New Stanek WND column, “Abortion industry picks Obama’s staff”
As you read through the list of Barack Obama’s Cabinet and agency head picks, recall that Planned Parenthood, NARAL and EMILY’s List promised to spend $30 million combined to defeat John McCain.
It’s payback time, and the pro-abort chickens are coming home to roost.
Wait – bad cliché choice. Liberal feminist chicks make their living by anti-roosting.
The pro-abort chickens are coming home to loot. That’s better.
There’s Ellen Moran, who will be leaving her job as executive director of EMILY’s List to serve as Obama’s communications director.
And there’s NARAL’s former legal director, Dawn Johnsen, who Obama nabbed for his Department of Justice review team.
On Monday, Obama named….
Continue reading my column, “Abortion industry picks Obama’s staff,” on WorldNetDaily.com.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
‘Cha, cha, cha, cha, cha, changing!’
The ‘hen’s are coming home to loot.
Movin on up to the the deeeeelux apartment in the sky.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCJTR3XeiAc
yor bro ken
These all seem like reasonable appointments to me. Are there a ton of pro life democrats who you think would be better choices?
PARAMONT IMPORTANCE!!!!!!
http://www.freedommarch.org/
SPREAD FAR AND WIDE!!!!!
Blog this Web Link on every blog you can!
BLOG! BLOG! BLOG!
EMAIL! EMAIL! EMAIL!
http://WWW.FREEDOMMARCH.COM
Movin’ on up to the the deeeeelux apartment in the sky.
Ken, one of the great theme songs there.
I always stuck around for the ending:
“We finally got a piece of the Pie – eye – eye – eye – eye – eye – eye – eye – eye…”
Hal makes a good point. Obama’s choices are less an indication of ‘payback’ for support of Pro-Choice organizations than they are a reflection of the fact that there aren’t a lot of Pro-Life Democrats around to select.
Planned Parenthood and NARAL didn’t get Obama elected. Roman Catholics, who gave Obama a 54-45% edge, got Obama elected. He’s a lot more concerned about keeping Catholics in his coalition than he is in paying for favors from the folks at EMILY’s List. (Is it a suprise to anyone that they wanted to defeat the Republican? They are, after all, an organization of DEMOCRATIC women.)
Let’s scale back on the paranoia and start looking for common ground solutions to save lives. Obama’s a smart politician. He knows he’s more likely to get reelected in 2012 if the abortion rate goes down than he would if it goes up. He wants to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. That’s a worthy goal and one that will increase respect for the lives of the unborn.
Better to try and do some good during the next four years than get all worked up about nothing.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
That title is very confusing. :-S
Let’s scale back on the paranoia and start looking for common ground solutions to save lives. Obama’s a smart politician. He knows he’s more likely to get reelected in 2012 if the abortion rate goes down than he would if it goes up. He wants to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. That’s a worthy goal and one that will increase respect for the lives of the unborn.
Better to try and do some good during the next four years than get all worked up about nothing.
***
Paul, a refreshingly honest appraisal.
why don’t they just open a planned parenhood or abortion office in the White house. bums.
Oh Jasper..
Jill,
Do you have a list of pro-life Democrats in Congress?
There used to be quite a few.
I am willing to hazard a guess that none have made it on the o’bama (pbuh) transition team or have been named to his proposed administration.
yor bro ken
“Pro-Life Catholics for Choice”
Wow do you need a reality check.
“pro life” and “choice” are exact opposite.
Posted by: Jasper at December 3, 2008 10:00 PM
why don’t they just open a planned parenhood or abortion office in the White house. bums.
—————————————————-
If interns and presonel can get impregnated in the White House, then they ought to be able get healed of their afliction in the same place.
No need to outsource.
They don’t call her/him Surgeon General of the United States for nothing.
yor bro ken
Hi Heather,
It’s nice to hear from you. I hope you’re doing well :)
“Pro-Life Catholics for Choice”
——————————————————
Maybe their ‘choice’ is for life.
How about this: Abolitionist Catholics for slavery.
or
Anti-war democrats for armed intervention.
or
Heavily Armed Doves for Peace.
yor bro ken
“Pro-Life Catholics for Choice”
Wow do you need a reality check.
“pro life” and “choice” are exact opposite.
Posted by: Joanne at December 3, 2008 10:34 PM
Paul, are you saying you are Catholic and you are for a womens right to choose to have a psycho kiler tear the baby from her womb in bloody pieces? Tell me, how do you justify calling yourself a Catholic when the Catechism states that support of such an evil excommunicates you from the faith. Are you also a member of Catholics against the catechism?
Every time I click on a WND link all I get is a page with a large hamburger at the top. So I try to avoid them.
“Every time I click on a WND link all I get is a page with a large hamburger at the top”
Yum!
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
That means Catholics who are morally opposed to abortion (and to euthanasia, and the Death Penalty, and unjust war) but who believe that women should have more options, not fewer. Instead of working to create legal barriers to abortion (or other barriers) we support policies that enable women (and their partners) to be more equipped to choose life. We think more lives will be saved that way.
Take a look at this line from Donum Vitae: (1987) written by Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II
In no sphere of life can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence. It must sometimes tolerate, for the sake of public order, things which it cannot forbid without a greater evil resulting.
Society has more tools in its toolbag than the penal code. There are other (more feasable) ways to end abortion.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
In no sphere of life can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence. It must sometimes tolerate, for the sake of public order, things which it cannot forbid without a greater evil resulting.
And how does this related to the abortion issue? What are these “things”?
Paul, I looked up your title in google and found many of your posts on other blogs. I do not think you are pro-life. I think you are trying to deceive others. You’re pro-Obama, and you think that women should have the choice to abort- that abortion should never be made illegal. That’s pro-abortion.
Paul, you have written at this link:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/user/paul-bradford
“it’s unacceptable, to my way of thinking, for women to abort their children. It’s also unacceptable for women to be forced to keep their children. ”
First, why do you think it is unacceptable for women to abort their children?
Secondly, why do you think it unacceptable for a woman to be “forced” to keep her child alive by having laws against killing her child?
I just realized you’ve already been to this blog, but I have missed your posts before.
Paul, do you believe in keeping our laws firm against murder, rape, pedophilia, etc?
Hi Paul.
“That means Catholics who are morally opposed to abortion (and to euthanasia, and the Death Penalty, and unjust war) but who believe that women should have more options, not fewer. Instead of working to create legal barriers to abortion (or other barriers) we support policies that enable women (and their partners) to be more equipped to choose life.”
Let me know if I am interpreting this correctly. You believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human being but you believe that women should be given the legal option to choose whether or not they wish to kill their unborn. Is that more or less what you are saying above?
Also, you should continue that quote from Donum vitae. It states
“In no sphere of life can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence. It must sometimes tolerate, for the sake of public order, things which it cannot forbid without a greater evil resulting. However, the inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state: they pertain to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his or her origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard: a) every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death; b) the rights of the family and of marriage as an institution and, in this area, the child’s right to be conceived, brought into the world and brought up by his parents.”
So what you quoted from Donum Vitae does not allow the “right of conscience” to support the killing of the unborn. On the contrary, it strongly affirms the “fundamental right” of the unborn to be born, that there is nothing that can tame that right away. God love you, Paul.
Paul, do you think that an unborn child has an inherent right to life and should be protected because he/she is a human being?
Sorry to ask all of the questions in many different posts. I kept thinking of more as I was reading more of your posts that I found on this blog.
“In no sphere of life can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence. It must sometimes tolerate, for the sake of public order, things which it cannot forbid without a greater evil resulting. However, the inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
Thank you, Bobby, for showing us the context of that.
Bethany,
That whole Chapter, chaper III, of Donum Vitae is just FILLED with quotes and teachings defending unborn human life like that. The following is from that same section of Donum Vitae. It has ESCR in mind, but it is applicable to abortion:
“As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of his conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights. The law cannot tolerate?indeed it must expressly forbid?that human beings, even at the embryonic stage, should be treated as objects of experimentation, be mutilated or destroyed with the excuse that they are superfluous or incapable of developing normally.”
So yeah, I don’t see how Catholic teaching could be any clearer.
Be careful of the associations you infer, Jill. They might not work for you the way you anticipate.
So the abortion industry is picking Obama’s cabinet (or virtually doing so)? Then what do you make of the CNN poll showing that 75% of Americans, including 53% of Republicans, approve of Obama’s picks so far? Could it be that the vast majority of Americans thinks that competent government in a time of crisis is more important than a minority agenda of whittling away at abortion rights? Could it be that the vast majority of Americans is in fact pro-choice?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/poll.obama.cabinet/?iref=mpstoryview
Ray,
It could be simply that the majority of americans don’t have a clue who these people (cabinet appointees) are.
In no sphere of life can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence. It must sometimes tolerate, for the sake of public order, things which it cannot forbid without a greater evil resulting. However, the inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
This may be a dumb question, but what is the “It” in the second sentence referring to, civil law or the conscience??
No, I think that’s a good question, Janet. I think it refers to “civil law” because if you look at the second “it” in the second sentence and replace “it” with conscience, the phrase “things which the conscience can not forbid without a greater evil resulting” seems to make much less sense then “things which civil law can not forbid without a greater evil resulting.” But I don’t know for sure.
That of course, in no way undermines the entire rest of that section of Donum Vitae with its clear teaching on respect for human life. That’s what I”d say. God love you.
Bobby,
That’s how I read it also, but I think Paul might be interpreting “it” to mean the conscience which would explain the misinterpretation. Do you agree? Thanks!
Hello everyone. I won’t pretend that I’ll be able to answer everyone, but I will give a response to the comments that people have made.
Paul, you have written at this link:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/user/paul-bradford
it’s unacceptable, to my way of thinking, for women to abort their children. It’s also unacceptable for women to be forced to keep their children.
First, why do you think it is unacceptable for women to abort their children?
Secondly, why do you think it unacceptable for a woman to be “forced” to keep her child alive by having laws against killing her child?
Bethany Thanks for being an astute poster who does her homework! I am more than willing to stand by the comments I’ve made on RHRealityCheck
(Check out this thread to get an idea of how much love I’m getting from the other side.)
I think about this stuff all the time and this afternoon I thought about something that might help me get my idea across. I do this because I believe that most (although not all) of you sincerely want a productive and civil conversation.
I’m sure most of you are familiar with the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The moral to the story is pretty straightfoward — The rich are required to help the poor. Put another way it’s a MORTAL SIN for the rich to neglect the poor.
So, suppose I meditate on that parable and conclude: “Stalin was right! The government should force the ‘haves’ to give to the ‘have-nots'”. If I did that I wouldn’t be the first to make that mistake. Many people have gotten confused between a ‘moral imperative’ and ‘prudent social policy’.
You ask, “[W]hy do you think it is unacceptable for women to abort their children?” I think it’s unacceptable because I think we deserve to have human rights from the moment of our conception.
You ask, “[W]hy do you think it unacceptable for a woman to be ‘forced’ to keep her child alive by having laws against killing her child?I work in the mental health field. From time to time I work with young women who are contemplating abortion. I’ve never met one who wanted to kill a child — certainly not her own child. What these women lack is choice. Our society expects much, much more of women than society expected sixty years ago. How can you get it all done? Answer: You can’t! Is the problem ‘murderous mothers’? No, the problem is lack of options, lack of choice.
Disrespect for the unborn doesn’t start at conception. It starts long before conception takes place. The man who impregnates a woman against her choice is showing incredible disrespect to his unborn children (not to mention disrespect to his partner, disrespect to himself, disrespect to the society…)
Am I categorically against laws written to prevent abortion? I’m against laws that won’t work. I’m against laws that would work in a ‘theoretical society’ that’s unlike our own. You know that roughly half the adults in the USA deny that human life begins at conception. You can’t even get people to agree that human life exists in a fetus twelve weeks past conception.
First things first. There are a lot of things that could be done to save lives that don’t involve triggering an automatic response from the other side. A lot of things! Why try to crash through the wall when it makes more sense to find the key that unlocks the door?
Bobby Bambino. You’re also someone who does his homework. I don’t dispute that I disagree with the bishops on political questions — and I’m fine with that. The only thing I’ll insist on is the fact that there’s no disagreement between me and the bishops on the MORAL QUESTION. I could write a whole article to express myself on that issue but I don’t have to because the editors at Commonweal already have.
I’ve got to go for a few hours. I’d love to get your take on what they write. (I wish they had a posting board like Ms. Stanek does.)
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
.
OK, I wrote out a nice response to those of you who have been posting comments to me. And I got a ‘site message saying my post was pending review. So what am I supposed to do now?
Paul thanks for letting me know…I’ll go publish it for you. The blog does that automatically if there are links.
I’m so sorry…I don’t see a post by you…can you backspace and repost?
Paul,
Thanks for letting us know. I found it in the spam. Not sure why it did that… But it’s up now, ehh?
Thank you, Bobby!! I didnt even think to look there!
I’ve found other stuff in spam too that shouldn’t be there. It said he wasn’t “trusted.” I don’t know if it has something to do with the little key by his name or what. Either way, it was found.
Paul, i’m going to read your post and all of the stuff from the links provided and respond soon as I can. I might not be able to tonight. :) Just to let you know so you don’t think I’m ignoring your response.
I’m not trusted???? Oh, bother!
Paul,
I read the article at the Commonweal.
Can you tell me if Obama has comprimised on abortion once in his political career?
But you expect us to be lie down and be walked over?
Paul, most excellent comments. And I’d say that even if I was Pro-Life.
It shows the amount of thinking you’ve done.
I’ve always said the abortion debate is one of the best because it takes us down to the unprovable assumptions we all make.
Doug
Paul,
You never responded to my post on how you jibe your position of a civil right to kill the unborn with the teachings of the Catechism. Where in the Catechism do you find your right to choice of ANYBODY to kill the unborn? And if you don;t find it there, then how can you call yourself Catholic and support it?
This is very simple logic and I think you are being dishonest by not responding to my posts. How can you expect me to respect your posts when you cannot give a response to mine. It leaves no choice but to think that you agree with my posts and don’t respond because your response would expose your position as folly. I’ll state it again for you in the hope that you will have the courage to respond even if your response is that your position is an admission that your position is completely against the teachings of the Catechism.
Where in the Catechism do you find your right to choice of ANYBODY to kill the unborn? And if you don;t find it there, then how can you call yourself Catholic and not follow the teachings of the catechism?
On another note, you say you believe that the unborn are persons worthy of protection from the point of conception but you would give a woman a “right” to kill same person. How do you reconcile that with God’s teaching not to kill yet you would allow it?
Anothr flaw I see in your position is that you try to say something as morally reprehensible as a mother killing her baby but should allowed to be civilly acceptable. Isn’t the paramount purpose of civil law to protect the right to life of every person? It would be like removing laws against public intoxication because people have a “right” to get drunk. We’d have the blood of a lot more dead innocents on our hands if we allowed drunks to legally drive until they realized how morally bankrupt it is to place other’s in danger just so YOU can drive drunk.
Bobby,
Right on with your post of the rest of JP2’s teaching in Humanae Vitae. It amazes me how people like PB get their jollies taking “half a quote” and presenting it completely out of context and actually having the nerve to present JP2’s teaching as anything other than complete encouragement of civil laws to protect the life of the unborn from abortion.
I’ve always said the abortion debate is one of the best because it takes us down to the unprovable assumptions we all make.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at December 4, 2008 10:36 PM
What unprovable assumptions are you referring to Doug?
I heard some clown on an MSM “news” show the other day saying that JPII believes that any religion is just as capable as Christianity is of leading people to God. Again, he was utaking a half-quote from one of JP’s writings completely out of context and millions who saw the program probably ate it up. UGHHHH
The angel proclaimed God’s message to Mary;
and she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
What unprovable assumptions are you referring to Doug?
Truthseeker, the most basic things we all take for granted, or subscribe to, though there is no demonstable proof. (We all do it.)
This isn’t very far removed from a basic fact of consciousness – what, beyond the fact of its own existence, can a consciousness maintain is really there?
Okay, so as individuals we are conscious (this is already presuming that we aren’t totally alone). And, “here” we are – you and I are talking – hey baby we’re making a bunch of assumptions already, ain’t we?
I suppose you are right about people making assumptions but what assumptions were you referring to when you referenced the abortion debate? But it is not an assumption that the the life in the mother’s womb is a living human being. And it is not an assumption that the Catholic Catechism and Pope JPII teach that said life should be protected by not only a moral code of conduct but also by civil law/legislation. Tell me what assumptions you were referring to in relation to the abortion debate.
TS, the valuations we all make, regardless of whether we ascribe them to God or anything else.
For instance, which is more important – that every unborn life continue, or that women keep the freedom they now have?
I agree with you on “living human being.”
And I agree with you that we all make different “valuations” of things Doug. I just didn’t understand that was what you meant when you used the word assumptions to describe them.
Bobby,
Correction, I see the post was the rest of PB2’s writing named Donum Vitae and not JP2’s teaching in Humanae Vitae. Same points about taking
“half a quote” and presenting it completely out of context applies though.
Actually, just ONE more correction: it’s the Congregation for The Doctrine of the Faith that put out Donum Vitae. It was certainly approved by JPII but it’s not a document from the Pope like an encyclical or an Apostolic Letter or something like that. But yeah, either way… God love you TS.
I am so not wanting to get into this with you Doug BUT, there is no freedom in having your own child killed by an abortion.
One more correction, I stated PB2 above and meant PB16. God love you too Bobby.
Paul, I’ve read through your post. You make nothing but pro-abortion arguments. From what I can tell, you do not truly care about the unborn. You may believe they are human beings, but you don’t care about that fact enough to protect them.
1.) You say that you believe that a child should have the right to life from conception. Yet you contradict yourself so quickly by saying that a woman should not be required not to abort. That is pro-abortion. Allowing mothers to kill their children for any reason is pro-abortion. And lest you still don’t understand what I’m saying, allowing a mother to have the legal right to kill her unborn child is pro-abortion. Either you believe it is a human being with rights or you don’t, Paul. I cannot stand double speak.
2.)Where is the “force” that you speak of when you say “forced not to have an abortion”? Do we “force” rapists not to rape because there are laws against rape?
3.) Why are women’s feelings more important than the child’s basic right to life?
4.) You say women lack choice. I dispute that. A great deal of women are coerced by people to have abortions- FEELING that they have no other options- that I do not dispute. However, in this great country, there are options everywhere. All a person has to do is look. There are twice as many CPC’s as there are abortion clinics in this country. There are multitudes of ways that any mother can work to provide for her child- she doesn’t even have to be educated to work at MacDonalds and she will have the insurance and benefits she needs. There are thousands of churches who are willing to help supply women and their unborn babies with anything they need. There is no “lack of choice”. There is lack of information about those choices. There is worry. There is fear. Taking away the wrong “choice” (killing) doesn’t take away the other options that are available to a woman! In fact, it will bring more to the surface.
5.) You said:
“Am I categorically against laws written to prevent abortion? I’m against laws that won’t work. I’m against laws that would work in a ‘theoretical society’ that’s unlike our own.”
What laws “won’t work”, Paul Bradford? By your logic, we shouldn’t keep rape or murder illegal because they don’t really work- obviously, people still murder and rape every day. So do you support making them legal?
6.) You said: “You know that roughly half the adults in the USA deny that human life begins at conception. You can’t even get people to agree that human life exists in a fetus twelve weeks past conception.”
That’s called ignorance, my friend. And keeping abortion legal willingly and calling yourself pro-life doesn’t help that ignorance fade away.
People need to know that life in the womb matters just as much as life outside the womb.
7.)You said:
“First things first. There are a lot of things that could be done to save lives that don’t involve triggering an automatic response from the other side. A lot of things! Why try to crash through the wall when it makes more sense to find the key that unlocks the door?”
Paul Bradford, this is a spiritual war, not a physical one. The enemy will automatically respond to ANY effort to save life. Why do you think that Planned Parenthood attacks Crisis Pregnancy Centers?
Take the publishing of my baby pictures, Paul. I had a miscarriage, and published my pictures through this very blog. That should not have made pro-abortionists angry, right? It was just a grieving mother showing how beautiful life is in the womb. No threatening of laws, no saying, “You must believe as I do!”, no shoving religion down peoples’ throats…simply posting my pictures and sharing them with the world. Guess what the response was? You can see it here and here.
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/04/cruel_hoax.html
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/04/a_few_days_ago.html
Please don’t tell me that you really believe that pro-aborts will not fight ANY effort to protect life in the womb. Do you not realize how bloodthirsty they are?
Carla, 3:09, I agree. There is a big difference between “freedom” and “license”.
Paul, would you agree with my logic if I told you that I think it is unacceptable for a woman to kill her toddler, but it is unacceptable to force her not to kill her toddler?
Does it really make sense to you?
And I can think of plenty of instances where a woman felt that she had no other choice but to kill her newborn baby…
Take the publishing of my baby pictures, Paul. I had a miscarriage, and published my pictures through this very blog. That should not have made pro-abortionists angry, right? It was just a grieving mother showing how beautiful life is in the womb.
Bethany The picture you published was beautiful, poignant and incredibly sad all at once. I also lost a child at that age and I think about him every day.
Allowing mothers to kill their children for any reason is pro-abortion. And lest you still don’t understand what I’m saying, allowing a mother to have the legal right to kill her unborn child is pro-abortion.
I have no trouble understanding what you’re saying about “allowing a mother to have the legal right to kill her unborn child”. What do you have to say about denying a mother the legal right to kill her unborn child? I know what I say about it. I say it’s impossible.
Your opinion is that women who have no respect for their children can be forced to bring their pregnancies to term. We disagree; not because I’m pro-abortion but because I understand a few things about our society’s committment to bodily privacy. People in the USA understand that undermining that committment isn’t simply un-American, it’s totalitarian.
I’m convinced there are non-totalitarian ways to eradicate abortion. There better be! The totalitarian methods won’t ever work.
I suspect that you saved some lives by publishing those pictures. That’s called ‘touching hearts and changing minds’.
By your logic, we shouldn’t keep rape or murder illegal because they don’t really work
The laws against rape and murder actually do work. No one complains that their bodily privacy is compromised by having to obey laws against rape or murder.
I don’t object to the fact that you disagree with me about the best strategies for ending abortion. I object to the fact that you call me ‘pro-abortion’. (Over at RHRealityCheck they call me ‘anti-choice’. I’m obviously on to something.) Some people actually are pro-abortion (they tormented you with their tasteless and insensitive photoshopping and comments) but I’m certainly not one of them.
I have a question for you: Is it your opinion that the 55% of South Dakota voters who opposed Measure 11 are pro-abortion? They weren’t even willing to endorse a ‘watered down’ statute that allowed for exeptions when a woman is victimized by rape or incest. I’m sure you’d agree with me that no child ought to be executed because his father is a rapist. But even that measure was considered too strict.
My opinion is that the majority of voters in South Dakota respect the rights of the unborn. They just don’t think those rights can be upheld by an anti-abortion law.
And I agree with them.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
PaulB,
What will you say to the giver of life when he asks you why you placed one persons privacy rights over another persons right to life? You will not be able to avoid His questions the way you avoid mine. Your lack of response leads me to consider you are less than genuine in your presentation of yourself as a Catholic/Christian.
Do you think it is possible to be Catholic and not follow the teachings of the Catechism?
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Posted by: Paul Bradford at December 5, 2008 10:41 PM
Maybe you should just join a Protestant mainline church. Your choice becomes a decision eventually.
What decision is that?
To allow a women to abort what God made.
Tell me, does God need humans to be Love, Paul?
Can love actually exist in Isolation or alone?
Being you might be rusty on the story of Creation.
God existed without Creation. Before Creation God was Love. Perfect Love.
Soo, you keep up the good work, like your God that needs not humans to exist, or exist, and imitate such a God, by making humans a choice here on Earth, Paul.
PaulB said:
I have a question for you: Is it your opinion that the 55% of South Dakota voters who opposed Measure 11 are pro-abortion? They weren’t even willing to endorse a ‘watered down’ statute that allowed for exeptions when a woman is victimized by rape or incest. I’m sure you’d agree with me that no child ought to be executed because his father is a rapist. But even that measure was considered too strict.
PaulB,
Were you not aware that many in the pro-life community voted against the abortion restriction in South Dakota BECAUSE it was watered down?It was the exceptions that they disagred with, not restricting the womens right to kill her baby.
yllas,
Which came first the human or the love?
TS.
God came first, then he made creation as a choice of his love. God is the First Love. My point, which has to be refuted, is that God doesn’t need humans, or Creation, to be Perfect Love.
Aren’t humans a choice of God, TS?
TS.
Btw, Don’t take this personal, I’m playing the devil’s advocate.
Have we not made human life a choice, by making God make creation as a choice of God?
All human reason fails eventually,TS.
I don’t take it personal yllas. And I wouldn’t suppost to God do anything. And I agree about all human reason eventually failing, but we can know the truth, even if it is that life is full of mystery.
yllas, God sent Jesus Christ down to show us perfect “human” love, which is not to be same as or equal to God’s love. God is life and the closest humans can get to perfect love is to lay down our lives for a friend.
TS.
Have we not made human life a choice, as “our thinking about God” has made Creation a choice also?
yllas, God sent Jesus Christ down to show us perfect “human” love, which is not to be same as or equal to God’s love. God is life and the closest humans can get to perfect love is to lay down our lives for a friend.
Posted by: truthseeker at December 6, 2008 12:22 AM
No dispute there, TS.
Bethany The picture you published was beautiful, poignant and incredibly sad all at once. I also lost a child at that age and I think about him every day.
Paul, I am very sorry for your loss.
I have no trouble understanding what you’re saying about “allowing a mother to have the legal right to kill her unborn child”. What do you have to say about denying a mother the legal right to kill her unborn child? I know what I say about it. I say it’s impossible.
I don’t think it’s impossible at all. Is it going to be difficult? Definitely. But impossible, no. Things that are impossible with men are possible with God. God commands us to rescue those that are being led away to slaughter.
Your opinion is that women who have no respect for their children can be forced to bring their pregnancies to term. We disagree; not because I’m pro-abortion but because I understand a few things about our society’s committment to bodily privacy. People in the USA understand that undermining that committment isn’t simply un-American, it’s totalitarian.
You say people in the USA understand, as if you agree with them, Paul. Why do you agree that having laws against abortion is “un-American”, or “totalitarian”? For the baby involved in each abortion, is that true?
I’m convinced there are non-totalitarian ways to eradicate abortion. There better be! The totalitarian methods won’t ever work.
Making killing human lives illegal is NOT totalitarianism.
I suspect that you saved some lives by publishing those pictures. That’s called ‘touching hearts and changing minds’.
Yes, I know of some who have been saved as a result of the pictures. However, there are women more who will ignore those pictures and decide to have an abortion anyway. I care about each and every unborn life, not just the lives of some.
The laws against rape and murder actually do work. No one complains that their bodily privacy is compromised by having to obey laws against rape or murder.
Are you being serious? This is the reason you oppose making it illegal, because we might have some people complaining about their bodily rights when they are being denied the right to kill another human being, who you say deserves the right to life?
Slave owners used to consider slaves “property”, and therefore, you can bet your bippy they complained about their rights being violated when their “property” was taken from them and slavery rights were abolished.
Paul, no matter what, there will be people will complain about the laws. You don’t make or break laws because people are complaining. “Every man’s way is right in his own eyes”, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”
I don’t object to the fact that you disagree with me about the best strategies for ending abortion. I object to the fact that you call me ‘pro-abortion’.
Allowing abortion to continue legally is effectively supporting abortion. How can you deny that? Pro-abortion is defined as “Favoring or supporting legalized abortion”. How do you not fit that description?
(Over at RHRealityCheck they call me ‘anti-choice’.
I doubt they have really thought it through very well. You still want women to be allowed the right to have abortions and kill their babies if they choose.
I’m obviously on to something.) Some people actually are pro-abortion (they tormented you with their tasteless and insensitive photoshopping and comments) but I’m certainly not one of them.
I’m sorry, I have to disagree. If you are okay even one baby dying legally at the cost of bodily privacy, you are pro-abortion. I do not say this to be mean, but to just try to get you to understand how serious it is. You are being intellectually dishonest with yourself and others.
I have a question for you: Is it your opinion that the 55% of South Dakota voters who opposed Measure 11 are pro-abortion? They weren’t even willing to endorse a ‘watered down’ statute that allowed for exeptions when a woman is victimized by rape or incest. I’m sure you’d agree with me that no child ought to be executed because his father is a rapist. But even that measure was considered too strict.
It’s funny you should mention this, because we have been having some very long debates with pro-lifers who were partially the cause of that law not passing. They actually voted against the law (and persuaded others not to) because it wasn’t strict enough- didn’t give the baby FULL personhood, NOT because it was a pro-life law.
My opinion is that the majority of voters in South Dakota respect the rights of the unborn. They just don’t think those rights can be upheld by an anti-abortion law.
You’re wrong about that, Paul. That law would have passed had it not been for the rejection of it by the purist pro-lifers because the law was not strongly worded to protect EVERY baby.
Paul, what about the baby’s right to bodily autonomy? Why don’t they get that?
Paul, do you think shutting down every single abortion clinic in the USA is a worthy goal?
Bethany, I woke up thinking about your posts and wondering if you were still talking to me. Thanks for responding.
What causes the abortion rate to go up? What enables it to come down? Those are the questions we disagree about.
I’m behind the measures I think will bring it down. I argue against measures I don’t think will bring it down. I also argue against measures which, if enforced, would call on the government to be more intrusive and more controlling than a free society should tolerate. I’m not a libertarian. I do believe in the power of government to do good; but limits have to be set — otherwise government tends to become totalitarian.
I want you to look at these statistics. They are based on the yearly Statistical Abstract published by the US Census bureau. First let’s look at the rate of unmarried women becoming pregnant. (Pregnancies per 1000 unmarried women of childbearing age):
1960___27.51
1972___59.29
1981___92.32
2005___86.26
Now let’s look at the number of abortions for those same years:
1960_____35,000
1972____586,800
1981__1,574,000
2005__1,280,000
As you can see, there was a three-fold increase in the number of abortions between 1972 (when it was illegal) and 1981 (eight years after Roe) I’m sure you conclude that the spike was due to the liberalizing of abortion laws.
Let’s look at the spike between 1960 (when abortion was illegal) and 1972 (when it was still illegal). There was sixteen-fold increase. Let’s look at the years between 1981 (when it was legal) and 2005. There was ninteen per cent drop.
If we look at the penal code, the rise in abortions between 1972 and 1981 is explainable; but the rise between 1960 and 1972 and the drop between 1981 and 2005 is not. If we look at pregnancy rates of unmarried women (which rises and falls with the rate of unwanted pregnancies) all three trends are explainable.
I think the driving force behind the abortion rate is the rate of unwanted pregnancy. I think we had a spike between 1960 and 1972 because there was an explosion in the incidence of unmarried sex. I think there was a drop between 1981 and 2005 because people are less promiscuous than they were before we all started thinking about AIDS.
The unwanted pregnancy rate drives the abortion rate, and the unmarried sex rate drives the unwanted pregnancy rate.
What do I think is the greatest example of disrespect to the unborn? Is it abortion? No, I think abortion is a symptom of disrespect. The disrespect is shown whenever a couple who aren’t ready, willing and able to raise a child together have sex. It’s as simple as that.
But that’s not simple; because who the hell wants to live in a society where the government controls our sex lives?
We brought smoking rates down without criminalizing the habit. We did it through education. We have many examples of recovery from alcoholism and we did that without resorting to Prohibition. We did it by providing support to alcoholics. We can bring the abortion rate down with government actions that are persuasive and educational rather than coercive.
This is what I believe, and it frustrates me that you consider mine to be a pro-abortion stance.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
BTW, In 2006 South Dakota voted down a measure that would criminalize all abortions — even those that resulted in rape. The voting percentages were almost the same as the 2008 vote.
Bethany, I woke up thinking about your posts and wondering if you were still talking to me. Thanks for responding.
No problem…I appreciate your civility.
What causes the abortion rate to go up? What enables it to come down? Those are the questions we disagree about.
That isn’t what I disagree about at all. I think you miss my point. I do not want the abortion rate merely “reduced”. Even ONE baby dying LEGALLY is wrong.
If abortion is made illegal, then the only abortions happening will be illegal, and abortionists will be prosecuted accordingly.
Eventually, if enough abortionists are prosecuted, it will be nearly impossible for a woman to be able to obtain an abortion.
Speaking of abortionists, do you realize that when you support abortion being legal, that you are also supporting abortionists who victimize women and their babies, the very ones who coerce women into feeling they have “no other choice”….the very ones who take a woman’s or young girl’s child from them in exchange for money, slap them on the butt and send them back to their abusers?
By supporting legalized abortion, you are supporting George Tiller, the baby killer, and others like him. The late term babies he kills continually are legally killed- not to mention the MANY women he has wounded and killed. There is never any justice for the women he maims and sends to the hospital and kills or for the babies who could have easily been delivered only weeks or days later. And for some really odd reason, you’re okay with that? Your position is to just let it continue to happen, as long as you can convince yourself that no woman’s bodily autonomy rights have been violated.
Again I ask you (and would really appreciate an answer as this is important): What about the baby’s right to bodily autonomy?
If you truly believe a baby is a full person who should have rights from conception, what about the right to autonomy?
Are unborn children lesser persons because of where they are located? Do they not get that kind of protection?
Why do they get to be killed by another person’s choice just because of where they are living temporarily? How can you possibly see yourself as protecting children when you allow someone to force sharp tools into the child’s home and tear him/her limb from limb, all out of a concern about the government intruding on your rights (which is irrelevant anyway). Abortion is not a RIGHT. It is not a FREEDOM. It is a LICENSE.
I also argue against measures which, if enforced, would call on the government to be more intrusive and more controlling than a free society should tolerate. I’m not a libertarian. I do believe in the power of government to do good; but limits have to be set — otherwise government tends to become totalitarian.
Again, what about the baby’s rights? Why aren’t they important to protect? Isn’t the government intruding on the BABY’s RIGHTS when they allow their lives to be terminated by the CHOICE of another person?
I want you to look at these statistics. They are based on the yearly Statistical Abstract published by the US Census bureau. First let’s look at the rate of unmarried women becoming pregnant. (Pregnancies per 1000 unmarried women of childbearing age):
1960___27.51
1972___59.29
1981___92.32
2005___86.26
Now let’s look at the number of abortions for those same years:
1960_____35,000
1972____586,800
1981__1,574,000
2005__1,280,000
As you can see, there was a three-fold increase in the number of abortions between 1972 (when it was illegal) and 1981 (eight years after Roe) I’m sure you conclude that the spike was due to the liberalizing of abortion laws.
Let’s look at the spike between 1960 (when abortion was illegal) and 1972 (when it was still illegal). There was sixteen-fold increase. Let’s look at the years between 1981 (when it was legal) and 2005. There was ninteen per cent drop.
If we look at the penal code, the rise in abortions between 1972 and 1981 is explainable; but the rise between 1960 and 1972 and the drop between 1981 and 2005 is not. If we look at pregnancy rates of unmarried women (which rises and falls with the rate of unwanted pregnancies) all three trends are explainable.
Please explain to me how they collected this data, Paul. Abortion was illegal before 1973. Where did they obtain the information about all of these illegal abortions accurately before that time? Do you really trust those numbers?
Besides, what does it matter if the numbers are true? The fact that there is a rise in crime is NOT a reason to make that crime legal.
What do I think is the greatest example of disrespect to the unborn? Is it abortion? No, I think abortion is a symptom of disrespect.
The disrespect is shown whenever a couple who aren’t ready, willing and able to raise a child together have sex. It’s as simple as that.
Yes, I agree that is disrespect, but not murder till the child is killed. I could just as easily say, “What is the greatest example of disrespect to a woman? Is it rape? No, I think rape is a symptom of disrespect. The disrespect is shown whenever a man begins looking at women as objects, and when he starts thinking only of himself and his desires. It’s as simple as that.”
Do you see where the problem is? Although those are actually root causes of rape, you can’t punish someone for simply being selfish or looking at women as objects, but once someone has committed a rape, then it becomes a punishable crime. And that is just.
You wouldn’t tell us to let rape be legal while we address the root problem of rape. No, we punish rapists while we also address the root causes of rape. This is 2 + 2 = 4.
But that’s not simple; because who the hell wants to live in a society where the government controls our sex lives?
Ah, but what does preventing a living human being from being killed have to do with interfering in our sex lives, Paul? I think you have just exposed yourself here.
We brought smoking rates down without criminalizing the habit.
Smoking isn’t an intentional act to kill another human being.
We did it through education. We have many examples of recovery from alcoholism and we did that without resorting to Prohibition. We did it by providing support to alcoholics. We can bring the abortion rate down with government actions that are persuasive and educational rather than coercive.
Again, alcoholism doesn’t intentionally and directly kill another human being. Not relevant.
This is what I believe, and it frustrates me that you consider mine to be a pro-abortion stance.
You haven’t really answered how your beliefs differ from the definition of pro-abortion.
Thanks, Paul.
Paul, do you think shutting down every single abortion clinic in the USA is a worthy goal?
Posted by: Bethany at December 6, 2008 8:34 AM
You are not just a pro-abort, you are something much worse. You do the Devil’s work by spreading lies. Like when you posted that Pope Benedict the XVI and Pope JPII taught that society anything other than complete encouragement of civil laws to protect the life of the unborn from abortion. Like when you say you believe that the unborn are persons worthy of protection from the point of conception but you would give a woman a “right” to kill same person. Like when you call yourself a Catolic but you do not feel as though you need to follow the Catechism. When you post that tearing a baby from his/her mother’s womb in bloody pieces is NOT disrespectful to the baby being killed. I am certain you are aware that you are a phony so I speak not to try and change your mind, but to make others who would read your pots aware of your deceptions.
I agree, Truthseeker. A wolf in sheeps clothing is much more dangerous than a wolf that does not try to disguise who he is.
Oh my goodness, here is another quote by Paul on rhrealitycheck:
“Someone recently asked me if I thought abortion was murder. I said that I preferred to think of it as very bad manners. If it’s hard for you to accept the idea that the unborn have a right to life, try thinking that they have a right to good manners. We could solve the abortion problem that way. ”
It’s BAD MANNERS to kill a child?
BAD MANNERS?
Truthseeker is right. There is no way you can’t be aware of what you are doing.
I guess Andrea Yates just had a case of bad manners when she killed her five children in the bathtub…
Yeah, you know, if you have a hard time thinking about drowning 5 children mercilessly in the bathtub as being “murder”, you might just instead think that maybe Andrea needed better manners!
In fact, we probably could have saved Andrea’s children if we had just told her about the good manners!
Paul, answer this question for me directly:
If a woman really does desire to have an abortion, and is not being coerced in any way, is it wrong for her to have an abortion? Yes or no please.
And I agree with you that we all make different “valuations” of things Doug. I just didn’t understand that was what you meant when you used the word assumptions to describe them.
Truthseeker, an example being the different weights that people give the woman’s freedom and the life of the unborn.
Carla: I am so not wanting to get into this with you Doug BUT, there is no freedom in having your own child killed by an abortion.
It depends, Carla. You know there is quite a bit of disagreement about “child,” anyway.
And women have the freedom to have abortions, at least to viability. Not to say that some won’t regret it.
Paul, I hope you haven’t left me. I’m interested to hear the answers to the questions I’ve posed to you.
Paul, I hope you haven’t left me. I’m interested to hear the answers to the questions I’ve posed to you.
Bethany, don’t worry about me “leaving you”. It’s just that I can’t blog 24/7. My wife won’t let me. Besides, we’ve only got one computer and my seventeen year old daughter likes using it too.
If a woman really does desire to have an abortion, and is not being coerced in any way, is it wrong for her to have an abortion? Yes or no please.
Yes, she’s morally wrong. But it may not be a “mortal sin” if she doesn’t know it’s wrong (i.e. doesn’t think a fetus has ‘human life’). That’s why I’m more interested in educating people to understand that we deserve human rights for the entirety of our lives than I am in punishing folks who haven’t reached that level of understanding.
It’s all about human rights for me. Back in the bad old days, people had a very narrow conception of who deserved human rights. That conception didn’t include women, it didn’t include children, it didn’t include those who weren’t members of their own tribe, it didn’t include wrong-doers. As civilization has advance, the number of people we assert deserve ‘human rights’ increases.
Peter Singer wrote a book about the phenomenon The Expanding Circle. That circle doesn’t yet include the unborn. It should, and I hope in some small way to hasten the day when it does, but the unborn don’t get rights. Not yet.
“Someone recently asked me if I thought abortion was murder. I said that I preferred to think of it as very bad manners. If it’s hard for you to accept the idea that the unborn have a right to life, try thinking that they have a right to good manners. We could solve the abortion problem that way. ”
It’s BAD MANNERS to kill a child?
BAD MANNERS?
OK, Cut me a break! I was deliberately being provocative. Did you ever see the bumper sticker that said “One Nuclear Bomb Can Ruin Your Whole Day”? You certainly don’t think the people who put that sticker on their car were trying to equate a nuclear bomb with a bad day. What they’re doing is making a point by making an absurd understatement.
One of the reproductive rights advocates on RHReality Check asked me if I thought abortion was murder. I said it was a violation of human rights. He liked that term better. I said, “if you like it better let’s call it ‘bad manners’. I don’t care. If we could get people to believe that the unborn deserve good manners we could solve the abortion problem right there. It’s bad manners to abort a child.”
You don’t like my sense of humor??? You’re not the first!
A wolf in sheeps clothing is much more dangerous than a wolf that does not try to disguise who he is.
You were referring to me there. Truthseeker doesn’t get where I’m coming from. As far as my comment on Donum Vitae I wasn’t the only one to notice it. Read Fr. Richard Gula’s 1989 book, Reason Informed By Faith. In his chapter on ‘Law and Obedience’ he quoted the same comment from Donum Vitae and wrote:
We are left with two different, officially endorsed approaches to the relationship of morality and law. But we need not reduce them to an either/or alternative. The approach which looks for civil law to back up moral teaching challenges the Catholic community to work to bring civil law in line with Catholic morality. The other approach, which accepts a limited role for law in a pluralistic society, challenges the Catholic community to create a climate through example, education and service where Roman Catholic moral values will be effectively mediated to the community. While both approaches leave room for Catholic participation in public debate, they support different strategies and goals for such participation. With both approaches being part of Catholic practice, we need to help one another in deciding which of our moral convictions we should try to legislate for the sake of public order, and which we should try to advance by persuasion but not necessarily by legislation. Disagreement on this score will inevitably arise. But in disagreement and in cooperation we can help each other contribute to what befits human well-being.
Look, Bethany I really like writing to you and I hope we pick this up on some other thread but I want you to understand that we view each other very differently. I view you as a person who wants the same thing I want (an end to abortion) but is taking an over-simplified approach getting there. You view me as ‘a wolf in sheeps clothing’.
Bit of a difference there, wouldn’t you agree?
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Bethany, don’t worry about me “leaving you”. It’s just that I can’t blog 24/7. My wife won’t let me. Besides, we’ve only got one computer and my seventeen year old daughter likes using it too.
Understood.. I also have three young children who battle for time on the computer, so I understand.
Yes, she’s morally wrong. But it may not be a “mortal sin” if she doesn’t know it’s wrong (i.e. doesn’t think a fetus has ‘human life’). That’s why I’m more interested in educating people to understand that we deserve human rights for the entirety of our lives than I am in punishing folks who haven’t reached that level of understanding.
Okay, does the fact that it’s not a mortal sin (according to you) alter the fact that a human life has been taken? Should human life be expendable at the cost of ignorance? What if women suddenly started to be ignorant of the fact that a newborn baby is a human, and some chose to kill their newborn babies out of ignorance. (Don’t say it’s not possible. Maybe I could introduce you to Peter Singer then). Would that be acceptable? Should it be legal, because they are ignorant and therefore it isn’t a “mortal sin”? Where does the baby receive justice? Does the baby deserve justice if his mother kills him out of ignorance?
It’s all about human rights for me. Back in the bad old days, people had a very narrow conception of who deserved human rights. That conception didn’t include women, it didn’t include children, it didn’t include those who weren’t members of their own tribe, it didn’t include wrong-doers. As civilization has advance, the number of people we assert deserve ‘human rights’ increases.
Paul, history repeats itself time and time again. There is always going to be a group of people who are killed because they are put into some classification which they deem to be lower than human and therefore not worthy of protection. We are commanded to fight this, as Christians. The world is NOT getting better and better with time, history is repeating itself over and over again, and nothing is really different- only the people who are being targeted are of a different category. Euthanasia of human beings is becoming more and more acceptable here in the US…abortion is obviously acceptable to many people already (and wasn’t before 1973). And before that, segregation and slavery were the norm, and “acceptable” to many people as well. Slaves were considered not to have personhood, therefore did not have any of the rights a person would normally be entitled to. Did you know there was also a time when it was legal to kill Mormons in America? Even from the very beginning this has happened. “Hands that are quick to shed innocent blood” have always existed since Cain killed Abel. We are no more “advanced” today, morally, than we were from the beginning. The world is full of sin. We are supposed to be a light in the darkness, Paul.
Look, Bethany I really like writing to you and I hope we pick this up on some other thread but I want you to understand that we view each other very differently. I view you as a person who wants the same thing I want (an end to abortion) but is taking an over-simplified approach getting there. You view me as ‘a wolf in sheeps clothing’.
I don’t think we do want the same thing, Paul.
You want abortion to be legal.
I want it to be illegal.
You think that killing unborn babies should be a “choice” of the mother.
I do not.
BIG difference.
Of course you are going to say you view me differently. For whatever reason, you want me to believe that you are on my side. But in reality you are not. At least I’m being honest and not lying to you and telling you I agree with you when I don’t. I do not respect dishonesty or double speak.
If you support abortion rights, just say so honestly! You’ll find that many more people will respect you for not pretending to be something you are not.
I cannot respond to your Catholic points because I don’t know much about Catholicism. But I do know one thing- that you deliberately took a portion of a Catholic writing out of context. That is another example of dishonesty. You should have supplied the full quote if you were being honest.
By the way, you never answered how you differ from the pro-abortion definition.
Also, more importantly, you also never answered my question about the baby’s right to bodily autonomy by the way. I’m not letting you off the hook with that one. It’s important, don’t you think? If a baby is a full person, then a baby should have full rights, or else you really don’t believe they are full persons entitled to life, liberty, and justice. So answer me how the baby gets the same human rights as the mother when the baby can be legally killed according to the law?
Another two question I posted earlier and would really like answered is this one (regarding totalitarianism):
Isn’t the government intruding on the BABY’s RIGHTS when they allow their lives to be terminated by the CHOICE of another person?
And this one (regarding clinics):
Paul, do you think shutting down every single abortion clinic in the USA is a worthy goal?
One more (I’m sure over time you’ll notice I don’t let questions go easily):
You wrote: But that’s not simple; because who the hell wants to live in a society where the government controls our sex lives?
I responded:
Ah, but what does preventing a living human being from being killed have to do with interfering in our sex lives, Paul?
You were referring to me there. Truthseeker doesn’t get where I’m coming from.
Posted by PaulB.
Ah but Paul I do understand where you are coming from. You are the kind who obfuscates the truth and ignores the posts of those who see through your facade. Your presentation of the Pope’s teaching is patently false. The Poe would never disavow either of the “approaches” to stopping abortion.
You suggest an approach that has no civil penalties for people that kill others while teaching them by example and letting them kill until they see the light. That is NOT the Pope’s teaching. The Pope teaches that Catholics must lead in both civil protections for the unborn and ALSO for keeping from choosing ourselves to kill the unborn because it is morally wrong and we must set a good example. You are not free to lie about the Pope’s position of support for civil protections for the unborn just because the Pope also supports leading by example. Are you so dishonest that you can’t even see that is what you do? I don’t think so. It is precisely because I see through your deceptions and call you on them that you have yet to reply to any of posts to you. You could no more answer my previous post to you then you could continue being a pro-life Catholic for abortion rights. lol
Until you respond to me, I’ll just keep posting this same post over and over whenever I see you post here:
******************
You are not just a pro-abort, you are something much worse. You do the Devil’s work by spreading lies. Like when you posted that Pope Benedict the XVI and Pope JPII taught that anything other than complete encouragement of civil laws to protect the life of the unborn from members of society who would kill unborn children. Like when you say you believe that the unborn are persons worthy of protection from the point of conception but you would give a woman a “right” to kill same person. Like when you call yourself a Catolic but you do not feel as though you need to follow the Catechism. When you post that tearing a baby from his/her mother’s womb in bloody pieces is NOT disrespectful to the baby being killed. I am certain you are aware that you are a phony so I speak not to try and change your mind, but to make others who would read your pots aware of your deceptions.
****************
above post was ts
I don’t think we do want the same thing, Paul.
You want abortion to be legal.
I want it to be illegal.
You think that killing unborn babies should be a “choice” of the mother.
I do not.
BIG difference.
Bethany I don’t WANT abortion to be legal. I want it to be unthinkable — like human sacrifice. I want it to be so far beyond the pale that we almost wouldn’t have to have laws against it. I’m not satisfied to go back to 1972 (when you were unborn but I was an adult and very keyed into what was going on visa vis abortion) and have hundreds of thousands of illegal abortions and an absolute clamor to have the laws liberalized.
It hardly matters whether we want women to have choice or we don’t. The fact of the matter is that they do have choice. Pro-Lifers can decide to spend another wasted thirty-six years trying to take away choice or we can work to persuade women to make the right choice. That’s how I see it.
When mothers — the overwhelming majority of mothers — decide, out of free choice, that they have moral responsibility to sustain the lives of their unborn children; and when men — the overwhelming majority of men — decide that they have a moral responsibility not to impregnate a woman who’s not ready, willing and able to raise a child we will have arrived at the ‘culture of life’ I want so very much to see.
It’s at that point that it will make sense to pass laws making abortion illegal — and I will be happy to see that happen then.
However, if abortion is made illegal while women still act as if the life in their womb is no more important than a mole or a cyst it will only serve to diminish the rights of women without improving the rights of the unborn.
If we make abortion illegal while men continue to take almost no responsibility for avoiding unwanted pregnancy (the best way to show responsibility would be to wait until she’s wearing your ring before bedding her) it will only serve to add to the number of unhappy children in the world.
Ah, but what does preventing a living human being from being killed have to do with interfering in our sex lives, Paul?
It’s the other way around, Bethany. Allowing our sex lives to be ‘interfered’ with by a sense of responsibility will prevent living human beings from being killed. I made the point earlier that it’s not possible to create that “sense of responsibility” by coercion but it can be developed by education.
Paul, do you think shutting down every single abortion clinic in the USA is a worthy goal?
I think it would be wonderful to shut down every single abortion clinic in the USA … that is, it would be wonderful for a few weeks or months — but then they’d all reopen. The political will does not exist in this country to keep them closed. We don’t have anywhere near enough political will to keep them closed.
Closing abortion clinics would be like removing a tumor with certain kinds of cancer — you’d only cause more tumors to grow. We have to understand the root cause of abortion (and it’s very, very different from the root cause of murder or rape) and eradicate it at the root. Masking symptoms is a waste of time — it’s worse than a waste of time because in the long run it will make things worse.
Isn’t the government intruding on the BABY’s RIGHTS when they allow their lives to be terminated by the CHOICE of another person?
What you and I understand is that an abortion decision involves weighing maternal rights against fetal rights and fetal rights always win because, for them, it’s life-and-death. You and I understand it, but most Americans do not. To them, frustrating a woman’s choice denies maternal rights and doesn’t advance the rights of anyone who’s rights they value. I’m not describing how things should be. I’m describing how things are.
You flail at me because I’m eager to start working on saving lives in the real world situation we find ourselves. You want to wait until the situation improves.
I’m not letting you off the hook with that one..
Bethany, I thank God you’re as tenacious as you are! My ideas make sense to me, but I do a lousy job of making them make sense to others. Without sincere, intelligent caring people such as yourself helping me find my “voice”, these ideas of mine would be forever misunderstood.
One last request, please write to me at my e-mail address (look at the signature on my post of 12/3 9:16pm) so I can send you some stuff I wrote for the PLCC web-site (which I still haven’t put up).
Thanks so much!
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Paul Bradford,
You are not just a pro-abort, you are something much worse. You do the Devil’s work by spreading lies. Like when you posted that Pope Benedict the XVI and Pope JPII taught that anything other than complete encouragement of civil laws to protect the life of the unborn from members of society who would kill unborn children. Like when you say you believe that the unborn are persons worthy of protection from the point of conception but you would give a woman a “right” to kill same person. Like when you call yourself a Catolic but you do not feel as though you need to follow the Catechism. When you post that tearing a baby from his/her mother’s womb in bloody pieces is NOT disrespectful to the baby being killed. I am certain you are aware that you are a phony so I speak not to try and change your mind, but to make others who would read your posts aware of your deceptions.
Truthseeker
Pro-life Catholic for Life
Paul Bradford,
You are not just a pro-abort, you are something much worse. You do the Devil’s work by spreading lies. Like when you posted that Pope Benedict the XVI and Pope JPII taught that anything other than complete encouragement of civil laws to protect the life of the unborn from members of society who would kill unborn children. Like when you say you believe that the unborn are persons worthy of protection from the point of conception but you would give a woman a “right” to kill same person. Like when you call yourself a Catolic but you do not feel as though you need to follow the Catechism. When you post that tearing a baby from his/her mother’s womb in bloody pieces is NOT disrespectful to the baby being killed. I am certain you are aware that you are a phony so I speak not to try and change your mind, but to make others who would read your posts aware of your deceptions.
Truthseeker
Pro-life Catholic for Life
Bethany I don’t WANT abortion to be legal.
Paul, don’t say that, unless you mean it. You have already said that you think it is “unacceptable for a woman to be forced to keep her child”.
I want it to be unthinkable — like human sacrifice.
That’s not going to happen as long as we keep sending the message that babies aren’t worth protecting with our laws.
I want it to be so far beyond the pale that we almost wouldn’t have to have laws against it.
You are living in a Utopian fantasy which is not going to happen as long as there is sin in the world. As long as it is legal to kill a child, a woman is going to be able to say, “Well, it’s legal, so obviously there must not be anything really wrong with it.”
And we don’t try to do this (your idea) with any other crime which victimizes other humans. We don’t just try to make rape ‘unthinkable’ so that we ‘don’t need laws against rape’. We keep rape illegal and we simultaneously work to teach men respect towards women.
I’m not satisfied to go back to 1972 (when you were unborn but I was an adult and very keyed into what was going on visa vis abortion) and have hundreds of thousands of illegal abortions and an absolute clamor to have the laws liberalized.
Again, you never told me how you think they collect the data on illegal abortions? And what do you think about Bernard Nathanson’s confessions that the figures about illegal abortions, and abortion deaths were completely made up at the time?
It hardly matters whether we want women to have choice or we don’t.
Well, you do. You do want women to have the choice to kill their child. Don’t try to act like you’re on my side. You’re not. You said it is “unacceptable to force a woman to keep her baby”. That is what you said, and you said that you stick by what you said.
The fact of the matter is that they do have choice.
Thanks to people like you, they’ll continue to have “choice” until we who actually care about unborn life win. Paul, why do you keep referring to it as “choice”? Why not just call it what it is, abortion? Why use a euphemism to cloud the issue?
Pro-Lifers can decide to spend another wasted thirty-six years trying to take away choice or we can work to persuade women to make the right choice. That’s how I see it.
We wouldn’t do it with rape, we wouldn’t do it with murder, we wouldn’t do it with pedophilia. Why would we do that with abortion?
When mothers — the overwhelming majority of mothers — decide, out of free choice, that they have moral responsibility to sustain the lives of their unborn children; and when men — the overwhelming majority of men — decide that they have a moral responsibility not to impregnate a woman who’s not ready, willing and able to raise a child we will have arrived at the ‘culture of life’ I want so very much to see.
Utopian fantasy. You forget we live in a world of sin and deception. Why not apply the same to every other crime which has a victim?
It’s at that point that it will make sense to pass laws making abortion illegal — and I will be happy to see that happen then.
You are lying. You said “it is unacceptable to force a woman to keep her baby”.
However, if abortion is made illegal while women still act as if the life in their womb is no more important than a mole or a cyst it will only serve to diminish the rights of women without improving the rights of the unborn.
As long as abortion is legal, that sends the message that an unborn child really IS as valuable as a mole or a cyst, Paul.
If we make abortion illegal while men continue to take almost no responsibility for avoiding unwanted pregnancy (the best way to show responsibility would be to wait until she’s wearing your ring before bedding her) it will only serve to add to the number of unhappy children in the world.
What kind of motivation does a man have to be responsible for his child, when his child can be legally murdered without his consent at any time during the mother’s pregnancy?
I think it would be wonderful to shut down every single abortion clinic in the USA … that is, it would be wonderful for a few weeks or months — but then they’d all reopen. The political will does not exist in this country to keep them closed. We don’t have anywhere near enough political will to keep them closed.
If abortionists were prosecuted for their crimes then the abortion clinics couldn’t open back up. It is because of people like you that they might open back up.
Closing abortion clinics would be like removing a tumor with certain kinds of cancer — you’d only cause more tumors to grow.
Not if abortionists were punished for their crimes.
We have to understand the root cause of abortion (and it’s very, very different from the root cause of murder or rape) and eradicate it at the root. Masking symptoms is a waste of time — it’s worse than a waste of time because in the long run it will make things worse.
We don’t attack the root of the crime of rape, Paul. We attack the crime of rape.
We don’t attack the root of the crime of murder, Paul. We attack murder.
We don’t attack the root of the crime of pedophilia, Paul. We attack pedophilia.
We don’t jail people for thinking bad thoughts, for being selfish, for being fearful, or for any other root of sin. We jail people after the crime has been committed or after we have proof they were going to commit a crime.
Paul, I had asked you:
“Isn’t the government intruding on the BABY’s RIGHTS when they allow their lives to be terminated by the CHOICE of another person?”
And you did NOT answer the question. You wrote this instead:
“What you and I understand is that an abortion decision involves weighing maternal rights against fetal rights and fetal rights always win because, for them, it’s life-and-death. You and I understand it, but most Americans do not. To them, frustrating a woman’s choice denies maternal rights and doesn’t advance the rights of anyone who’s rights they value. I’m not describing how things should be. I’m describing how things are.”
I didn’t ask you any of the questions you seem to think I asked.
Here is what I asked again:
“Isn’t the government intruding on the BABY’s RIGHTS when they allow their lives to be terminated by the CHOICE of another person?”
Next time, a “yes” or “no” would suffice.
You flail at me because I’m eager to start working on saving lives in the real world situation we find ourselves.
That is a lie. I don’t believe you.
You want to wait until the situation improves.
That is also a lie, and in fact, that is exactly what you are advocating!
Paul, I had written the question about a baby’s bodily autonomy about 3 times. I then wrote:
“I’m not letting you off the hook with that one..”
You chose to ignore the question, and used some manipulative wording to attempt to evade the question:
“Bethany, I thank God you’re as tenacious as you are! My ideas make sense to me, but I do a lousy job of making them make sense to others. Without sincere, intelligent caring people such as yourself helping me find my “voice”, these ideas of mine would be forever misunderstood.”
Where is the answer to my question “Paul, what about the baby’s right to bodily autonomy? Why don’t they get that?”
With all due respect, I don’t care about helping you find your “voice”. I care about unborn children and their mothers lives. I already hear your voice and know what you stand for. You stand for abortion. You are like the serpent who told Eve, “Did God really say…?”
One last request, please write to me at my e-mail address (look at the signature on my post of 12/3 9:16pm) so I can send you some stuff I wrote for the PLCC web-site (which I still haven’t put up).
I don’t know if you think you are going to be able to manipulate me and make me believe like you, but I can assure you I will never support legal abortion.
I don’t want to continue discussing this with you if you can’t be honest enough with yourself to answer my questions. They were not questions that a pro-lifer should have a difficult time answering honestly.
what about the baby’s right to bodily autonomy? Why don’t they get that?”
Bethany If you feel I haven’t answered this question it’s not that I’ve avoided it, it’s just that I’ve been trying to deal with the other questions you ask me.
Of course an unborn child has the right to live. Women also have bodily autonomy. That means that YOU have bodily autonomy. That means if you have a miscarriage, and someone who doesn’t like you tells the government that you used Misoprostol you don’t have to have your body investigated as a crime site.
It’s wrong, wrong, wrong to abort. That doesn’t alter the fact that, at this point in our nation’s development, enforcing strict laws against abortion from conception onward will tear our civil liberties to shreds. The civil liberties of women who choose to abort will be torn to shreds and the civil liberties of women who are innocent of abortion will be torn to shreds.
I don’t want the government to be able to acquire search warrants for uteruses. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about the rights of the unborn — that means I think there’s got to be some OTHER way to protect their rights.
You and I agree about the immorality of abortion. Where we disagree is on a question of political judgment. I can imagine a future society where laws against abortion could be on the books because they are supported by strong social taboos. In this society, where 50% of the people don’t believe the unborn have rights laws will only make things worse for the unborn.
I don’t ask you to agree with me about my political judgment. I ask that you stop treating me as if I wanted anything different than you do.
you think it is “unacceptable for a woman to be forced to keep her child”.
I think it’s politically unacceptable. The country would revolt. You keep talking about murder and rape. Everyone in this society (except the sociopaths) agree that murder and rape are wrong. A huge percentage of people in this country believe abortion is not wrong. Our laws reflect societal norms. Laws can reflect societal norms, they can’t control them.
It’s not time, now, to change the laws. It’s time to change the norms. That can’t be done by forcing women to keep their children, it can only be done by changing attitudes.
I don’t know if you think you are going to be able to manipulate me and make me believe like you, but I can assure you I will never support legal abortion.
I’m not asking you to support legal abortion. I’m simply telling you that I follow the advice of Pope John XXII: “See everything, overlook a great deal, improve a little.” Things aren’t going to get better all at once. I’m willing to tolerate legal abortion because I think there’s a lot of work that needs to be finished before legal abortion can be banned.
And what do you think about Bernard Nathanson’s confessions that the figures about illegal abortions, and abortion deaths were completely made up at the time?
It’s not that anyone is hiding figures on illegal abortion, it’s just that the best anyone can do is guess
I believe that if abortion were suddenly made illegal there would be hundreds of thousands of illegal abortions. I believe the problem would fifty times worse than the illegal drug problem.
Maybe I’m wrong about that; but that’s no reason for you to call my motives into question.
In all honesty, I wish I could snap my fingers and make abortion illegal in the USA and direct the government to firmly enforce the laws against it. After we had a chance to see what that would be like we’d come to agreement about the political question — and then we could BOTH start to work on the issues that need to be addressed.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
I don’t want the government to be able to acquire search warrants for uteruses.
Really. Was this happening pre-1973 then?
I’d answer the rest right now but my mom’s about to be here. I’ll have to put it off till later today.
Paul Bradford,
You are not just a pro-abort, you are something much worse. You do the Devil’s work by spreading lies. Like when you posted that Pope Benedict the XVI and Pope JPII taught that anything other than complete encouragement of civil laws to protect the life of the unborn from members of society who would kill unborn children. Like when you say you believe that the unborn are persons worthy of protection from the point of conception but you would give a woman a “right” to kill same person. Like when you call yourself a Catholic but you do not feel as though you need to follow the Catechism. When you post that tearing a baby from his/her mother’s womb in bloody pieces is NOT disrespectful to the baby being killed. I am certain you are aware that you are a phony so I speak not to try and change your mind, but to make others who would read your posts aware of your deceptions. Everybody should call your motives into question because you can’t even respond to honest redirection of what you say. You grieve the Holy Spirit tremendously with your slander of the Catholic faith.
Truthseeker
Pro-life Catholic for Life
Paul Bradford,
Why should anybody trust somebody who calls themselves a Catholic but disregards the teachings of the Catholic faith? Answer: They shouldn’t!
“Rejoice over her, heaven, you holy ones, apostles, and prophets. For God has judged your case against her.” A mighty angel picked up a stone like a huge millstone and threw it into the sea and said: “With such force will Babylon the great city be thrown down, and will never be found again. No melodies of harpists and musicians, flutists and trumpeters, will ever be heard in you again. No craftsmen in any trade will ever be found in you again. No sound of the millstone will ever be heard in you again. No light from a lamp will ever be seen in you again. No voices of bride and groom will ever be heard in you again. Because your merchants were the great ones of the world, all nations were led astray by your magic potion. In her was found the blood of prophets and holy ones and all who have been slain on the earth.”
Revelation 18:20-24
Paul Bradford, if you were Catholic, there would be no Catholic faith because the Catholic faith is what is taught in the Catechism and much of it immutable and unchangeable. Have you ever heard of Father Corapi? He is a teacher certified by the Catholic church to teach the faith. You should watch this video of him.
http://www.fathercorapi.com/election.aspx
Of course an unborn child has the right to live. Women also have bodily autonomy. That means that YOU have bodily autonomy. That means if you have a miscarriage, and someone who doesn’t like you tells the government that you used Misoprostol you don’t have to have your body investigated as a crime site.
So before 1973, is this what you are claiming was the typical thing? Do you really believe that every woman having a miscarriage would be investigated? You are so off the mark, Paul, it isn’t even funny.
By the way, would you be for making abortion illegal as long as the only ones punished for the crime were abortionists?
It’s wrong, wrong, wrong to abort. That doesn’t alter the fact that, at this point in our nation’s development, enforcing strict laws against abortion from conception onward will tear our civil liberties to shreds.
Lies.
The civil liberties of women who choose to abort will be torn to shreds and the civil liberties of women who are innocent of abortion will be torn to shreds.
Propaganda. Misleading lies.
I don’t want the government to be able to acquire search warrants for uteruses.
That is just absurd, Paul. You have fallen for the pro-abortion script hook, line and sinker. Planned Parenthood is in full agreement with you on this.
That doesn’t mean I don’t care about the rights of the unborn — that means I think there’s got to be some OTHER way to protect their rights.
No, there really isn’t. By trying to change hearts, you may save some, but you haven’t really protected them.
If I threw my child out to wolves, and then tried to see if I could get some of the wolves to walk away from my child and not injure him/her, would I be “protecting” my child?
You think that allowing these children to be legally killed, but then changing some hearts, is “protecting” children. That’s ridiculous.
You and I agree about the immorality of abortion. Where we disagree is on a question of political judgment.
We don’t agree about the immorality of abortion. You call abortion “choice”. Stop saying we agree when we don’t. Please.
I can imagine a future society where laws against abortion could be on the books because they are supported by strong social taboos. In this society, where 50% of the people don’t believe the unborn have rights laws will only make things worse for the unborn.
Your opinion is that children are only worthy of protection if the majority wants to protect them.
If slavery were legal today, you’d say making slavery illegal would be unacceptable too- because 50% of the people didn’t believe that the black people had rights, and you would say the laws would only make things worse for them.
I don’t ask you to agree with me about my political judgment. I ask that you stop treating me as if I wanted anything different than you do.
But you DO!
I think it’s politically unacceptable [for a woman to be forced to keep her child alive]. The country would revolt.
So what if it did? Do you only do right if everyone agrees with you? How sad.
You keep talking about murder and rape. Everyone in this society (except the sociopaths) agree that murder and rape are wrong.
Read my previous point and the points before that..
A huge percentage of people in this country believe abortion is not wrong. Our laws reflect societal norms. Laws can reflect societal norms, they can’t control them.
Laws can’t control murder, but we are obviously not going to make murder legal. This is a pointless argument.
It’s not time, now, to change the laws. It’s time to change the norms. That can’t be done by forcing women to keep their children, it can only be done by changing attitudes.
Attitudes about babies in America will never change as long as babies are allowed to be killed legally.
I’m not asking you to support legal abortion.
YES YOU ARE! Stop lying to yourself and others.
I’m simply telling you that I follow the advice of Pope John XXII: “See everything, overlook a great deal, improve a little.”
YES, see, you are telling me to TOLERATE and OVERLOOK legal abortion. That is telling me to support abortion!!
Things aren’t going to get better all at once. I’m willing to tolerate legal abortion because I think there’s a lot of work that needs to be finished before legal abortion can be banned.
I think the work needs to be done AND abortion needs to be banned, Paul.
It’s not that anyone is hiding figures on illegal abortion, it’s just that the best anyone can do is guess
If it’s a guess, and you know it’s a guess, then why are you citing those facts as though they are accurate? I could make guesses too. Any idiot can do that. Does that make the numbers accurate? No.
I believe that if abortion were suddenly made illegal there would be hundreds of thousands of illegal abortions. I believe the problem would fifty times worse than the illegal drug problem.
The fact that you equate abortion with drug use is proof that you do not consider unborn babies persons.
Maybe I’m wrong about that; but that’s no reason for you to call my motives into question.
Your motives are clear as day. You want to convince others to tolerate abortion.
Paul, again, since I still don’t have your answer:
Is the government intruding on the baby’s right to bodily autonomy when it forces instruments into the womb to tear his body apart, suck his brains out, or to suck his entire body through a hose to kill him?
And bonus questions 2, 3, and 4):
2.) Are the baby’s civil liberties being protected as long as abortion is legal?
That doesn’t alter the fact that, at this point in our nation’s development, enforcing strict laws against abortion from conception onward will tear our civil liberties to shreds.
3.)Why are you worried about the woman’s civil liberties but not the baby’s civil liberties?
4.) Should the baby have civil liberties?