AmericanPapist Comments
I'm confused at how this is surprising? I remember some of my friends saying they were going to vote for Obama and then pray he doesn't enact his pro-abortion policies. Great plan.
Gobbler - i dont know whether to laugh or cry.
It seems each and every day since the election, the hole gets deeper and darker. Is this the part in the Our Father about "put us not to the test"?
Maybe we need to bone up on how the early Christians met the lions with a smile on their faces.
Is this the part where those who disagree with Obama's support/promotion of abortion reach "common ground?" How many pro-aborts is he going to appoint? Do you think he just laughs at the majority of Americans who actually favor restrictions on abortion?
Pro-aborts? Please. You are just sinking the chances of the unborn deeper and deeper into the abyss. Until you learn to engage those with whom we disagree, expect only to be preaching to a certain choir and shrinking your base. If you want to keep shooting yourselves in the foot, you will not accomplish anything positive.
Li'l whey,
It is those how support abortion who are unwilling to understand. It is these people who are rigidly illogical.
Oh, and as for "expect only to be preaching to a certain choir and shrinking your base.": Numbers, contrary to popular opinion, do not sanctify. Evil is evil, even if everyone supports it.
....and the beat goes on.
And if you continue to simply dismiss those who disagree with you as evil, illogical and thus reduce their humanity which they share with us, you are supporting the perpetuation of evil.
"And if you continue to simply dismiss those who disagree with you as evil, illogical and thus reduce their humanity which they share with us,"
I would like to know just what alleged evil you are referring to. I believe that evil is evil, even when millions support evil. The souls of said millions are God's department, not mine. I hope you don't think that I am judging anyone's soul. I am judging the morality of certain acts. If you believe that is "supporting the perpetuation of evil.", well, you are free to believe what you want.
@li'l whey,
I agree that name calling does little to establish a constructive conversation. However, I cannot see the actions of EMILY's List being any less than evil.
What approach would you suggest?
Perhaps then we should just agree to disagree and all hold hands?
L'il whey,
I used to use the term "pro-choice," but refuse to do so any longer. Language is used to desensitize people, and I won't be responsible for glossing over what "pro-choice" really stands for. If you are "pro-choice," you are in support of a woman's right to choose an abortion. I don't know anyone who is serious about this issue who would say "I'm pro-choice for adoption." It doesn't happen because that is not what is meant.
And I don't see where anyone was calling anyone names.
Obama stated many times that he was interested in finding "common ground with those who disagree with us about a woman's right to choose." I'm still waiting for a small sign that he is serious. So far his administration choices seem like rude gestures.
I'm waiting for him to finish the sentence.
I don't like the term pro-choice any more than I like the term pro-abort.
What is the alternative to agreeing to disagree, Gobbler? Do you propose to bomb abortion clinics? Shoot abortionists? Assassinate politicians who disagree with you? Or maybe you are just content with calling them names.
The correct term is pro-abortion for the the position of the Democrats. That is not name calling:it is truth telling! Go to Abortion.No.org and see what 'choice' really means. It means abortion. The Nazis and Soviets were great at using euphemistic terms-like "cleansing the racial impurities", instead of genocide to describe their systematic program to kill Jews, Slavs and others.
I don't recall ever advocating violence against people I disagree with, and I don't appreciate you assuming that I do. Agreeing to disagree is nothing more than giving up, and is exactly what those I disagree with would like me to do. It equal to saying "nothing's going to change so lets just ignore the killing of innocents and be friends." I'm sorry, but that's not gonna fly. You don't like "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion," so please tell me what phrase you would like to use. "Pro-option to terminate pregnancy"? "Pro-look the other way while other destroy innocent life"? Now feel free to accuse me of name calling and being full of hate. Ad hominum's are always best.
Relax, lil whey!
I assumed nothing. I asked a series of questions. If you do not support a violent alternative, then you do agree to disagree. Nobody suggested you do nothing. You made that assumption. But it is important how you do what you do. Let those who support abortion on demand squiggle with how to define themselves and insist, like bill above, that they need to finish the sentence when they say they support the right to choose -- WHAT? And I'm not too pleased with people who say they are pro-life when they support capital punishment, torture, and endless war, either.
If you didn't accuse me then why bring any of those things into your reply to me at all? On second thought, I really don't care. Have fun with your delusions.
It's called discussion, Gobbler. I was seeking to find out what constitued your alternative to namecalling and violence. Notice how you quickly opt to reduce your opponent's argument to being delusional, based on using crack, etc. Again, ad hominem. And then you'll accuse me of an ad hominem attack. Typical.
Li'l Whey,
I was the one who used the "crack is bad for your health" line. Not because of your arguments themselves, but because of the incoherence of them.
L'il whey,
Be careful to not paint with a broad brush. No serious pro-life advocate is in favor of "bombing clinics" or "shooting abortionists." Not one. And as for the issues of war, torture and the death penalty, serious pro-lifers know that for two of these issues there is room for prudential judgment with a preference given to avoiding both.
But as for torture, most people recognize it as an affront to human dignity. Yes, there are the occasional "pro-lifers" who try to justify it, but most do not. I don't. But I think the reason torture is even possible is because we fail to recognize the humanity of babies in the womb. That is the root of the problem.
I don't think there is any room to budge regarding torture. The death is a little different...maybe. Haven't decided on that one yet.
should say "Death penalty"
"I assumed nothing. I asked a series of questions. If you do not support a violent alternative, then you do agree to disagree."
That's faulty logic, because you assert that the only alternative to "agreeing to disagree" is violent action. Gobbler is clearly referring to (hidden?) option 3 - that of nonviolent, ACTIVE dissent. This means that not only does one simply accept that others disagree with one's position, but actively tries to enact social change.
In other words, it's the difference between these two scenarios:
(A)
Pro-lifer: I am against abortion.
Pro-abortionist: I support abortion.
Pro-lifer: Ah, well...it's a pluralistic society, so I guess that's ok.
(B)
Pro-lifer: I am against abortion.
Pro-abortionist: I support abortion.
Pro-lifer: Well, you're wrong, and I'm going to do my best to help put an end to abortion, whether you support it or not.
The difference may be subtle to some, but it is there.
Lil Whey, are you sure you're not Katherine?
"And if you continue to simply dismiss those who disagree with you as evil, illogical and thus reduce their humanity which they share with us, you are supporting the perpetuation of evil."
Your logic fails to fly. As usual. I suppose dismissing Hitler would be perpetuating evil?
Maybe execution would work much better.
Lil Whey, St. Paul explains why women should remain silent and learn. You of course, give us a good example of that without reading St. Paul.
>>That's faulty logic, because you assert that the only alternative to "agreeing to disagree" is violent action.
Read my last post to you.
And BTW did you get my message?
Now answer the question Lil Whey.
I suppose dismissing Hitler would be perpetuating evil?
I'm waiting.
>>That's faulty logic, because you assert that the only alternative to "agreeing to disagree" is violent action.
No, your statement above is faulty logic and you quoted me out of context. I never suggested that the only alternative to agreeing to disagree is violent action.
There is a difference between positive, substantive dissent and counterproductive, foolish dissent.
You obviously are incapable of making that distinction, thus the fault in your logic.
So-called Catholics like Rustler, Joseph, and Gobbler do more to hurt the unborn with their poison tongues than help.
In fact, it seems to me that it mostly comes down to their mommas having never taught them manners. Or maybe they just have other issues.
I have tried to point out the dangers of bellicose belligerence time and time again, but there's obviously insufficient fertile ground here for such a seed to take root let alone grow.
So bye. Have "fun" throwing rocks at me on my way out. Because that's what you guys are more into than accomplishing anything positive anyway. I mean you even attack your own. Very sad.
Lil Whey, Would you hurry up with this story? You boring everyone to death again.
You know as they say, "Don't let the door knob...."
Man, can you whine.
Now just answer the simple question.
I suppose dismissing Hitler would be perpetuating evil?
Just simple yes or no will do.
I'm not sure why my tongue is poison. Perhaps it's due to the frustration of having you dodge my arguments every time and simply accuse me of being mean? Oh and Rustler I don't think the comment about women was necessary. But li'l whey try and answerr some of our arguments and questions. Grow some thicker skin and stop acting like a victim, not a great way to get your point across.
What we have here Gobbler, is a failure to communicate. You obviously haven't been in this game as long as I have. You're going to get nowhere with her. She isn't going to answer your questions or mine. So maybe you need to get over yourself and quit thinking that you can reason with her. She's smarter than you are anyway.
A little tip for you Gobbler. When dealing with liberals you are not dealing with honest people. She has you tagged as a sucker. When you started arguing with her you lost.
You deserve lil whey. Have fun and be a Nice Catholic.
Rustler,
I had the same thought....that lil whey is really Katherine. They seem to think alike and respond in the same manner.
Happy Thanksgiving!
P.S. Rustler,
Did you see over at Katherine's blog that she is comparing Cardinal Stafford and al-Zarqawi?? She says they are BOTH religious extremists!
I saw that! But guess what? She also thinks that Bill Donohue is an extremist as well and anyone who really believes in Catholicism.
But get this. She thinks these whack jobs are normal.
Doug Kmiec was quoted over the weekend as saying Obama has "far more in common with our great faith tradition than any political administration in recent memory."
"I'm one of those cliff-hanging Catholics. I don't believe in God, but I do believe that Mary was his mother." -Martin Sheen
Dr. Sidney Callahan"Why am I as a 'mass going' staunchly pro life Catholic, voting for Obama? Of course I disagree with his views on Roe vs Wade, but I think that his policies and programs more comprehensively follow Catholic social teaching than McCain's--and they even result in fewer abortions."
Can you believe that?
Sick.
Bill, I apologize if I'm misreading you and you're actually being sarcastic, but I don't see any fault with anything Gobbler said. Yeah, it may be a waste of time to argue with her, but it's just as much a waste of her time to argue back...so he hardly lost by arguing with her.
You may not be able to win with people like her, but if you stick to clear, logical arguments, you can make it apparent that they don't know what they're talking about. And you also send the message that you're not going to just accept BS arguments that twist rational thinking.
Commenting by HaloScan
