It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Voting Pro-Abortion Called Cooperation In Evil.

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Voting Pro-Abortion Called Cooperation In Evil.


www.zenit.org

DALLAS, Texas, OCT. 22, 2008.Voting for a pro-abortion candidate when there is an alternative option is to cooperate in evil,and therefore morally impermissible,clarified two Texas bishops....

"As Catholics we are morally obligated to pray,to act and to vote to abolish the evil of abortion in America,limiting it as much as we can until it is finally abolished."
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
So the Catholics are delving into politics yet again,this time with moral blackmail.


It’s election season again,and we should make one more attempt to convince our fellow citizens (and our fellow Catholics) that they cannot morally allow any issue to take precedence over abortion in their decisions about how to vote in the U.S. presidential election.

catholicexchange.com...

In one fell swoop,the Vatican has guaranteed that devout Catholics in the US will not vote with their hearts and not with their heads.And in politics thats never a good thing.


Just out of curiosity...
Its estimated that in the US there are 1million-1.5 million abortions each year.If everyone of these women was made to have the baby and then give it up for adoption,just how many Catholics would adopt one or more of these kids??


And its not just voting for someone who supports abortion that is evil;though that is the gravest of all.


But the letter then warns that this is by no means true of policies that involve intrinsic evil, which must always be rejected: "There are, however, some issues that always involve doing evil, such as legalized abortion, the promotion of same-sex unions and 'marriages,' repression of religious liberty, as well as public policies permitting euthanasia, racial discrimination or destructive human embryonic stem cell research. A properly formed conscience must give such issues priority even over other matters with important moral dimensions.

www.christiantelegraph.com...



www.zenit.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
And yet most of the politicians that want to overturn Roe v. Wade are homosexual pedophiles. Kind of weird...



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
So the Catholics are delving into politics yet again,this time with moral blackmail.

*snip*

In one fell swoop,the Vatican has guaranteed that devout Catholics in the US will not vote with their hearts and not with their heads.And in politics thats never a good thing.

I think you overestimate the power of the Vatican. This is indeed a call to action, as anyone in the US is permitted to give. But each individual will place a secret ballot themselves. The Catholic Church does not vote for it's congregation; they only advise.


Its estimated that in the US there are 1million-1.5 million abortions each year.If everyone of these women was made to have the baby and then give it up for adoption,just how many Catholics would adopt one or more of these kids??

You have a very valid point, my friend. Of course, I am of the opinion that the strict laws regarding adoption are in themselves the major cause of un-adopted children. Face it, would you want to raise a child for 18 years as your own, providing the love and guidance as well as a deep love for that child (not to mention the cost of adoption in the first place), when you face the possibility every day that the blood parent(s) may show up at your door one day with a court order that they can have 'their' child back?

I am one of those people who believe abortion to be a legalized form of murder. Pregnancy is never an accident; it is the result of a consciously decided action (I am omitting the issue of rape here, as I consider it a different subject in itself). There are plenty of contraceptive devices presently available to minimize this aspect of sexual relations, and there is always the choice to be celibate. The ability to decide whether or not we wish to have sexual relations, and to realize the consequences of such actions, is one of the things that separate us from animals.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
And yet most of the politicians that want to overturn Roe v. Wade are homosexual pedophiles. Kind of weird...


care to support this assertion?

i'll weigh in on this topic:

i'm not catholic.

evil in this case is defined as 'if you consider killing vulnerable human life, evil'.

which i do.

god has nothing to do with it at all.

killing an innocent, vulnerable human, especially for the sake of convenience and irresponsibility is a fine definition of evil, the opposite of virtuous.

it's deplorable.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Hi there.



I am one of those people who believe abortion to be a legalized form of murder. Pregnancy is never an accident; it is the result of a consciously decided action (I am omitting the issue of rape here, as I consider it a different subject in itself). There are plenty of contraceptive devices presently available to minimize this aspect of sexual relations, and there is always the choice to be celibate. The ability to decide whether or not we wish to have sexual relations, and to realize the consequences of such actions, is one of the things that separate us from animals.


Yet many pregnancies are.
Some because the contraceptive failed and some because of lack of education.Few young women know that the pill can be canceled out by other medicine such as cold/flu tablets.Here in the UK a few years ago it was revealed that a most doctors did not tell women such things!


I do not agree with abortion if the reason is something like the kid's the wrong sex.But i do agree with it if the woman is the victim of rape or she is in danger of dying.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll

And hello right back 'atcha
Nice thread you got going here.


Yet many pregnancies are.
Some because the contraceptive failed and some because of lack of education.Few young women know that the pill can be canceled out by other medicine such as cold/flu tablets.Here in the UK a few years ago it was revealed that a most doctors did not tell women such things!

Yes, no contraceptive is 100% effective. So anything save abstinence (which is 100% effective) is a gamble, no matter how good the odds. The ones gambling are the parents (or sperm-/egg-donors), not the child who was conceived. So it seems somehow morally wrong to take a life of one who did not gamble, and who had no choice in the matter, in order to absolve the results of the gamble to those who engaged in the gamble.

I do think it should be mandatory that any contraceptive be explained to those receiving it, including anything that may render it ineffective. Absolutely I can get behind that.

On the subject of the mother's life, obviously, to any thinking, caring individual, an exception should be made. If a life is to be lost, then it would only make sense that the life to be saved is the one that can give more life, and the one that the lost life would need to depend on for survival. A life at risk, however, does not IMO equate to inconvenience or pain. It means the life is in reasonable danger of ending due to the consequences of the pregnancy.

As to rape, we have a bit of a sticky wicket, to borrow a phrase. On the one hand, this is a crime that was committed against the mother, and the conception was in no way the fault of the mother. On the other hand, the child is not at fault either. The only way I can resolve this situation in my mind fairly and ethically is to allow an abortion at the earliest possible time, in order to hopefully abort the pregnancy before the unborn child is able to feel pain.

That's right, I do not believe sentient life begins at conception. I really don't know when it begins, so if an abortion is required for any reason, I say do it quickly. That way, there is less chance of causing pain to another sentient being.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Where did this come from, this term "Pro Abortion"? I don't think anyone is "Pro Abortion" I think people are Pro Choice, so whats with this crap?



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Where did this come from, this term "Pro Abortion"? I don't think anyone is "Pro Abortion" I think people are Pro Choice, so whats with this crap?


what is the choice advocated?

the choice to abort.

thus "pro-abortion".



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by feydrautha
 


See if you were really Pro Abortion, you would want for everyone to be required to have abortions.

Pro Choice means that if you choose you have an abortion, or if you choose you can not have an abortion.

And people think scientology is bad :shk:



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
TheRedneck



Nice thread you got going here.


Hello,and many thanks




Yes, no contraceptive is 100% effective. So anything save abstinence (which is 100% effective) is a gamble, no matter how good the odds. The ones gambling are the parents (or sperm-/egg-donors), not the child who was conceived. So it seems somehow morally wrong to take a life of one who did not gamble, and who had no choice in the matter, in order to absolve the results of the gamble to those who engaged in the gamble.


Its a very tricky situation.
But to not have the option would lead back to illegal abortions,even more children being abandoned etc etc.

Also,should someone of one faith be allowed to speak for another,or for one that doesn't even believe?



A life at risk, however, does not IMO equate to inconvenience or pain. It means the life is in reasonable danger of ending due to the consequences of the pregnancy.


I totally agree.




As to rape, we have a bit of a sticky wicket, to borrow a phrase. On the one hand, this is a crime that was committed against the mother, and the conception was in no way the fault of the mother. On the other hand, the child is not at fault either.


True.
But the psychological impact of being raped is immense and very few women who end up pregnant rarely see the life growing within her as good,and having go through with the pregnancy can lead to further problems.



That's right, I do not believe sentient life begins at conception. I really don't know when it begins, so if an abortion is required for any reason, I say do it quickly. That way, there is less chance of causing pain to another sentient being.


No,i'm not sure either.But i agree that abortions should be done quickly and as early as possible in the pregnancy.





whatukno



Where did this come from, this term "Pro Abortion"? I don't think anyone is "Pro Abortion" I think people are Pro Choice, so whats with this crap?


Yeah,there is a difference,and most don't see it.Or they choose to ignore it.






[edit on 23-10-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno

Where did this come from, this term "Pro Abortion"? I don't think anyone is "Pro Abortion" I think people are Pro Choice, so whats with this crap?

So, pro-gun means one thinks everyone should be required to have a gun?

No, I believe jakyll had it right. It's not 'pro-choice', it is 'pro-abortion'. 'Pro-choice' is just how those who support abortion 'rights' choose to make the killing of innocent unborn children more palatable to the masses.

That's why a far-reaching bill that grants Nazi-like powers to the government is called the 'Patriot Act'. If it were called the 'Un-American Act', I bet there would have been much less support for it, especially among the people.

Abortion is the intentional death of another, one who has done no evil, for the sole purpose of convenience to those whose lack or responsibility was responsible for its existence.

A death by any other name still results in a corpse.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Now im not saying that abortion isn't murder, 6.6 billion of you shaved monkeys on the planet doesn't exactly qualify you for the endangered species list. Frankly im pro choice, pro assisted suicide and pro death penalty. (Everyone has the right to die)

What I am saying is that not everyone that is pro choice is gung ho about abortion. It's not like these people are going around harrassing pregnant ladies on the streets yelling at them "BREEDER! GO ABORT THAT BABY ALREADY!!"

You don't see a bunch of people pickiting birthing hospitals with signs that say "Die Baby Die!" and "Birth is Wrong!" chanting "hell no, that fetus has got to go!" now do you?

It's pro choice, not pro abortion.




[edit on 10/23/2008 by whatukno]



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jakyll

But to not have the option would lead back to illegal abortions,even more children being abandoned etc etc.

And that is the only reason I do not take a much harder stance on this issue. I believe all sentient life is precious, the child's as well as the mother's. And as long as we live in a society where that belief is not shared by everyone else, to take a hard-line stance is to stand against those core values.


Also,should someone of one faith be allowed to speak for another,or for one that doesn't even believe?

Respect for life does not require religious faith. Just because some religions do not accept murder, it does not follow that outlawing the killing of another is a purely religious exercise. Murder is illegal because society has deemed it to be wrong, not because the Catholic Church declared it wrong.

Laws by their very nature are the will of the majority forced onto the individual. But laws are necessary to thwart those who would harm others. So I find this argument moot. Just because a religious organization supports a cause, it does not follow that such cause is purely religious in nature.


But the psychological impact of being raped is immense and very few women who end up pregnant rarely see the life growing within her as good,and having go through with the pregnancy can lead to further problems.

No disagreement there. There is no good solution to the rape aspect of this discussion. That's why I say abort if you must, but do it quickly. I do not believe one's suffering is justification to increase the suffering of another.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno

What I am saying is that not everyone that is pro choice is gung ho about abortion. It's not like these people are going around harrassing pregnant ladies on the streets yelling at them "BREEDER! GO ABORT THAT BABY ALREADY!!"

Yes I do, actually, although not necessarily on the streets. Surely in your travels around ATS, you have heard those who support de-population? Now exactly how do you de-populate unless you lower the birth rate? And in order to lower the birth rate, you have to get rid of sex (blasphemy!) or the babies... abortion.

China does this. You are only allowed to have two children, and only one female. So if a couple has a baby girl, that girl usually finds a way to die, in order for them to be allowed to have a chance at a son. That's the ultimate abortion: post-birth.


You don't see a bunch of people pickiting birthing hospitals with signs that say "Die Baby Die!" and "Birth is Wrong!" chanting "hell no, that fetus has got to go!" now do you?

I think the pro-abortion movement people are just smarter than the pro-life movement. The protests still exist, but not openly in public. My father-in-law (who is incidentally a Church of God pastor, and preaches against abortion regularly) demanded that we abort both of my kids. I have seen my pregnant wife's face when a stranger asked her if she was going to abort the child "for the good of society".

There are fanatics on both sides.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


your also missing the obvious way to de populate, being pro gun I would think you would already know the answer.

China is none of my concern, as China does not get to vote in this election.

There is also the idea, I know crazy as it sounds to some, but aparently they make all sorts of contraceptive devices that allow people to have sex and avoid the mess of an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. (GASP!) I know shocking isn't it?



My father-in-law (who is incidentally a Church of God pastor, and preaches against abortion regularly) demanded that we abort both of my kids. I have seen my pregnant wife's face when a stranger asked her if she was going to abort the child "for the good of society".


Dude you really can't set me up like that...
Way way too easy...




posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno

There is also the idea, I know crazy as it sounds to some, but aparently they make all sorts of contraceptive devices that allow people to have sex and avoid the mess of an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. (GASP!) I know shocking isn't it?

Yeah, it is shocking! But what is even more amazing is that abortions are still used in place of them.

I mean, it really makes sense when you look at it though. Who would want to simply take a pill or wear a condom, when you can have the fun, adventure, and expense of having something inside your belly killed by a doctor? Why, I can see theme park rides built around this theme... "Come one, come all, to ride the new Abortion on Demand... the most thrilling ride of your life, and the last ride of someone else's!"




Dude you really can't set me up like that... Way way too easy...

Go ahead. I'm a big boy; I can take it.


TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Do you think things would be different if men could get pregnant?

Strange question i know.lol.
I was just thinking of this quote by Florynce R. Kennedy.

If men could get pregnant,abortion would be a sacrament.





Respect for life does not require religious faith.


Of course.I just mentioned it because the OP involves religion getting into the politics of abortion.




China does this. You are only allowed to have two children, and only one female. So if a couple has a baby girl, that girl usually finds a way to die, in order for them to be allowed to have a chance at a son. That's the ultimate abortion: post-birth.


But this is because the country is over-populated and for the many traditional families sons can go out and work and make money for the family,daughters can't.



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll

Do you think things would be different if men could get pregnant?

I've heard that question before, and from my perspective, no, my feelings in the matter would not change. Life is precious, and if I were to sacrifice a life because it inconvenienced me, I would be a hypocrite as well as a murderer.


Of course.I just mentioned it because the OP involves religion getting into the politics of abortion.

That is actually why I responded. There seems to be a movement to dismiss anything proposed by religion outright. But religions are made up of people, and those people have as much right to express their opinions as anyone. You may disagree with their reasoning, but they may also disagree with yours. In the end, all people must be allowed to state their views, or none of us are truly free. That includes Christians, Muslims, atheists, Hindu, Buddhists, and even Jews.


But this is because the country is over-populated and for the many traditional families sons can go out and work and make money for the family,daughters can't.

Oh, how easily we can devalue life...


TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Oh, how easily we can devalue life...


Life is cheap. look how much it costs to create it.


Honestly with the amount of people on this pittiful speck of rock in orbit around a star, there is 8 people per square mile. That's taking into consideration all of the land on Earth, not considering the amount of land people are actually able to live on.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join