Flawed Thinking

-----
> > Frank Marshal Davis,
> > Ayers
> > Rezko.
> > Wright.
> > Dohrn
> > Odinga
> > ACORN
> > The New Party
> >
> > All Radical Marxist/Socialist links in Obama's
> > chain that launched his political career, and
> > unlike the theory of evolution, there are no
> > missing links.
> > Davis, a known, avowed Communist Mentored
> Obama
> > as a teenager shaping his social views, and
> > fostered his hate for whites.
> > The rest of the Radical Associations reinforced
> > Davis's teachings, and the Socialist NEW PARTY
> > launched Obama's career.
> > Obama, selected, tutored, groomed, scripted,
> and
> > financed by Radical Marxist/Socialists to
> become
> > the puppet leader of the UNITED SOCIALIST
> STATES
> > OF AMERICA
> >
> > If you do not believe associations shape the
> > character and judgement of a person, why do you
> > NOT let your child hang out with the local
> street
> > gangs and crack heads.


All of the people I listed are linked together, all share the same values, all are long term and continious Associations of Obama. They are not just random accidental associations with whackos that everyone encounters occasionally

Oh, I can certainly have a logical, factual discussion on Catholic teaching. I can also give you loads of statistics proving that the fastest and most reliable way to reduce abortions is providing comprehensive sex education and reliable pre- and post-natal health care, and beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt proof that the adoption system has no chance of solving the problem and that abstinence-only programs do not work. The problem is that the "pro-existence" movement doesn't actually want to end abortions. It wants to push an ideology. I'd love to hear your interpretation of how you think the Republican party cares for the poor, given that it consistently supports cutting social programming that helps them. In fact, considering that 5 million people have fallen into poverty since Bush took office, and considering that a woman in poverty is 300 times more likely to have an abortion than one not in poverty, how many *extra* abortions did Republican policies cause, do you think? (And that was before the current crash situation...) It is true that much of the Democratic platform is far more in line with the teachings of the Church than the Republican platform. The main point: reducing abortions is more effectively accomplished by removing the reasons for which they occur, not by forcing one's religious beliefs about the definition of personhood on everyone.

The Bible does mention abortion.

In Numbers 5, where it documents the Israelis performing a Bronze Age abortion. The priest gives women who have been suspected of infidelity a potion that induces a miscarriage.

So it would appear that the Catholic Church does not support what the scriptures say. But I think that people clued in on that a while back; like when the Church tried selling Papal Dispensations and other such activities.

The Bible mentions poverty and caring for the poor 716 times; abortion: zero. Would Jesus - the ultimate community organizer, and the one who warned that it is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, vote Republican?? Or would he vote for the pary that focuses on caring for the poorest members of society? When did the "teachings" of bishops and popes become more important than the actual teachings of Jesus that we find in the Bible?

"The simplistic distractions are planned to keep voters from thinking about how much poor judgment (Like Keating Five, the relationship with the Bin Laden family and the last eight years of agreeing with the administration on war and deregulation) costs Americans in resources and in life and limb." ( mickeysteib)
..........................................
Exactly!

sjbrock80, what say you, why there are unwanted pregnancies in the first place?

And do you agree that it is not because of the Roe v. Wade law?

Removing the choice to break or not break the ???do not kill??? commandment from the individual leads to our being forced to support (via our government and taxes) killing in several areas: law enforcement, military, medical procedures including subsidized abortions, and intentionally withholding of food and essentials in life and death situations. We can choose to avoid a feeling of responsibility with the idea that we do not have control of what all our government supports. We don't. We should feel uneasy about killing that our government actively supports. This leads to the idea that the government that we support with taxes should not use the tax money (that we are forced to pay) for the purpose of killing:not in law enforcement, not militarily, not medically (including support for abortions), and not by withholding life sustaining services. That being said, we realize that there are situations when the ???do not kill ??? commandment will be broken. We want to minimize such situations. We strongly respect and understand with strong feelings the ???do not kill??? idea.

The political attacks are planned to distract from our thinking about the capability to analyze and communicate, the capability to have this analysis and communication result in good judgment in choosing advisors and in coordinating the best ideas for America, not just the simplistic ideas. The simplistic distractions are planned to keep voters from thinking about how much poor judgment (Like Keating Five, the relationship with the Bin Ladin family and the last eight years of agreeing with the administration on war and deregulation) costs Americans in resources and in life and limb.

Like it or not a woman has the ability to choose whether to carry a child to term of not. She therefore will exercise that choice with or without the sanction of Government or even the Church. Outlawing abortion does nothing but salve the consciences of a bunch of men who want to feel like they are "in charge". Women and their midwives have been terminating pregnancies for generations. it has only been until recently that the birthing process has been co-opted by a male dominated health care "industry" that treats pregnancy and childbirth like a disease and women like mindless incubators.

Ludmila, Russell B. et al,
This article is about "Catholic" voting and the teachings of the Catholic Church. None of you have said anything regarding this. Ludmila just becuase you keep repeating the same thing does not make it true.As far as saying you can't base your vote on one subject you remind me of the question..."Other than that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play?" Life is foundational in the Catholic Church, standing against evil is what we are called to do. If any of you can name a greater evil than the murder of 39 million babies please list this evils. This is what is required by tha Catholic Church to even consider voting for a "pro-choice" candidate. I will wait for your response.

What I found interesting was the absence of any mention of family in the article. In fact, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the family is ???the original cell of social life.??? Parents have the primary responsibility for moral teaching. This is what my pastor emphasizes (then again, he is a Marist...). As a Roman Catholic opposed to abortion, should one of my daughters choose to have an abortion (at any age), my first inclination would not be blame the state for making such a choice legal. That's an ex-post argument, but my point is that abortion is an individual and family problem first and foremost. Abortion was available prior Roe, as it will be if Roe is over-turned.

When it comes to my responsibilities as a voter in a modern secular State, I am compelled to be catholic (small c) with regards to the entire package two candidates present, and to be sensible in forming expectations as to what each candidate will actually do with their power. Values inform and expectations weigh each policy consideration. If I believed the likelihood of something radical happening that would cause abortion to shift one way or another, then abortion could be a dominant issue. But since 1973, there has been no history to support such an expectation. Therefore, I don't see why voting for, say, Obama, and being Catholic is mutually exclusive. Stay faithful, but be rational.

Michael K Hoffman, it is not the law that keeps abortion legal that causes women to resort to abortions, but the unintended and unwanted pregnancies, and hence, we have to focus on the measures that prevent such pregnancies.

Among these measures are such pro-life and moral measures like health care coverage accessible to all pregnant women and children, empowering of women through prevention of unwanted pregnancies, prevention of STDs, prevention of promiscuity and date rape through comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education.

I'm a person of faith and am pro-Obama/Biden ticket because both Obama and Biden are ACTUALLY pro-life because they DO support such pro-life and moral measures like health care coverage accessible to all pregnant women and children, empowering of women through prevention of unwanted pregnancies, prevention of STDs, prevention of promiscuity and date rape through comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education.

I'm not pro-abortion, but I'm against criminalizing abortion because:

1) there is no way to tell a spontaneous abortion ( miscarriage) form an induced abortion, criminalizing abortion invites abuse of women who suffered miscarriages.

2) this question remains unanswered: who has the right to decide whose life is more valuable -- that of a woman or a child -- when pregnancy threatens woman's life?

Recall if you will that approximately 3600 of our countrymen died. No not on September 11, 2001. It was yesterday, and today and tomorrow and everyday. Abortion kills us in numbers that would make Bin Laden blush. Imagine if you can the bloodied limbs and faces of the unborn looking up at you from a dumpster behind a clinic in anytown USA. There my dear friends is the fruit of the secular state run wild without a moral compass. Cast your vote as if your soul depends on it.

Recall if you will that approximately 3600 of our countrymen died. No not on September 11, 2001. It was yesterday, and today and tomorrow and everyday. Abortion kills us in numbers that would make Bin Laden blush. Imagine if you can the bloodied limbs and faces of the unborn looking up at you from a dumpster behind a clinic in anytown USA. There my dear friends is the fruit of the secular state run wild without a moral compass. Cast your vote as if your soul depends on it.

sjbrock80, though your questions do not directed to me, I think you are asking the wrong questions because it is not the law that keeps abortion legal that causes women to resort to abortions, but the unintended and unwanted pregnancies, and hence, we have to focus on the measures that prevent such pregnancies.

Among these measures are such pro-life and moral measures like health care coverage accessible to all pregnant women and children, empowering of women through prevention of unwanted pregnancies, prevention of STDs, prevention of promiscuity and date rape through comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education.

I'm a person of faith and am pro-Obama/Biden ticket because both Obama and Biden are ACTUALLY pro-life because they DO support such pro-life and moral measures like health care coverage accessible to all pregnant women and children, empowering of women through prevention of unwanted pregnancies, prevention of STDs, prevention of promiscuity and date rape through comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education.

I'm not pro-abortion, but I'm against criminalizing abortion because:

1) there is no way to tell a spontaneous abortion ( miscarriage) form an induced abortion, criminalizing abortion invites abuse of women who suffered miscarriages.

2) this question remains unanswered: who has the right to decide whose life is more valuable -- that of a woman or a child -- when pregnancy threatens woman's life?

The argument that abortion should be made available when a woman's life is in danger is a sippery one because medicine even today is more an art than science. There may be instances when it is certain that carrying a pregancy to term would seriously threaten a woman's life. In such a case, if abortion is the only means by which to save the woman's life, as regretable as it is, an abortion should be performed. But in other cases where there's a lack of certainty abortion shouldn't be so eagerly chosen..