AmericanPapist Comments
How can this man sleep at night?
factcheck.org has an article on this issue. I won't vouch for its fairness, but it is one more angle for comparison.
What does fact-check say about a run-away slave? Is he free if found or killed on sight?
It is very silly to be parading around trying to talk logically about this evil stuff. Sick.
When will we wake up?
On the contrary, not acting logically would be to give up the battle. Facts are enough to speak for themselves in this case. Or at any rate, they must be our starting point.
Gianna was Protestant when I heard her speak 20 years ago. But isn't her name providential! She has cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion, of being born too early. Another cost of abortion.
Gianna Jessen appeared for a few minutes on the Sean Hannity radio show Monday afternoon also...did a great job, gave a brief recounting of her own story and explained why she recorded this ad also.
Look up the story of what happened when Gianna sang the national anthem before a state general assembly (I forget which state...Google it)...
Yes, it's amazing stuff. You can read it on Colorado State Representative Ted Harvey's website.
http://www.tedharvey.com/index.p...&task=view&
id=6
Fascinating how she was unanimously applauded by the Colorado State House...UNTIL they learned that she was an abortion survivor.
Seems some folks were upset over having the truth placed right before them.
in the record, obama's argument centers on the denial of the human rights of a "previable" fetus. he admits that recognizing those rights would seriously undermine the pro-abortion cause. and yet, that's the very question he refuses to seek an answer for (it's "above his pay grade").
so, then, if he isn't for infanticide, then he's definitely for manslaughter.
What Obama is worried about preserving is the absolute "right" of the woman to not have a live child on her hands, one way or the other, once she has decided to have an abortion.
To not have a live child on her hands - how can this be construed as ANYTHING other than infanticide!?! There is no defense to this "policy".
Small correction. I belive that Gianna is a survivor of a saline procedure: the one where a highly saline solution is injected in the uterus and burns the baby both inside and outside.
You're being too fair to Obama. He does not want there to be any way for the born-alive child to survive; he wants things arranged so that the baby -- now outside the womb, clearly not a fetus but an infant -- dies. Obama's rationalization may be that he's simply guaranteeing the mother's intent to have the baby dead; he is nonetheless supporting the killing of an infant.
dskinner, i'm trying to remain objective. people can come to their own conclusions regarding obama's culpability. i think his position is reprehensible enough that presenting the facts are enough.
Concluding for Obama's support of infanticide is based on his supprot of SOME infanticide. What's so confusing about that?
When we say, eg, so and so supported slavery, we only mean s/he supported slavery of SOME people, not all people, obviously. Thatw as enough to make them pro-slavery.
Obama "only" supports infanticide of some babies, not all babies. But he is still pro-infanticide.
With all due respect, you are trying too hard to be objective. That is what PBS, CNN, Congress, and others do so well.
A former abortion nurse that helped kill thousands of babies said something I will never forget.
Something to the effect that Congress men and women sit in nice leather chairs and "talk" about "choice" and use easy words to discuss it, but they do not see the blood and hear the screams.
Much the same, pretend if you can, to be a fly on the wall in an abortion center when a baby makes it past the first attempted murder, is born alive and then killed or left to die.
Honestly, could you still remain objective about this?
johnny b
What I find truly sad in all these comments is the belief that if McCain/Palin are elected, abortion will be reduced eight years from now if not abolished.
It won't be anymore than it was under George W. who is more consistently pro-life than McCain. Abortion is like a noxious weed that has infested all of Western culture and even if Roe vs. Wade were overthrown Abortion would remain legal.
But in persuit of this "easy way" out dream of victory so many people seem to place their hope in Sarah Palin who seems content to pit Nato troops face to face against Russia. And if that happens, God help us all!
Abortion is not the only way by which innocent lives are destroyed!
"Abortion is not the only way by which innocent lives are destroyed!"
No, but it is the most insidious, heartless, brutal, and socially destructive way innocent lives are destroyed, and in that regard demands eradication first.
"Abortion is not the only way by which innocent livers are destroyed!"
Besides, we have to find some way to fool ourselves into believing that voting for pro-aborts is justified! (Hope we can fool God, too!)
Sin is Sin and unjustified homicide is a sin whether it be by abortion, unjustly bombing innocent civilians or the unjust resorting to capitalpunishment.
I wonder how many innocent babies died in their mother's womb because of American military action in the unjustified war in Iraq.
See what I mean?
Frankly no! Perhaps you'd care to elaborate. Are you trying to say that murdering a child in it's mother's womb is alright during an unjust war (and bonbing of cilvilians is always immoral). Or perhaps you're trying to say that murdering somewone outside the womb is less sinful than someone inside the womb. i'd love to what yuo have to say.
By the way, I'm a Canadian so I'm not part of the McCain Obama fight. However, I have heard even right wing commentators up here say they think Sarah Palen is too inexperienced to be one heartbeat away form the most powerful position in the world.
wow.
Sin is not sin David. There are mortal and venial sins.
And there is a hierarchy to issues David. For the one-thousandth time, abortion trumps the brave men and women fighting for you and me, healthcare, and any other issue at this time. See the many, many statements from bishops on this.
............and how much experience does Barack have!?! its a rhetorical question. please.
"I wonder how many innocent babies died in their mother's womb because of American military action in the unjustified war in Iraq."
It's less than 40 million for sure!
I remember similar arguments in 2000. "You don't really think Bush will do anything to limit abortion, do you?" And then Alito and Roberts were appointed to the Supreme Court. And then the Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion.
And now, we hear Democrats rallying votes by saying, "The Republicans are going to take away your right to choose!" Well, if the Deomcrats believe abortion is threatened, maybe it is.
And to me and hopefully some babies and mommas in the not-to-distant future, that is good news.
David, Newman once remarked that the mark of a mature man is the ability to draw proper distinctions. One either can, or one can't.
So far, you can't.
Anonymous (afraid to identify yourself?)said: "Sin is not sin David. There are mortal and venial sins".
Are you, my dear "Anonymous", saying that when Pope John Paul II (seconded by then Cardinal Ratzinger condemened the invasion of Iraq he was calling it a venial sin? When the Popes and the American Bishops plead for an end to Capital punishment in the U.S. are they saying that unjust Capital punishment is a venial sin? And that's only the top of the list.
And please don't give me the argument about Abortion being intrinsically wrong and Capital punshment etc. being only prudentially wrong. Whether an act is intrinsically wrong or prudentially wrong doesn't alter the gravity of the evil. It merely says that in cases when the act is intrinsically wrong there can be no extenuating circumstances which might justify the act. When one is dealing with a prudential evil the act may indeed be justified by the circumstances. However, the popes and the American Bishops have been very clear that there are no extenuating circumstances in the U.S. to justify capital punishment neither was there any justification for the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq war to destroy weapons of mass destruction which did not even exist. All of these things are evil and must be fought. Please let us not take the cafeteria Catholic approach to evil.
As for Ed Peters comment, I don't reply to ad hominem remarks. I doubt Newman would have either.
"...when Pope John Paul II...condemned the invasion of Iraq..." He didn't.
Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. See the Catechism.
(Despite the fact that you don't want to hear this inconvenience to what you wish to be true).
"Whether an act is intrinsically wrong or prudentially wrong doesn't alter the gravity of the evil. It merely says that in cases when the act is intrinsically wrong there can be no extenuating circumstances which might justify the act. When one is dealing with prudential evil the act may indeed be justified by the circumstances." Congratulations on refuting yourself in just 3 sentences.
Ed Peters' remark was not an ad hominem attack; it was a statement of fact.
The position of the Vatican with regard to the initial invasion of Iraq is unquestioned. Perhasp you might check with the Apostolic Nunciature or Zenit News. It's a known fact. I don't know what else to say.
I did NOT say that Capital punishment is an intrinsic evil as it certainly is NOT. Please quote me the sentence where you think I did. I merely pointed out that when the circumstances of capital punishment don't justify it then it is just as evil as an intrinsic evil and the views of the Vatican regarding Capital punishment in the U.S. are well known. The matter was raised again as a likely topic of discussion between the Pope and the President when the Pope visited the U.S.
As for refuting myself in three sentences, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate on that, the moreso since you completely misinterpreted what I have said on the first two points.
Your repeating Ed Peters' ad hominem remark without saying why it is not an ad hominem remark only means that now we have two ad hominem rmarks. One from Ed Peters and one from you.
I'm curious about something. Would any of you folks who have condemned Obama because of his stand on abortion vote Democrat if Obama's position on abortion was the same as McCain's and if Biden agreed that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and that abortion under any circjmstances should be illegal? In other words, if the Obama/Biden position on abortion was identical to the McCain/Palin position how would you vote?
Send in your answer and let us all know.
"...without saying why it is not an ad hominem remark..."
"...it was a statement of fact."
"...without saying why it is not an ad hominem remark..."
"...it was a statement of fact."
bill912 | 09.18.08 - 1:29 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
No Bill! It was a statement of your opinion! You backed it up with nothing and thus it lacks substance. You were simply repeating Ed Peters' opinion which he also failed to back up.You both relied on a fancy quote to say that I am stupid. I could reply (but I won't) by saying that the two of you are clueless. And back and forth it would go and it would all mean nothing!
I notice that no one seems to have risen to my quetion as to whether you would vote for Obama if his (and Biden's) views on abortion were the same as McCain's and Palen's.
I wonder why that is.
I notice that no one seems to have risen to my quetion as to whether you would vote for Obama if his (and Biden's) views on abortion were the same as McCain's and Palen's.
I wonder why that is.
David M. O'Rourke | 09.18.08 - 10:41 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Well! After two days no one has risen to my challenge. I have waited two more days and stil nothing. I can only conclude that you are all Republcan in any case....or, dare I say it, perhaps a bit racist?
Anonymous referred to: "the brave men and women fighting for you and me".
Sorry! they aren't fighting for me. I'm a Canadian. Besides I don't see the danger they are protecting anyone from. Yhere were no WMD's and we know that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. I'm afraid that a lot of Amerian soldiers have been used as cannon fodder and they've stirred up so much ill will in the Middle East that we are probably all in more danger. Bush should have just concentrated on Afganistan where the world (and the Church) agreed with him.
"Sorry! they(sic) aren't fighting for me."
I'm sure they're greatful that they're not fighting for someone who is undeserving of their sacrifice.
"I'm afraid that a lot of Amerian(sic) soldiers have been used as cannon fodder..."
Sir, you are one of those miserable creatures who would not be free were it not for the efforts of men better than himself.
"grateful"
An aye yuzed two wynn spelin beas!
Bill, I am not criticising the American soldiers. I AM criticising the Bush government who has put them in such a miserable and meaningless war where many of them have lost their lives and many more have been injured. I notice that when the bodies came back from Vietnam it was always on the News. This turned the American people against the Vietnam war. This time the bodies seem to come back in secret.
And Bill I have to ask you who are the American troops protecting me from that I should be grateful to them. Certainly they are not protecting me from Osama Bin Laden who is likely in Afganistan or more likely in Pakistan Very likely he would have been captured a few years ago had Bush not gotten sidetracked into the useless war in Iraq
And in Afganistan our own Canadian troops are fighting valiantly and suffering casualties as they have in evey war in which they fought in the past century. I am certainly grateful to them.
Now, back to my question:
If Obama and Biden took the same position regarding abortion as do McCain and Palin who would you (and everyone else who is so anti Obama on this blog vote for? Why is no one answsering this question?
Commenting by HaloScan
