Inside look at a Party of Death infused with pro-lifers

party%20of%20death.jpgWhen Democrats wrested control of both houses of Congress in 2006, the pro-life situation looked dire. It was anticipated Dems would try to knock off all pro-life riders on appropriations bills and pass anti-life legislation to boot.

None of that happened. Then last week the Senate even passed a ban against Indian Health Services funding for abortion.

Also last week the House stripped language that had been inserted in the U.S. relief package for AIDS in Africa (PEPFAR) that would have streamed funding to abortion groups.

These days the Democrat Congress sometimes appears as or more pro-life than a Republican Congress.

I asked 2 insiders what is going on. Here's what they told me....

After Nancy Pelosi became Speaker, pro-life Dems had a private meeting with her to discuss personal and political ramifications for them of introducing pro-abortion legislation or deleting pro-life riders from appropriations bills. The meeting included respected senior pro-life party members, including James Oberstar, chair of the House Transportation Committee, and Collin Peterson, chair of the Agriculture Committee.

Since then Democrats have not pushed the anti-life agenda other than to increase funding for "family planning," i.e., Planned Parenthood, and to try to decrease funding for abstinence. They eventually bailed on the latter.

SILENCED.jpgDemocrat leadership is keenly aware a wrong move on the abortion issue would fracture its coalition.

How did PEPFAR language get contaminated? The chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Lantos, was very sick - he died February 11 - and it is thought staffers got away with drafting extreme language that thankfully caused an uproar and was beat back.

With the infusion of pro-life Democrats in 2006, the number is now 15-30, depending on the bill. (Embryonic stem cell bills would reveal the lowest common denominator.)

Those added to the 200 pro-life Republicans are enough to defeat anti-life proposals. Senate Democrats had enough votes to delete the Mexico City Policy, which keeps abortion groups from getting international family planning $, but House Democrats did not. So it emerged unscathed.

The 2006 election additionally weeded out many moderate Republicans. Those left are more strongly pro-life.

If Hillary or Obama wins the election, we will again be in bad shape. President Bush has also been a key player by threatening to veto riders with pro-life language removed and PEPFAR with bad language. Obviously, neither Democrat will make that threat.

And if Democrats pick up more seats in the House and Senate, they'll presumably have more pro-abortion votes and dilute out the pro-life Democrats.

So the situation, while not now dire, is precarious.


Comments:

I thought the Democratic party was the party of death, and that we were going to hell in a handbasket since Dems got the majority?

Haters, I think that means you can stop with the needless accusations now.

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 3, 2008 3:33 PM


PiP, read my last paragraph. The Democrat Party is majorily the Party of Death, particularly because its leaders are pro-death.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 3, 2008 4:16 PM


your last paragraph doesn't disclaim your whole article. Or at least, I hope not.

Wasn't the point that there are more pro-lifers (or at least moderates) in the Democratic party than previously thought. As they gain support the rest will follow. If you want to discredit your whole article, that's fine too...

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 3, 2008 4:26 PM


I wonder what those pro-aborts will do if more Democrats start leaning towards the pro-life side. What a predicament they will be in then.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 3, 2008 4:29 PM


I wonder what those pro-aborts will do if more Democrats start leaning towards the pro-life side. What a predicament they will be in then.

Most of my political beliefs identify more closely with Democratic policies than with Republican policies, so I'd keep voting Democrat. Abortion is not a deal-breaking issue for me, so I wouldn't sit an election out just because there were no pro-choice candidates, nor would I vote for someone who had other policies I disagreed with merely because he was pro-choice.

Posted by: Alexandra at March 3, 2008 4:34 PM


PiP, I wasn't picking a fight with you. The point of my piece is that Democrat pro-lifers are making inroads within their party and also helping the pro-life cause in Congress.

But no one should let down their guard. If Democrats gain more of a majority, the power of these pro-lifers will diminish. If the next president is a Democrat, that also will be problematic. President Bush has played a part in keeping pro-deathers at bay.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 3, 2008 4:51 PM


someone commenting on freerepublic noted that those who like the Roe v. Wade interpretation call it 'settled law', never to be changed.

Yet the actual written constitution is 'living and breathing' and can be reinterpreted anytime culture changes.

Hmmm.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 3, 2008 5:17 PM


It would be interesting to note how many regular voters (not supporters, contributors and workers) would still like Obama if he were not pro abortion.

Posted by: hippie at March 3, 2008 5:21 PM


I might.

Posted by: heather at March 3, 2008 5:32 PM


A Pew report found that 1 in every 100 U.S. adults is now behind bars and one in 9 black men aged 20 - 34 is incarcerated.

If Obama is elected, I hope he has a vision and program to help black men. I am not saying this derisively. It is a tragedy that so much potential is wasted. More than ten percent of black men in the prime of their lives are wasting away instead of contributing to their families and communities. Black men may be the single most vilified and exploited segment of society. Instead of their natural talents and ambitions being supported and channeled into productive pursuits, they are seduced by a vicious culture that consumes an obscene number of them.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 3, 2008 5:33 PM


Those are sad stats.

Posted by: heather at March 3, 2008 5:34 PM


Anon, why do you think this is the case?

Posted by: heather at March 3, 2008 5:41 PM


someone commenting on freerepublic noted that those who like the Roe v. Wade interpretation call it 'settled law', never to be changed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee, I guess one of thse people who like Roe v. Wade is John Roberts - the man George Bush appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:

"Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land," he told lawmakers. "There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Posted by: FetusFascist at March 3, 2008 5:55 PM


I think it is low minimum wage, drug culture, family problems.

I think if young men are taught to believe in doing what is right and defending the weak, that they grow to be more responsible and caring than if they are taught that they have the right to do whatever they want. For example boy scout programs help young men grow to be strong, disciplined and caring while having fun doing stuff boys love to do.

Posted by: hippie at March 3, 2008 5:58 PM


I'm sorry but we can't just start singing the praises of the Democrats, our pro-life Democratic friends notwithstanding.

We would never have had to have worked so hard to get consessions on PEPFAR if not for the pro-abortion Dem leadership. They would have also allowed a host of votes on pro-life bills by now if the leaders were pro-life Republicans, especially in the Senate.

This kind of apologetics makes it seem an Obama administration won't be so bad, when the truth is we will secure legal abortion for 35 years under him, Pelosi and Reid.

Posted by: Steven Ertelt at March 3, 2008 6:02 PM


While it's great to see that there are some at least somewhat pro-life Democrats in national office, the sad reality remains that the leadership of the Democratic Party is still strongly pro-abortion. The Party is run by men like Howard Dean, Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy - all of them are very pro-abortion and very hostile to pro-lifers.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at March 3, 2008 6:19 PM


With this Administration's cuts in funding for occupational safety & health, mine safety & health, medical research, environmental protection, food programs for the poor in this country and abroad, Medicaid, food safety, let alone two wars, a least one of which had no justification, the GOP can hardly be called a Party of Life.

Posted by: jaybones at March 3, 2008 6:25 PM


Steve, 6:02p, said: "I'm sorry but we can't just start singing the praises of the Democrats, our pro-life Democratic friends notwithstanding"

Steve, if you read my piece, you'll see I didn't sing any Democrat praises other than to point out Democrat pro-lifers stopped bad stuff from happening.

Steve said, "This kind of apologetics makes it seem an Obama administration won't be so bad, when the truth is we will secure legal abortion for 35 years under him, Pelosi and Reid."

Steve, did you actually read what I wrote?

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 3, 2008 6:41 PM


So ridiculous.

No one is "pro-death." Pro-choice people care about reducing the need for abortion. We're just not willing to let poor women get killed in the process. It's not about sexual morality for pro-choicers. It's about protecting and promoting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Posted by: reality at March 3, 2008 7:09 PM


Alexdra,

you can't be pro-life and vote pro-abort.

the issue of abortion is non-negoitable

Posted by: jasper at March 3, 2008 8:10 PM


Jill,

Yes, I did read your piece. I read comments such as: "Since then Democrats have not pushed the anti-life agenda other than to increase funding for "family planning," i.e., Planned Parenthood, and to try to decrease funding for abstinence. They eventually bailed on the latter..... Democrat leadership is keenly aware a wrong move on the abortion issue would fracture its coalition.....Those added to the 200 pro-life Republicans are enough to defeat anti-life proposals."

I also read your comments about Bush being a firewall, Obama or Clinton making the situation worse, etc.

I'm just echoing the sentiment of the latter and cautioning folks not to get complacent because of the former.

There are those who would stop with the first half of your piece and forget the warnings and admonitions of the second. That's what I was complaining about.

We're on the same page, Jill.

Posted by: Steven Ertelt at March 3, 2008 8:10 PM


"It's about protecting and promoting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

But not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the unborn. That's what pro-life is about.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at March 3, 2008 8:13 PM


you can't be pro-life and vote pro-abort.

I'm sorry, I don't understand how this addresses what I was saying.

Posted by: Alexandra at March 3, 2008 8:35 PM


If McCain wins we'll be in worse shape then if Clinton or Obama wins because McCain will make the Christian conservative suckers out there who put their trust in the Republican Party think things are pretty good when we are in fact in a crisis situation that McCain will probably make much worse.

Let's start preparing for 2012.

Posted by: zeke13:19 at March 3, 2008 8:50 PM


oh, maybe you're a pro-abort Alexandra...sorry, I thought you were pro-life

Posted by: jasper at March 3, 2008 9:04 PM


So ridiculous.

No one is "pro-death." Pro-choice people care about reducing the need for abortion. We're just not willing to let poor women get killed in the process. It's not about sexual morality for pro-choicers. It's about protecting and promoting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Posted by: reality at March 3, 2008 7:09 PM

Reality,
Bull@*&%.
It's about big money abortion providers and their high paid lobbyists who spin this issue so people like you will fall into their trap believing it's "all for the good of women"

Posted by: Sandy at March 3, 2008 9:07 PM



No one is "pro-death." Pro-choice people care about reducing the need for abortion. We're just not willing to let poor women get killed in the process. It's not about sexual morality for pro-choicers. It's about protecting and promoting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Posted by: reality at March 3, 2008 7:09 PM

It is really about allowing some people to kill other people so that the individual and society won't have to share so much.

The whole point of sexual morality before contraception was to protect the children that result from sexual activity.

However contraception only reduces the incidence of pregnancy. It doesn't eliminate it. Therefore the moral situation persists.

I know many women whose contraception failed and now they have more children than they planned. It didn't kill them, and they didn't kill their children. They love them.

I understand the point that without any sexual restraint and without contraception, it is possible to have abortions outnumber births as we see in Russia. So pro abortion folks make the point that contraception reduces abortions albeit not to low levels just to lower levels.

So in Russia, there are only 120 abortions for every 100 births down from 210 abortions for every 100 births. More contraception so less abortions but still an obscenely high level of abortions.

In the US, 60% of women who have abortions report using contraception. So we have something like 30 abortions for 100 births, which is lower than Russia. However it is not low.

Given the high level of access to contraception and the fact that contraception does fail at an established rate, one might argue that in the absence of personal restraint, this may be near the lowest achieveable level.

As for the 'pro death' label, Russia sure fits the bill with 120 abortions and 170 deaths for every 100 births, death outpaces life by a near 3 to 1 margin. Even with immigration, they are losing nearly a million a year. Last one out turn out the lights. Make what excuses you like.
It is a culture of death.

Posted by: hippie at March 3, 2008 9:26 PM


" Pro-choice people care about reducing the need for abortion. "

Why? What makes abortion distasteful enough to reduce the need? If there's nothing wrong with it, there should be no need to reduce the need. If there is something wrong with it, why compromise by allowing it?

Posted by: Andy at March 3, 2008 9:29 PM


Andy,

Amen!

Posted by: mk at March 3, 2008 9:48 PM


So ridiculous.

No one is "pro-death."

Posted by: reality at March 3, 2008 7:09 PM

Really? not Stalin, nor Hitler, nor Pol Pot, no one ever?

All those folks died in the Gulag, and Auschwitz and the killing fields, what, of natural causes?

Some are pro death and they all have some euphemism for their killing campaigns, not the least of which is "pro choice"

Posted by: Anonymous at March 3, 2008 9:50 PM


Some are pro death and they all have some euphemism for their killing campaigns, not the least of which is "pro choice"

Posted by: Anonymous at March 3, 2008 9:50 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah, like "Crusade" or "Reformation."

Posted by: FetusFascist at March 3, 2008 10:01 PM


Oops, I forgot "Inquisition."

Posted by: FetusFascist at March 3, 2008 10:02 PM


Likely the anomaly of the current popularity of abortion will be as lamented as the wars associated with the crusades and the wars following the reformation. However, I am not sure that those promoting reforming the church envisioned wars ensuing. They probably figured it would be worked out in some committee somewhere. Crusaders were definitely planning to wage wars, the reformers were zealots who got in over their heads and the politics blew up into wars.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 3, 2008 10:11 PM


Oops, I forgot "Inquisition."

Posted by: FetusFascist at March 3, 2008 10:02 PM

Oh and let's not leave out the Bolshevik Revolution and the Cultural Revolution in China.

When you tally those killed in just the 20th century by Hitler, Stalin, the other communists and abortion, ( between 700 million and a billion ) and compare those who died in the crusades, the inquisition and the wars following the reformation, ( in the tens of thousands ) we are talking a 10,000 to one ratio.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 3, 2008 10:22 PM


Aww I always feel so bad when we kill mice with our traps. The mouse problem our lovely university bequeathed to us resurfaced as we discovered they have reproduced. Tiny mice have begun exploration mode.

We had a fresh one today, a tiny mouse, and he was still wiggling when we found him. He had a peanut from the peanut butter in his mouth :(

Poor guy. Wild mice sort of disgust me (because they run around and you don't know where they've been)...but I feel bad throwing their corpses away. Seems so morbid and wrong.

at least I know if a mouse tries to venture into the hamster cage a battle will ensue.

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 3, 2008 11:54 PM


PIP,

We use these at work - they're cheap, they're harmless, they work better than commercial traps, and you can make decent money wagering at the mouse release:
http://www.humanemousetrap.info/

Generic FrootLoops and peanut butter Girl Scout Cookies are good bait.

Posted by: FetusFascist at March 4, 2008 12:05 AM


Thanks, FF-

I didn't want glue traps because they seemed cruel and the stories of how the mice suffer make me cringe.

But I have a question, we can't release the mice anywhere around because they will crawl right back, and there are a lot of apartments and dorms around..do you know where would be a good place to drop em off?

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 4, 2008 12:10 AM


aw I will try to construct that this weekend...seeing snapped necks and stuff is sad.

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 4, 2008 12:11 AM


FF:

What a waste of Girl Scout cookies!

Posted by: Janet at March 4, 2008 12:12 AM


But I have a question, we can't release the mice anywhere around because they will crawl right back, and there are a lot of apartments and dorms around..do you know where would be a good place to drop em off?

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 4, 2008 12:10 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We dump ours on the edge of a cemetery because there are food and water sources and few or no predators. (Yes, we are that evil...)

Posted by: FetusFascist at March 4, 2008 12:26 AM


We have another technique that works, but you have to participate:

Take a small paper grocery bag and fold the top over your looped thumb an forefinger as though you're going to blow it up.

Once you've created this "safe cave," put it in the path of the mouse.

Frighten mouse into bag.

You'd be amazed at how well this works when you've had a little practice.
Drawback?
Mice can escape from paper bags and survive for weeks on the spilled catfood in your van. (Don't ask me how I know that...)

Posted by: FetusFascist at March 4, 2008 12:35 AM


That's okay, jasper, sorry for the confusion. Yes, I am pro-choice, but I would vote for a pro-life candidate with little hesitation if I agreed with most of his other political policies and if there were no pro-choice candidate I agreed with.

Posted by: Alexandra at March 4, 2008 7:51 AM


"I didn't want glue traps because they seemed cruel and the stories of how the mice suffer make me cringe " and "seeing snapped necks and stuff is sad"
--------------------------------------

PIP,

...let me get this straight: suffering mice is not acceptable and makes you cringe BUT you're ok with supporting abortion?

You know(from LifeSite) "Abortion is merely infanticide that it is committed out of sight, and out of mind, in the darkness of the mother's womb, the one place on Earth where a baby should be safe. There, under the cruel instruments of the abortionist, infants are literally torn apart with a vacuum, poisoned with saline solution or potassium chloride, or cut to pieces with a large scalpel."

Posted by: RSD at March 4, 2008 10:19 AM


...I didn't direct the question at Laura, coz I already know what she's gonna say.

Posted by: RSD at March 4, 2008 10:21 AM


ikely the anomaly of the current popularity of abortion will be as lamented as the wars associated with the crusades and the wars following the reformation. However, I am not sure that those promoting reforming the church envisioned wars ensuing. They probably figured it would be worked out in some committee somewhere. Crusaders were definitely planning to wage wars, the reformers were zealots who got in over their heads and the politics blew up into wars.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 3, 2008 10:11 PM
.............................................

Actually, Reform leaders were Biblical scholars disgusted with the immorality of the RCC. The persecution heaped upon those that joined the Reformation movement didn't always end with them. They often passed the fear and hatred on to those that didn't see religion their way. Religion does seem to be a historical hotbed of paranoia

Posted by: Sally at March 4, 2008 11:03 AM


Obama - the only politician to vote against law protecting infants born alive from slaughter
Obama - calls himself a devout Christian.

He should write another book called "The audacity of calling yourself Christian" When he loses the election he could probably become pastor of a "Christian" church and convince his legions that he is fit to be Pastor too.

Arghhhh! This guy is NOT genuine

Posted by: truthseeker at March 4, 2008 11:10 AM


"Obama - the only politician to vote against law protecting infants born alive from slaughter
Obama - calls himself a devout Christian."

That's between him and his God.

Posted by: Hal at March 4, 2008 11:40 AM


Hal,

True...but his God has representatives here on earth..and these representatives already stated that Christians cannot support abortion and the slaughter of the innocents.

So, who is he kidding?

Posted by: RSD at March 4, 2008 12:19 PM


Some Christians are pro-life, some are pro-choice. I personally think it's a waste of time to try to figure out "God's" opinion on anything. If God existed and wanted to stop abortion, he could. Since He hasn't, I can only conclude He doesn't exist or doesn't want to stop abortion. Either view supports the pro-choice position.

Posted by: Hal at March 4, 2008 12:28 PM



"Obama - the only politician to vote against law protecting infants born alive from slaughter
Obama - calls himself a devout Christian."

That's between him and his God.

Posted by: Hal at March 4, 2008 11:40 AM

Actually it is a public policy issue since it is about a vote on a piece of legislation. Plenty of non christians are interested in how candidates have voted when they were serving in elected office.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 4, 2008 12:42 PM


Religion does seem to be a historical hotbed of paranoia

Posted by: Sally at March 4, 2008 11:03 AM

Uh, how about the communists Stalin and Mao?

I think that counts as hotbeds of paranoia and mass murder on a scale thousands of time greater than that of the casualities of the wars following the reformation.

Communist regimes are defined by paranoia and persecution of dissenters on an unprecedented scale.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 4, 2008 12:49 PM


Anonymous, the abortion laws, and infants born alive laws, can be debated. I have no problem with that. Just understand, you don't lose the right to be called a devout Christian just because you have a different view on this policy questions.

Posted by: Hal at March 4, 2008 12:52 PM


I personally think it's a waste of time to try to figure out "God's" opinion on anything.

Posted by: Hal at March 4, 2008 12:28 PM

Huh? what figuring? You can't UNDERSTAND the ten commandments?

I know what you mean if you say you don't want to follow them since you are not a religious adherent, but if you say you can't figure out the ten commandments, I don't get that.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 4, 2008 12:55 PM


I personally think it's a waste of time to try to figure out "God's" opinion on anything.

Posted by: Hal at March 4, 2008 12:28 PM

"Huh? what figuring? You can't UNDERSTAND the ten commandments?"

I can't connect them to "God's" opinion on anything. I see no reason to believe they were inspired (or drafted) by God. As we have seen, many devout Christians have different opinions on War, the Dealth Penalty, Abortion, Poverty Programs, Gay Marriage, etc. They all "believe" in the Ten Commandments I assume. Go figure.

Posted by: Hal at March 4, 2008 12:59 PM


you don't lose the right to be called a devout Christian just because you have a different view on this policy questions.

Posted by: Hal at March 4, 2008 12:52 PM

No one has a "right" to be called a devout christian. It is an opinion. Each person can decide what they think of themselves and others and no one has to recognize Obama as a sincere christian if they don't want to.

The first time I ever heard Obama speak, he was on a tv program and the topic was about how someone lied about a crime etc. Anyway, this was a couple years back and I had never heard of Obama before and didn't really understand why he was on the program. Finally the interviewer asked him what he thought of those who had lied and Obama replied that what is great about America, everyone can have their own opinion. Like lies are not opinions. After that I remembered who he was.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 4, 2008 1:03 PM


Hal,

There's no such thing as God's "opinion" ...there's only God's Holy Word and Holy Tradition.

That's why the Church has the Magisterium...the teaching authority based on thousands of years of knowledge, experience, debates and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You can doubt a person's interpretation of a teaching of the Church if it contradicts the Church's stand on the issue...no matter how "devout" they claim to be. Actions still speak louder than words.

Posted by: RSD at March 4, 2008 1:11 PM


"...let me get this straight: suffering mice is not acceptable and makes you cringe BUT you're ok with supporting abortion?"

er.....you know I'm pro-life, right?

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 4, 2008 1:14 PM


Maybe God doesn't have "opinions." But people have opinions about God. I'm not sure I'm ready to accept the Church's "opinions" as fact.

Here's my opinion again:

If God existed and wanted to stop abortion, he could. Since He hasn't, I can only conclude He doesn't exist or doesn't want to stop abortion. Either view supports the pro-choice position.

Posted by: Hal at March 4, 2008 1:16 PM


Abortion is not acceptable, but starving suffocating and panic to the point where the mouse chews off its own limbs...that's okay to you?

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 4, 2008 1:17 PM


Minor quibble:

The blog post has a picture of the cover of Ramesh's excellent book The Party of Death. However, the book never claims that the Democrats are the Party of Death. Rather, Ramesh defines the Party of Death as a loose coalition of academics, the MSM, the Courts, and (most) Democrats. Ramesh then chronicles how the Party of Death has effectively taken over the Democratic Party and then devotes a chapter to the scrappy resistance movement of the pro-life Democrats.

Personally, as a pro-lifer and a former liberal, I am puzzled how the traditional liberal concerns for the weak and defenseless have been stood on their head in the case of abortion. Pro-choice liberals are arguing for an empowered group to slaughter a disempowered group. If it were Republican land developers slaughtering spotted owls, liberals would be in quite a tizzy. However, as long as the victims are unborn children, most liberals are cheering for the killers....

Posted by: Naaman at March 4, 2008 1:23 PM


"er.....you know I'm pro-life, right?
--------------------------
PIP,

I did not know...and apologize for my mistake.
If we ever meet at a PP rally in Aurora, I would gladly treat you to the nearest McDonalds...anything you want...just not over $10 (*JK*)

Posted by: RSD at March 4, 2008 1:38 PM


Ok Hal,

You are entitled to your opinion...and you're right IF God wanted to do anything He could BUT here's the the theological reason why God allows suffering...and you can quote Fr. Corapi on this one: "To allow for a greater good" to come out.

What's the greater good to come out of abortion...I still have to discern that thing myself.

Posted by: RSD at March 4, 2008 1:43 PM


well if there's a greater good, who am I to stand it the way?

Posted by: Hal at March 4, 2008 1:47 PM


I'm thinking the greater good would be more of the greater awareness of the problem by the YOUTH and the rest of the population. In effect, for the next generation to learn from the mistakes of the prev generation.

Posted by: RSD at March 4, 2008 2:38 PM


As we have seen, many devout Christians have different opinions on War, the Dealth Penalty, Abortion, Poverty Programs, Gay Marriage, etc. They all "believe" in the Ten Commandments I assume. Go figure.

Posted by: Hal at March 4, 2008 12:59 PM

I sort of see the point. I always defined devout as strict like orthodox jews. I wouldn't really call unitarians devout christians although the may be sincere in their beliefs but are so far from the basis of christian, they really are practicing something other than what is usually understood as christian. Kind of like when some orthodox rabbis said that reform judaism wasn't really judaism at all. I mean I guess reform jews are sincere but their practice is much different.

Likewise members of some other christian groups may feel that the practice of some doesn't fit their understanding and therefore would not consider that person "devout" which is of course an opinion.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 4, 2008 2:49 PM


I'm thinking the greater good would be more of the greater awareness of the problem by the YOUTH and the rest of the population. In effect, for the next generation to learn from the mistakes of the prev generation.

Posted by: RSD at March 4, 2008 2:38 PM

They will be learning alright. Europe's social welfare system cannot be supported by the number of kids they have. They will see their culture replaced by the culture of the new arrivals. Maybe the desperately poor of Africa and Asia will be willing wage slaves in the EU finding the bottom of the European social scale a grand improvement over the bottom of the social scale in their home countries.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 4, 2008 3:06 PM


PiP asked:
Abortion is not acceptable, but starving suffocating and panic to the point where the mouse chews off its own limbs...that's okay to you?

Abortion kills human beings. Mousetraps kill mice.

People have rights. Animals don't.

Before someone goes off of the deep end and accuses me of being cruel to animals ... I'm not. I think cruelty to animals is generally something to avoid whenever possible. For example, the public outcry over Michael Vick was absolutely correct. (Although it would have been better if the save-the-puppies crowd had been willing to spare some compassion for unborn children.) Unnecessary cruelty to animals is bad.

Well hold on a cotton-pickin' minute! If animals don't have any rights, why is animal cruelty bad? Because animal cruelty hurts people. Indifference to suffering is bad, even if the suffering is that of an animal. Sensitivity to suffering is part of a properly-functioning moral compass. Without it, we're only a short step away from all sorts of badness, including both George Tiller and Josef Mengele....

Posted by: Naaman at March 4, 2008 3:30 PM


LOL RSD, you are on ;)

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 4, 2008 3:31 PM


"I think cruelty to animals is generally something to avoid whenever possible. "
ergo...you like I would use snap traps rather than glue traps, which do enforce cruelty and slow death rather than a quick and fast one.

" Indifference to suffering is bad, even if the suffering is that of an animal. Sensitivity to suffering is part of a properly-functioning moral compass."
Exactly. Which is why indifference to mice that suffer from glue traps may be a little scary to me.

What did you think that post was about? I was talking about suffering, there, when I included the description of the glue trap.

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 4, 2008 3:37 PM


A MAJORITY of Christians in the USA are pro-choice.

Posted by: SoMG at March 4, 2008 4:22 PM


No they aren't.

Posted by: heather at March 4, 2008 4:48 PM


Indifference to suffering is bad, even if the suffering is that of an animal. Sensitivity to suffering is part of a properly-functioning moral compass.

Naaman, you and I disagree on the morality of abortion, but you're right on, there.

Doug



Posted by: Doug at March 4, 2008 4:53 PM


Heather gets her information on abortion from web sites run by right-to-life terrorists (Army of God).

Posted by: SoMG at March 4, 2008 5:23 PM


Heather gets her information on abortion from web sites run by right-to-life terrorists (Army of God).

Posted by: SoMG at March 4, 2008 5:23 PM-------------- How do you know?

Posted by: heather at March 4, 2008 5:27 PM


And SOMG MAKES up his own information.

Posted by: heather at March 4, 2008 5:28 PM


Heather, if you take time to research the question instead of just writing whatever occurs to you you will find that the majority of Christians in the USA are pro-choice.

Posted by: SoMG at March 4, 2008 6:14 PM


Heather, you have admitted in the past that AOG is one of your sources of info.

Maybe you were too drunk to remember.

Posted by: SoMG at March 4, 2008 6:20 PM


"A MAJORITY of Christians in the USA are pro-choice."

no they're not SOMG, it's 43%, still quite shameful though.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/stunning-poll-results-reveal-nearly-half-christian-voters-support-prochoice_462745_1.html


Posted by: jasper at March 4, 2008 7:54 PM


That only shows the Christians who respond to GODPOLL. A non-representative sample.

Posted by: SoMG at March 4, 2008 8:13 PM


There is NO such thing as a "Christian" who would kill a baby in the mother's womb!!!!
Like I said. You can call yourself a Christian like Obama does and have abortion as o.k. in your eyes but saying your Christian does NOT make you Christian. You are Christian when you foloow Jesus example. Jesus said it would be better that you had a millstone tied around your neck and be cast to the bottom of the sea then to hurt one of his little ones. That means he would rather you tied a millstone around your neck and threw yourself into the sea then to hurt one of his children. Is there anybody out there who calls themselves Christian and would abort teir baby? I would like to dialogue with them.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 4, 2008 10:33 PM


SoMG and Hal,
You really don't have any concept of what Christianity is. Christianity is taking on burdens to relieve the burdens of others. Read the Holy Gospel? Meditate on Jesus' birth. Meditae on Jesus' life and his preaching and healing. Meditate on his suffering and death. Meditate on his resurrection. Then you will see how perverse it is for a woman to even consider killing a baby in her womb and calling herself Christian. And even those such as yourselves that have been party to abortion can repent and accept the ways of Jesus as your ways and he will save you from your own past depraved choices.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 4, 2008 10:47 PM


Hal said:
Some Christians are pro-life, some are pro-choice. I personally think it's a waste of time to try to figure out "God's" opinion on anything. If God existed and wanted to stop abortion, he could. Since He hasn't, I can only conclude He doesn't exist or doesn't want to stop abortion. Either view supports the pro-choice position.

Posted by: Hal at March 4, 2008 12:28 PM

Hal, Your gonna love this post...
God is pro-choice :) He loves us so much that he gives us free will even though he knows some will screw up (like maybe choose to kill life in the womb). God does NOT like those choices though he allows us to make them. That is why he sent his only Son down to teach us how we should live and we should treat one another. And Jesus "always" chose life. As long as we accept Jesus' as our Saviour and follow Jesus' teaching we will have "eternal" life.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 4, 2008 11:11 PM


Heather, if you take time to research the question instead of just writing whatever occurs to you you will find that the majority of Christians in the USA are pro-choice.

Posted by: SoMG at March 4, 2008 6:14 PM----------- Yes. Just like you told me that "The Lancet" was the most respected medical journal in the world. That's not what I found. Stop making things up as you go along, would ya?

Posted by: heather at March 5, 2008 1:31 AM


What's wrong with people who have the 'Army of God' site? It was their "choice" to set up the site. Somg, you're PC. Let them have their "choice." The site is just a "choice" you see. Nothing to get your undies in a bunch over:]

Posted by: heather at March 5, 2008 1:36 AM


Jesus said to them in reply, "Have faith in God.
Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. When you stand to pray, forgive anyone against whom you have a grievance, so that your heavenly Father may in turn forgive you your transgressions."

Mark 11:22-25

Posted by: truthseeker at March 5, 2008 3:16 AM