes precedence over biblical truth.


And you responded with:
Or it's because we recognize that the central message of Jesus had a lot more to do with taking care of each other, loving one another, etc. and much less to do with the NRA and tax breaks to the rich


If the message of Christ is about taking care of each other and loving one another, how is murdering an unborn child in the womb "taking care of each other and loving one another"?

You wrote:
Ok, so the Catholic take is that "abortion is an intrinsic evil" and the Church pretty strongly says that you probably shouldn't vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil. But at what point is it no longer my responsibility, as a Catholic? If it's my responsibility when I vote, does it end there?

Honestly, I think that's at least a start. But you don't even get that far because the Church tells you 'don't vote for the abortion candidate', and then you go out and you vote(d) for him. I certainly don't think the Church requires you to drop everything in your life to go march in front of an abortion clinic 24/7/365.. She certainly doesn't require that people donate every spare nickel of money to help the poor.. or adopt every Chinese kid with a cleft palate to save him from being aborted.. such is unrealistic.

However, voting against the abortion/pro-choice candidate is a pretty simple thing you COULD do, but for whatever reason, you don't.

...and again, I'll add that voting against the abortion/pro-choice candidate still does NOT limit you to voting for the republicans.

Should I continue to pay taxes to a government where abortion is legal? Should I continue to live in a city/county/state/country where abortion is still legal?

I think Christ answered that very question quite effectively:
Reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, et quae sunt Dei Deo.
I'm pretty sure you can figure out what that means.

I am a convert as well. I do not understand liberal Catholics. My impression (regularly, my observation) is that they are often trying to bring God down to man, rather than trying to lift man up to God. In my opinion, this is part of the reason (maybe the primary reason) that we live in a society rife with narcissism, filth and injustice.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I don’t think it’s my place to impose my religious convictions on others.

Does this mean you will stop calling for universal health care and the welfare state which is a miserable failure that has hurt more than it has helped?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Preach it!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"universal health care and the welfare state" are not religious or
faith based. They are purely political. Results with respect to the
betterment of the fellow man is not important and not a true
goal.
You can tell by the tendency for the folks involved to want to take
down the names of everyone - even those who support their causes.If folks care about the betterment of anyone, they must support the betterment of everyone - not only this one or that.

Howie52
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"universal health care and the welfare state" are not religious or
faith based. They are purely political.


They require a belief in the infallibility of government that goes BEYOND religious faith.

You see, religion only calls upon you to believe stuff in the absence of evidence.

This other thing requires you to believe stuff in the presence of huge amounts of evidence clearly and consistently showing that the stuff is false.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
But you don't even get that far because the Church tells you 'don't vote for the abortion candidate',

This is NOT what the Church says.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/...

34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty
of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

42. As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.


You say:

However, voting against the abortion/pro-choice candidate is a pretty simple thing you COULD do, but for whatever reason, you don't.


Well, I could do that. And there are reasons why I don't. The problem is, the "right to life" is NOT limited to just unborn children. Others have a right to life, too. People who don't have sufficient food, adequate shelter, health care. Those too are "right to life" issues. People who are or would be victims of crime--that's a "right to life" issue as well. People subject to the death penalty have a "right to life" as well. People who need to earn a living wage to support their families. Soldiers who would be sent to wars, perhaps sometimes to protect economic interests. Having a healthy planet so that we can all live without exposures to toxins. I could go on.

It's really easy to talk about "killing the babies." Yes, they are innocents and have a right to life---but so does that smelly homeless guy on the street, so does that undocumented person who came to this country to provide for her kids, so does that mentally disabled person who can't care for himself. To look at a single issue like abortion is often to ignore some of these other things, in my opinion.

If there were a candidate who wrapped all of these things up together for me, then perhaps I could get behind him/her. So far in my recent voting life, the Democrats have come closer.

I am a convert as well. I do not understand liberal Catholics. My impression (regularly, my observation) is that they are often trying to bring God down to man, rather than trying to lift man up to God. In my opinion, this is part of the reason (maybe the primary reason) that we live in a society rife with narcissism, filth and injustice.

I can't speak for all "Liberal Catholics." All I know is that I wish the world was really as simple and as black and white as a lot of people seem to think it is. I agree with you, there is a lot of narcissism, filth and injustice in the world. I feel like if we all, as individuals, truly lived as we're exhorted to in the Bible, the world would be pretty close to perfect. I don't think that you and I are as far apart on this as you might think.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Recommendations: 2
I don’t think it’s my place to impose my religious convictions on others.


Does this mean you will stop calling for universal health care and the welfare state which is a miserable failure that has hurt more than it has helped?



Yeah, there's nothing much more absurd than a progressive saying that it's wrong to impose one's beliefs on others. That, after all, is the essence of their cause.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Does this mean you will stop calling for universal health care and the welfare state which is a miserable failure that has hurt more than it has helped?


Yeah, there's nothing much more absurd than a progressive saying that it's wrong to impose one's beliefs on others. That, after all, is the essence of their cause.


Last time I checked, universal health care and "the welfare state" weren't religious issues, per se. But there is an argument that regardless of doing something for the individuals affected, there is a net positive effect on society. If we care for the poor, we don't have to step over them on our way to work, or put up with begging children in the streets, or whatever direction you want to take that. A basic level of health care has certain economic benefits, as well as public health benefits.

You can take this in all kinds of directions--why pay for roads, when I don't drive? You're imposing that on me! (Well, you do like having food in your local grocery store when you go shopping). Why pay for schools when I don't have kids? (There is a societal benefit to people having a certain basic level of education). Why should my money go to war, when I'm a pacifist? (Because the protections offered by armed forces of this country allow you to enjoy a certain quality of life). Why should my money go for public sewers when I can just do my business in a bucket?

You see where this can go. There are things we can agree on, and things we can't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It is pure nonsense to call voting for politicians who believe in defending the rights of the unborn as "legislating their religion".


The unborn are not American citizens and therefore have no Constitutional rights.




It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with convictions. Legislating religion would be to support laws that force church attendance or sacraments or the like.




It has everything to do with religion, because religious beliefs are the reason Catholics want to outlaw abortion. Which is ironic, because the Bible clearly states that, since every birth and death is pre-ordained, abortion is part of God's plan. A true christian would support abortions rights.



It is quite presumptous for you to believe your convictions are better than someone else's. Indeed, in your necessarily-relativistic worldview, there can be no conviction that is "better" than anyone else's.




My convictions are based on facts and evidence. Religious beliefs are based on a fairy tale.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
True Americans don't try to legislate their religion.
------
Poppycock!

Thou shall not steal.
Thou shall not murder.




There were laws against both of these before Christianity existed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Same thing goes for abortion--women should have a choice.
--------
Wrong, God is always against the murder of innocent people.




Abortion is not murder.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If the message of Christ is about taking care of each other and loving one another, how is murdering an unborn child in the womb "taking care of each other and loving one another"?



It's not a child and it's not murder.


Honestly, I think that's at least a start. But you don't even get that far because the Church tells you 'don't vote for the abortion candidate',



A church may not legally say that. If they do, they are breaking the law and deserving of having their tax-exempt status revoked.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Wrong, God is always against the murder of innocent people.

Nonsense.

Have you ever read the Bible?

There's this cool story about how God kills all the Egyptians' first born children just to show off. (He kills all their first-born animals too.) Just think of all them innocent dead kids! The people, I mean. Not the goats.

The funny part is that this all-powerful, all-knowing God tells his chosen people, the Israelites, to smear their doors with lambs blood so he'll know which houses to skip over. For some reason he can't otherwise tell them apart from Egyptians. This is where the Jewish holiday Passover comes from, by the way. Pass over the houses with lamb's blood smeared on the doors. Pass-over. Get it?

There's tons of stories in the Bible where God is for murdering innocent people and gets a badass kick out of doing it or ordering other people to do it for him.

He even gets the Romans to torture and kill his son for no particular reason.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
I haven't replied to you because your positions are the most thought out. Most of the time, we get the simplistic positions of "if you don't like abortion, don't have one".

The problem is, the "right to life" is NOT limited to just unborn children. Others have a right to life, too. People who don't have sufficient food, adequate shelter, health care. Those too are "right to life" issues. People who are or would be victims of crime--that's a "right to life" issue as well. People subject to the death penalty have a "right to life" as well. People who need to earn a living wage to support their families. Soldiers who would be sent to wars, perhaps sometimes to protect economic interests. Having a healthy planet so that we can all live without exposures to toxins. I could go on.

Yes, you could. Except for the death penalty, you're conflating the right to life with the quality of life. Sure, quality of life issues are important. But just because they're important, doesn't make them the responsibility of government.

Catholic Charities is one of the largest charities in the world. They do many good works around the world, and used to play an important role in American charity.

Unfortunately, with social and medical mandates, federal, state, and municipal governments in the United States have been forcing Catholic charities to close their doors. In Boston. In Washington DC. Any place unbridled liberalism rules.

You're going to find that government charity is a harsh mistress, compared to Catholic charity. But soon, in liberal America, harsh will be the new nice. The new harsh will kill plenty of people that also had a right to life.


Remember,
Faith in God
Hope in the future based on knowing the truth
Charity to our fellow men and women
Duty to ourselves, our community, and our country.

Gilbert
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Well, I could do that. And there are reasons why I don't. The problem is, the "right to life" is NOT limited to just unborn children. Others have a right to life, too. People who don't have sufficient food, adequate shelter, health care. Those too are "right to life" issues. People who are or would be victims of crime--that's a "right to life" issue as well. People subject to the death penalty have a "right to life" as well. People who need to earn a living wage to support their families. Soldiers who would be sent to wars, perhaps sometimes to protect economic interests. Having a healthy planet so that we can all live without exposures to toxins. I could go on.

But your solution to this never-changing condition is to delegate your Christ-mandated individual responsibility to help these people to the government, a souless entity who uses force to extract money from those who work and redistribute it to those who don't work without any concern for those people's welfare. Perhaps those folks need some tough love and steering into the right direction and help with becoming self-sufficient because they could be self sufficient; but, the government enables and perpetuates their plight and creates a diabolic sense of dependency upon the government such that these folks often don't ever become productive members of society, rather thay live the life of a parasite. How compassionate is that?

What are YOU doing as an individual to help these people? That is the only question you libs should be asking yourselves. Stop worrying about what everybody else "should" be doing and pony up some of your own time, treasure and talent! But you would rather "compassionately" opine about what "we" should be doing about this. Translation: what the bureaucrats should be doing about it. Tax more, spend more, the problem goes away. Oh wait, how much have we spent on the war on poverty? Why is there a record number of people on food stamps and welfare and disabled and on Medicaid?

Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What you said! Too bad they don't see this truth in themselves.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
You can take this in all kinds of directions--why pay for roads, when I don't drive?

This a legitimate constitutional role of the federal and local government. Charity is not according to most of the founding fathers who debated and wrote the constitution.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
My convictions are based on facts and evidence. Religious beliefs are based on a fairy tale.



Well, certainly in the case of the unborn, you are simply wrong.

There is no "science" that says a human has no rights when just its head has made it through the birth canal, yet ten seconds later, it does. Science has nothing to do with that.

Indeed, the legislation that Obama has supported and the actions that those like Gosnell have taken are the logical endpoint of the abject rationale that pro-abortionists take. Since there is no substantive difference in that being from the one second (when the mother and doctor are trying to kill it) and the next (when the doctor's efforts to kill it the first time fail), then why not just keep trying until you do succeed?


It has everything to do with religion, because religious beliefs are the reason Catholics want to outlaw abortion. Which is ironic, because the Bible clearly states that, since every birth and death is pre-ordained, abortion is part of God's plan. A true christian would support abortions rights.


It is preposterous to say that every conviction one has is due to one's religious beliefs. But even if that were true, who are you to say that my convictions can't be consistent with my religious beliefs?

Secondly, given that this thread started regarding Catholicism, your statement is in error. For Catholics do not hold to the idea that one (each and every one, in particular) can just read the Bible and then reliably say what is truth. The teaching Magisterium of the Church is the final arbiter of doctrine. Moreover, you obviously do not understand the Bible nor the Catholic Church's teachings if you think anything "clearly states" that abortion is "pre-ordained".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There were laws against both of these before Christianity existed.


So? What's the point?

I don't think any early American legislators were consulting the teachings of other religions in forming our laws.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
He even gets the Romans to torture and kill his son for no particular reason.



And now we all know what the St. Paul means when he says that when he was a child, he used to think and reason like a child...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
He even gets the Romans to torture and kill his son for no particular reason.



Charlie Munger has wisely said that if one can't argue the side of his opponent better than his opponent, then he probably has no business being in the debate.

So you are either intentionally creating an absurd strawman, or you are completely ignorant about that of which you speak. Which is it?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yes, you could. Except for the death penalty, you're conflating the right to life with the quality of life. Sure, quality of life issues are important. But just because they're important, doesn't make them the responsibility of government...

You're going to find that government charity is a harsh mistress, compared to Catholic charity. But soon, in liberal America, harsh will be the new nice. The new harsh will kill plenty of people that also had a right to life.



Impressively well-said!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There is no "science" that says a human has no rights when just its head has made it through the birth canal, yet ten seconds later, it does. Science has nothing to do with that.



Nobody is claiming otherwise.



Indeed, the legislation that Obama has supported



There is no such legislation.


and the actions that those like Gosnell have taken are the logical endpoint of the abject rationale that pro-abortionists take.
Since there is no substantive difference in that being from the one second (when the mother and doctor are trying to kill it) and the next (when the doctor's efforts to kill it the first time fail), then why not just keep trying until you do succeed?




Nobody believes this except you.




Secondly, given that this thread started regarding Catholicism, your statement is in error. For Catholics do not hold to the idea that one (each and every one, in particular) can just read the Bible and then reliably say what is truth. The teaching Magisterium of the Church is the final arbiter of doctrine.



But this view has no place in our government.



Moreover, you obviously do not understand the Bible nor the Catholic Church's teachings if you think anything "clearly states" that abortion is "pre-ordained".




Psalm 139:16 clearly states that every day of one's life is scheduled in advance. Therefore every abortion, every murder, every rape, and every tornado death is planned by God. It's right there in the Bible.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There were laws against both of these before Christianity existed.
------

So? What's the point?




The point is that our laws did not originate in the Ten Commandments.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But this view has no place in our government.



Well, it does indeed have it's place in each and every voting citizen who holds that belief. The free exercise of religion. Every one is free to vote for those who best represent their convictions.


Psalm 139:16 clearly states that every day of one's life is scheduled in advance. Therefore every abortion, every murder, every rape, and every tornado death is planned by God. It's right there in the Bible.


It also states that:

When I was a child, I used to think like a child and act like a child...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The point is that our laws did not originate in the Ten Commandments.



I don't feel like digging through the whole thread, but the relevant point was that Christian teachings historically played a significant role in forming the laws of this nation, so there is nothing inconsistent with it doing the same with regards to abortion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The free exercise of religion. Every one is free to vote for those who best represent their convictions.




Which is the same as voting to legislate their beliefs. Which I already pointed out is un-American.


And you can't get around the fact that

Psalm 139:16 clearly states that every day of one's life is scheduled in advance. Therefore every abortion, every murder, every rape, and every tornado death is planned by God. It's right there in the Bible.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't feel like digging through the whole thread, but the relevant point was that Christian teachings historically played a significant role in forming the laws of this nation, so there is nothing inconsistent with it doing the same with regards to abortion.




Abortion was legal during the time of the Founding Fathers. If they'd had a problem with it, they would have said so.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"He even gets the Romans to torture and kill his son for no particular reason.



And now we all know what the St. Paul means when he says that when he was a child, he used to think and reason like a child... "


Seems Jesus knew there was a reason...

"Matthew 16 (New American Standard Bible)

Jesus Foretells His Death

21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. 22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” 23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”
Discipleship Is Costly

24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. 25 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds."


Paul knew;

"1 Corinthians 15:1-4

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Fact of Christ’s Resurrection

15 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,"


Peter knew:

1 Peter 3:18

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;


"John 14:5-6

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 Thomas *said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” 6 Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"It has everything to do with religion, because religious beliefs are the reason Catholics want to outlaw abortion. Which is ironic, because the Bible clearly states that, since every birth and death is pre-ordained, abortion is part of God's plan. A true christian would support abortions rights. "

Using this "logic", a true Christian would support the right to murder, since that death would also be pre-ordained.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
There is no "science" that says a human has no rights when just its head has made it through the birth canal

It's deeper than that. Science says life begins at conception/fertilization. Pro-choicers who say they are going with science over religion in their pro-choice stance are just plain lying. Perhaps those who claim pro-life is a purely religous position can explain pro-life aetheists.

Pro-choice is a position of convenience and lack of responsibility, nothing more. Why else would they advocate ending a life as defined by science?

The Catholic church is absolutely right on this issue. They should not compromise their Biblically founded principles because some humans find it inconvenient.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Science says life begins at conception/fertilization

Wrong. Science says that life began a couple billion years ago or so.

Science may say that a *human organism* begins at conception.

Science cannot say when a *person* begins, in part because there is no good definition of a person.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"It has everything to do with religion, because religious beliefs are the reason Catholics want to outlaw abortion. Which is ironic, because the Bible clearly states that, since every birth and death is pre-ordained, abortion is part of God's plan. A true christian would support abortions rights. "
------
Using this "logic", a true Christian would support the right to murder, since that death would also be pre-ordained.





It does imply a lack of free will, doesn't it?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Science says life begins at conception/fertilization. Pro-choicers who say they are going with science over religion in their pro-choice stance are just plain lying.



Anti-choicers who claim that a fertilized egg is a human being are just plain lying.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
He even gets the Romans to torture and kill his son for no particular reason.
---
Charlie Munger has wisely said that if one can't argue the side of his opponent better than his opponent, then he probably has no business being in the debate.


This isn't a debate.

So you are either intentionally creating an absurd strawman, or you are completely ignorant about that of which you speak. Which is it?

False choice.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
"Many (most?) conservatives aren't against the government taking excessive amounts of their income because they're selfish. They simply believe 1) in personal property rights, and 2) they believe that they should have the right to decide how the money they have worked for is used. Turns out they tend to choose to give more of it away than others."

Ironically if you look at their behavior instead of their words, democrats believe this too.

Just look at those hypocrites Gates & Buffet, they have both worked very hard to minimize the money that they pay to the federal government to ensure that they have the most control over how that money is spent through their private charities.

It's not that liberals think the government can spend money wisely, it's that liberals want to rob you of YOUR money so they can spend it. They've just found that society frowns on robbery by individuals, so they've turned the government into their proxy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Science cannot say when a *person* begins, in part because there is no good definition of a person

That's because that's not science, it's philosophy. It's the pro-choicers, not me that are invoking science as their rationale and they are just plain wrong. They are relying on their philosophycal viewpoint on when life becomes human which is something entirely different than their claim.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Anti-choicers who claim that a fertilized egg is a human being are just plain lying.

Thanks for helping to make my point. I stated that life begins at conception according to science and you chose in your pathetic way to change the word life to "human being" which changes the conversation from science to philosophy. You unwittingly (as usual) agree with me.

So quit invoking science to justify your position.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Anti-choicers who claim that a fertilized egg is a human being are just plain lying.
---
Thanks for helping to make my point. I stated that life begins at conception according to science



As someone already explained, this is incorrect. Life began billions of years ago.


and you chose in your pathetic way to change the word life to "human being" which changes the conversation from science to philosophy.





Thank you for helping me make MY point. If it's not a human being, then it's not murder.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Thank you for helping me make MY point. If it's not a human being, then it's not murder.

Shall we ask Scott Peterson you moron?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thank you for helping me make MY point. If it's not a human being, then it's not murder.

Oh, and BTW who says it isn't a human being? I certainly didn't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Thank you for helping me make MY point. If it's not a human being, then it's not murder.

Actually, if it's not illegal, it's not murder.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If human life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin philosophically?

At the attainment of sentience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I can fix that for you: Human life begins at conception.




So when do the lives of identical twins begin? It can't be conception, because you can't have two humans occupying a single cell.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Shall we ask Scott Peterson you moron?



Scott Peterson's case has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Scott Peterson's case has nothing whatsoever to do with this.


You said killing an unborn child was not killing a human so was not murder.

He was convicted of murdering an unborn child.

It has everything to do with your stupid statement.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You said killing an unborn child was not killing a human so was not murder.

He was convicted of murdering an unborn child.


Correct.

COUNT II: The said SCOTT LEE PETERSON, on or about and between December 23, 2002, and December 24, 2002 at and in the County of Stanislaus, State of California, and prior to filing of this Information, did willingly, unlawfully, and feloniously and with malice aforethoughtmurder Baby Connor Peterson, a fetus.

In California, murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

Two things worth noting:

1) In California, a human being and a fetus are two different things, legally.

2) A legal abortion isn't murder.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Scott Peterson's case has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
----

You said killing an unborn child was not killing a human so was not murder.





I never said that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I never said that.


You are a bold faced liar. Back to gray with you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I never said that.
------

You are a bold faced liar. Back to gray with you.





Actually, you're the liar. I already explained that abortion does not kill a child.



Another conservative lie defeated by the facts!
Print the post Back To Top