"RINO" RAMPAGE: Republican Chair of Missaukee County Commission moves to kill pro-life resolution.

In a move worthy of the worst backroom machinations in Lansing or Washington, the Republican Chair of the Missaukee County Board of Commissioners (Michigan), Susan Rogers, is working the phones feverishly to kill a proposed resolution supporting Sanctity of Life Sunday.  Sanctity of Life Sunday was established as an annual remembrance of the disastrous January 22, 1973, U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings.

MissaukeeCounty is, arguably, the most pro-life county in the State of Michigan.  The voters of MissaukeeCounty have a right to expect their elected representatives to reflect their values, especially on an issue as important as the sanctity of life.  According to sources, the Commissioners don't want to be "put on the spot" regarding such a supposedly controversial issue.  This is not the first time Susan Rogers has shown her true colors as a Republican in Name Only (RINO).  In September of 2007, Rogers voted for one of the largest property tax increases in MissaukeeCounty history.  Don't let Susan "RINO" Rogers get away with her continued betrayal of basic Republican principles and values.  Please, call the following Republican Missaukee County Commissioners, who appear to be wavering on this issue, and urge them to support the resolution regarding Sanctity of Life Sunday...  The Honorable Dean Vivian, telephone number 231/775-7067.  The Honorable Star Hughston, telephone number 231/825-8137.  The Honorable Hubert Zuiderveen, telephone number 231/328-2017.  The following is the resolution, which will be introduced at the Missaukee County Board meeting on Tuesday, January 13th...  WHEREAS, the Missaukee County Board of Commissioners remembers and laments the January 22, 1973, U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings, and  WHEREAS, we recognize that millions of unborn children have been needlessly aborted since that date, and  WHEREAS, no woman should be forced to choose between living in poverty or giving birth, between caring for their newborn or losing their job, nor should they feel pressure to abort an unborn child because they have nowhere to turn for support, and  WHEREAS, the citizens of Missaukee County have an opportunity to mourn the ongoing devaluation of human life, which is partially rooted in the unwise, previously stated, U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and  WHEREAS, the Missaukee County Board of Commissioners recognizes the enormous commitment of Wexford-Missaukee Right to Life to advocate for the preservation and protection of human life from conception to natural death, and  THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Missaukee County Board of Commissioners hereby acknowledges January 18, 2009, as Sanctity of Life Sunday in Missaukee County.

“Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one’s definition of your life, but define yourself.”

 - Harvey Firestone, American Industrialist

 

3.4
Your rating: None Average: 3.4 (5 votes)

Comments

Republicans Are Allowed to be Pro-Choice

Sorry to break the news to you.

They had better damned well be

Roughly 1/6 of Americans want to do away with abortion under any circumstances.

Good luck working that 13%. 

The others.

The other 87% are all pro choice whether they claim the lable or not. If you make ANY exceptions for rape, incest, or life and health of the mother then there are circumstances where you feel it is morally acceptable to end the viability of a perfectly healthy fetus through abortion. When you have this view and call yourself "pro-life" you are simply stating that you wish for your moral choices to be enforced upon all the rest of us at the point or a gun and with threat of imprisonment. So much for GOP support of "individual liberty."

Not so

My understandiong of the pro-life position is abortion on demand with someone else footing the bill.

Something I'm definitely opposed to.

The Left is all about regulation; suddenly they're all about anarchy.

There's no center ground to their morals. 

THiS IS A MUST WATCH

This Sat night at 8:00 pm EST on EWTN.CUTTING THROUGH THE SPIN ON STEM CELLS AND CLONINGLeading Catholic Bioethicist Fr.Tad Pacholcyzk debunks the numerous modern myths surrounding current stem cell research and cloning issues.I have seen this before and highly recommend it for a very clear and lay person explanation of stem cells and cloning.You will understand far better after you watch this.A must watch!Again,that's EWTN.You willl have to check your own area for the cable station this appears on.Sorry.Here it's channel 60;imagine it's different for various areas.IF YOU DON'T HAVE CABLE there is a live feed at the EWTN site:

www.ewtn.com

 

Conservative principles must be defended!

Yes, Republicans are allowed to be pro-abortion, and pro-tax and spend, and anything else that isn't true to the conservative principles of our party.  They are called RINO's - Republicans In Name Only - And their constituents have a right to know who they are and what they REALLY stand for.  Anyone can slap the Republican label on themselves, but it doesn't necessarily make it so.

it's not liberty

i wouldn't call taking the life of a human a liberty.

And...

...neither is the cover-up of a crime a right. 

then you're against capital punishment?

*snerk* Catholics are at least consistent.

The Irony of Intellectual Superiority

Why do pro-choice people try to project the impression intellectual superiority?  What is so intellectual about killing an innocent unborn baby?  Pro-choice activists portray pro-life people as zealous religious nuts. I find solace in the fact that abolitionists and people who opposed Nazi SS were equally “fanatic”. The Nazi’s thought of themselves as enlightened, and felt the “liberty” to performing experiments on the Jews. One of the first actions of the slave masters and Nazi’s was to construct a societal belief that blacks and Jews were sub-human. Today, we call babies “fetuses” and murder “choice”, but we are not allowed to question the intellectual prowess its practitioners because they are perceived as more scholarly than we masses. Many pro-choice activist would be appalled by a suggestion that society should be allowed the “liberty” to kill babies after they have been born, but find it perfectly acceptable to kill the baby when is inches from birth; the level of ignorance of that irony is astounding, especially when combined with a sense of moral and intellectual superiority. I know that my diatribe will do nothing to convince many, so let me simply get something off my back: pro-choice activist are the most ignorant self-serving people in the world. Many simply want to be able to sleep with anyone they want and not have to live with any consequences. They are supportive of abortion, but are sure thankful that they were not aborted. They hide behind insufficient arguments such as “choice” and “liberty”, since when has civilization had the right to kill others. In fact it is not a rhetorical question, the answer is: slavery, The Holocaust, totalitarian regimes, and many other instances in history during which one group sought self aggrandizement through the destruction of others. Shut the h*** up and stop acting like you enlightened. Your motives are base and animalistic, founded on sex, selfishness, and an apathy towards those whose lives do not directly affect your pathetic existence of self-delusions of importance and superiority.

language and abortion

Yes, the subtle alteration of the language to disguise the moral crime that is abortion is sickening to say the least when you consider the exact same thing has been done throughout time by demagogues and dictators seeking to get rid of "the others" whether they be Jews, Protestants, Armenians, Kurds, you name it.  For fun, next time you have an abortion discussion with a friend, just ask him/her if they agree or disagree with the statement "abortion kills a living human being".  The honest ones will agree and claim it's worth it anyway.  The dishonest/misled ones will stammer and stutter to try to claim that a fetus really isn't "human", that it's not really "alive", etc.

What about IVF clinincs

If abortion kils a living human being, then IVF clinics imprision living human beings in cryo-coolers.

 

see?

See?  Nando changes the subject.

Yes or no: Does abortion kill a living human being?

No, it doesn't.

No, it doesn't. Now, what about IVF clinics?

I see.

So an unborn child, right after conception, is what?  Not alive?  Or not a human being?

It is exactly that.

It is exactly that.  It is an unborn child. Not a human being.

So: for the thrid time: what about the IVF clinics?

 

 

unborn child != human being?

So what species does that unborn child belong to?  And would a born child be a human being?  And what is it about the process of birth changes the species of that child?

It is an unborn child

It is a fetal homo sapien, obviously.

For the fourth time: what about IVF Clinics?

fetal homo sapien != human being?

So a fetal homo sapiens is not a human being?  What is your definition of a human being?

Someone who has been born.

Someone who has been born.

For the fifth time: what about IVF clinics?

moment of birth

So then you must favor abortion on demand up until the moment of birth, right? 

Why do I have to answer all your questions?

Dear chemjeff, why do I have to answer all your questions when you continue to ignore mine?

I support the woman's right to choose up to the point where the fetus would be viable outside the womb. I don't know where that line is, I'll leave that up to the medical professionals.

Now then, if you would be so kind, please tell me about your absolute opposition to IVF, about the time you have spend picketing IVF clinics, about the letters and blog posts you have written demanding that IVF be abolished.

it cannot live without sustenance from it's mother

hence it is not alive, using the definition of any frosh bio textbook.

A born child becomes a human being when it fits sufficient numbers of tests that exclude other animals (tool usage, thumbs, morality, empathy -- there's a whole list in my medical ethics textbook).

An unborn child is a potential human being. The telic result will be a human being.

IVF AND "Hence it is not alive"

Re IVF

i'm Catholic so this reply is based on those teachings.

The Church teaches that IVF is “morally unacceptable” (Catechism 2377)

There IS a morally acceptable alternative to IVF.There's your answer.Now if you want to discuss this in detail let me know.

As for your comment "hence it is not alive."

There is no universal definition. There is a concensus that certain criteria must be met and not ALLl of those have to be met.There are PROPOSED definitions.

 

 

 

So then, why arent you out there trying to shut down IVF clinics

So, your position is that life begins at conception and harm to 24-hour embryo is a great moral evil which we would ban in this country if that darn Roe v. Wade decision wasn't in our way.

So, until the day comes that you can overturn Roe v. Wade, why aren't you out there trying to get IVF clinics closed down? After all, they are committing harm to embryos, and there is no Supreme Court decision standing in your way.

 

 

sure. tell me about the catholic alternative!

(but be brief. I'm intellectually curious, not I'm-going-to-do-this curious).

I agree that the definition is a little bit liquid, and I'll go for "the kid must meet X number of criteria" -- and also for a more Kantian "if you must do it, do it soon"

INFO;   (but you want may

INFO;

 

(but you want may want to do more research than this)

NaPro TechnologyThe Word ‘Hope for Infertile Couples’, Sept 2005: http://www.theword.ie/cms/publish/article_280.shtml....sorry,i ran those together. They are 2 seperate articles.http://forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?f=104&t=52706&sid=72c8bd374c6478...

 

 

So then

Consider the other end of life.

If this is true in the one case, it will be found true in the other.

Are people on life support systems laid up in a hospital somewhere "alive?" 

I'm not going to draw a bright line in the sand

I'll admit things are grayer than many would like (I like all the pretty dun colors, but that's just me).

They are not-dead. In previous centuries, degeneration of higher mental faculties caused by diseases would have gotten someone labled 'undead'. But I like to think that we've moved beyond that.

I think I'd liken people on life support systems to parasites -- most of whom can live for a good deal of their life without active aid from another living being. Therefore, even though they are getting sustenance from a host, they are still alive. This differs from mitochondria and lichen (lichen itself is alive, but you should not count it as being two living beings, as their symbiotic relationship is crucial to their ecological success).

If this sounds like I'm doing verbal backflips, well, I've given this a pinch of thought.

The other argument for a fetus not being alive is that it actively mooches off it's parental immune system, something that parasites do NOT do, but viruses and prions DO.

Fetus is something that is "becoming alive".

I do not accord a person on life support the same rights that I would accord another human being. I have no inherent obligation to pay for that life support, for instance (I'd count it a different story, personally, if the odds of recovery were high enough -- without having to rape the patient, that is. my Kantian streak goes off at that method of waking someone from a coma.)

I think that gov't ought not to legislate morality too heavily... Particularly in cases where there is substantial division. Here, the maximal freedom route is to allow abortions, and to provide help to those women who choose to bear babies. Incentivize, don't punish.

i honestly can't believe we're even having this discussion

"It is exactly that.  It is an unborn child. Not a human being."

by your criteria NONE of us should be permitted to live. i get it.

 

How did you get from A to B

I don't understand how you got from A to B just now. Please expound.

I do not accord an unborn child the same rights

that I accord a human being. With good reason. With rights come duties, and until an animal is equipped with enough mental machinery to act on the duties, they deserve a lesser status. Right To Life is something I accord to functioning members of society who do their part. Below this, I put children who are a current drain on society for the purpose of future gain. This is not to say that I do not value their lives highly, I just do not beleive that there should be NO time, ever, that we could allow a child to die (or kill it). For instance, I believe that acephalous children should be killed and their body parts distributed to other babies so that we can have the most living children at the end of the game. This is obviously not something I would support, not even for the most retarded of adults.

(by the way, children can begin contributing to society at age three, so you might understand that I'm taking a more mercenary view this time -- and you also might bear in mind that historically most children died before they were five).

well, i can only speak to myself.

but I live a moral life, even one that most people would consider straightlaced. I've never been voluntarily drunk, and certainly never since being a toddler.

You are certainly able to contest the scholarly arguments made in favor of abortion. BUT YOU DO NOT CHOOSE TO. Read a book on medical ethics sometime, or take a course.

I will continue to say that I have no obligation to care for a not-yet-human fetus, and you can continue to not have the obligation to give up a lung to save someone else. It is really easy.

Because once you start to say that non-people have rights, you get dogs fucking humans as an ethical mandate -- simply because the dogs think it is fun. Let's not go down that route, eh?

I do not pretend in this post moral superiority, and I will probably get called on stupid rhetorical tricks three and four (parade of horrors, and slippery slope, respectively).

As for me, I prefer the more sophisticated argument: when you will contract to care for the baby, then you may have the baby. I will voluntarily give you fertilized eggs, and you can implant them in yourself.

Yes, in the case of medical danger to the mother -- virtually the ONLY reason someone gets an abortion that late in pregnancy, I believe it is an ethical decision OF THE MOTHER AND NOT THE STATE. Medical decisions should occur in a doctor's office, and not be mandated by something outside of there (be it gov't or an insurance company).

$2 to save a life. $10 to save a malnourished child. HOW much do you donate, so that the child won't be dead by the age of ten?

I support infanticide, in the case that the child will be dead before they are ten, blind before they are five, and I do so with the hope that the pooled money might be enough to save some of these children.  Because I believe in saving human lives, and in the human decency that says "don't bring to being a life that you cannot care for."

Sadly, many of the so called pro-life activists do not believe in such. Instead, they choose to rape and molest their parishioners, and then forcibly marry them off at an early age. I consider such behavior to be immoral -- particularly when they are men of the cloth.

Neh, maybe you'll get the point of the last paragraph, maybe you won't.

"Sadly, many of the so called

"Sadly, many of the so called pro-life activists do not believe in such. Instead, they choose to rape and molest their parishioners, and then forcibly marry them off at an early age. I consider such behavior to be immoral -- particularly when they are men of the cloth."you're saying that pro life activists were involved in the Church scandal?Where did you get this info? Do you know how many times i've come across this argument to justify one moral evil with the other intrinsically evil act of abortion? I also can't get over the audacity or the immoral swamp of our culture pointing a finger at these priests in the Catholic Church. It's all the same swamp.

I hope you can bear with me-i have a disorder called menneire's/vertigo and as much as i want to reply to the rest of your comment going to save it for another day.But trust me..want to take that up with you.

Meantime read this-then i'll get back to you! By then i should be able to reply. Hope you don't mind.This is a bit long but by the time i get back you'll probably have already read it.

Mother Therese's speech at the National Prayer Breakfast back during the Clinton Admin(they were there btw)re abortion:

On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand,

"Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them,

"Whatever you neglected to do unto one of the least of these, you neglected to do unto me!"

As we have gathered here to pray together, I think it will be beautiful if we begin with a prayer that expressed very well what Jesus wants us to do for the least. St. Francis of Assisi understood very well these words of Jesus and His life is very well expressed by a prayer. And this prayer, which we say every day after Holy Communion, always surprises me very much, because it is very fitting for each one of us. And I always wonder whether 800 years ago when St. Francis lived, they had the same difficulties that we have today. I think that some of you already have this prayer of peace - so we will pray it together.

 

Prayer of St. Francis

Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace. where there is hatred let me sow love, where there is injury let me sow pardon, where there is doubt let me sow faith, where there is despair let me give hope, where there is darkness let me give light, Where there is sadness let me give joy. O Divine Master, grant that I may not try to be comforted but to comfort, not try to be understood but to understand, not try to be loved but to love. Because it is in giving that we receive, it is in forgiving that we are forgiven, and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

Let us thank God for the opportunity He has given us today to have come here to pray together. We have come here especially to pray for peace, joy and love. We are reminded that Jesus came to bring the good news to the poor. He had told us what that good news is when He said: "My peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you." He came not to give the peace of the world which is only that we don't bother each other. He came to give the peace of heart which comes from loving - from doing good to others.

And God loved the world so much that He gave His Son - it was a giving. God gave His Son to the Virgin Mary, and what did she do with Him? As soon as Jesus came into Mary's life, immediately she went in haste to give that good news. And as she came into the house of her cousin, Elizabeth, Scripture tells us that the unborn child - the child in the womb of Elizabeth - leapt with joy. While still in the womb of Mary, Jesus brought peace to John the Baptist who leapt for joy in the womb of Elizabeth.

And as if that were not enough, as if it were not enough that God the Son should become one of us and bring peace and joy while still in the womb of Mary, Jesus also died on the Cross to show that greater love. He died for you and for me, and for that leper and for that man dying of hunger and that naked person lying in the street, not only of Calcutta, but of Africa, and everywhere. Our Sisters serve these poor people in 105 countries throughout the world. Jesus insisted that we love one another as He loves each one of us.

Jesus gave His life to love us and He tells us that we also have to give whatever it takes to do good to one another. And in the Gospel Jesus says very clearly: "Love as I have loved you." Jesus died on the Cross because that is what it took for Him to do good to us - to save us from our selfishness in sin. He gave up everything to do the Father's will to show us that we too must be willing to give up everything to do God's will - to love one another as He loves each of us. If we are not willing to give whatever it takes to do good to one another, sin is still in us. That is why we too must give to each other until it hurts.

It is not enough for us to say: "I love God," but I also have to love my neighbor. St. John says that you are a liar if you say you love God and you don't love your neighbor.

How can you love God whom you do not see, if you do not love your neighbor whom you see, whom you touch, with whom you live?

And so it is very important for us to realize that love, to be true, has to hurt. I must be willing to give whatever it takes not to harm other people and, in fact, to do good to them. This requires that I be willing to give until it hurts. Otherwise, there is no true love in me and I bring injustice, not peace, to those around me.

It hurt Jesus to love us. We have been created in His image for greater things, to love and to be loved. We must "put on Christ" as Scripture tells us. And so, we have been created to love and to be loved, and God has become man to make it possible for us to love as He loved us. Jesus makes Himself the hungry one, the naked one, the homeless one, the unwanted one, and He says, "You did it to Me." On the last day He will say to those on His right, "Whatever you did to the least of these, you did to Me," and He will also say to those on His left, "Whatever you neglected to do for the least of these you neglected to do it for Me."

When He was dying on the Cross, Jesus said, "I thirst." Jesus is thirsting for our love, and this is the thirst of everyone, poor and rich alike. We all thirst for the love of others, that they go out of their way to avoid harming us and to do good to us. This is the meaning of true love, to give until it hurts.

I can never forget the experience I had in visiting a home where they kept all these old parents of sons and daughters who had just put them into an institution and forgotten them - maybe. I saw that in that home these old people had everything - good food, comfort- able place, television, everything, but everyone was looking toward the door. And I did not see a single one with a smile on the face. I turned to Sister and I asked: "Why do these people who have every comfort here, why are they all looking toward the door? Why are they not smiling?"

I am so used to seeing the smiles on our people, even the dying ones smile.

And Sister said: "This is the way it is nearly every day. They are expecting, they are hoping that a son or daughter will come to visit them. They are hurt because they are forgotten." And see, this neglect to love brings spiritual poverty. Maybe in our own family we have somebody who is feeling lonely, who is feeling sick, who is feeling worried. Are we there? Are we there to be with them, or do we merely put them in the care of others? Are we willing to give until it hurts in order to be with our families, or do we put our own interests first? These are the questions we must ask ourselves, especially as we begin this year of the family. We must remember that love begins at home and we must also remember that "the future of humanity passes through the family."

I was surprised in the West to see so many young boys and girls given to drugs. And I tried to find out why. Why is it like that, when those in the West have so many more things than those in the East? And the answer was: "Because there is no one in the family to receive them." Our children depend on us for everything - their health, their nutrition, their security, their coming to know and love God. For all of this, they look to us with trust, hope and expectation. But often father and mother are so busy they have no time for their children, or perhaps they are not even married or have given up on their marriage. So the children go to the streets and get involved in drugs or other things. We are talking of love of the child which is where love and peace must begin. These are the things that break peace.

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself.

And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.

By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.

And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today - abortion which brings people to such blindness.

And for this I appeal in India and I appeal everywhere - "Let us bring the child back." The child is God's gift to the family. Each child is created in the special image and likeness of God for greater things - to love and to be loved. In this year of the family we must bring the child back to the center of our care and concern. This is the only way that our world can survive because our children are the only hope for the future. As older people are called to God, only their children can take their places.

But what does God say to us? He says: "Even if a mother could forget her child, I will not forget you. I have carved you in the palm of my hand." We are carved in the palm of His hand; that unborn child has been carved in the hand of God from conception and is called by God to love and to be loved, not only now in this life, but forever. God can never forget us.

I will tell you something beautiful. We are fighting abortion by adoption - by care of the mother and adoption for her baby. We have saved thousands of lives. We have sent word to the clinics, to the hospitals and police stations: "Please don't destroy the child; we will take the child." So we always have someone tell the mothers in trouble: "Come, we will take care of you, we will get a home for your child." And we have a tremendous demand from couples who cannot have a child - but I never give a child to a couple who have done something not to have a child. Jesus said. "Anyone who receives a child in my name, receives me." By adopting a child, these couples receive Jesus but, by aborting a child, a couple refuses to receive Jesus.

Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child.

From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3000 children from abortion. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents and have grown up so full of love and joy.

I know that couples have to plan their family and for that there is natural family planning.

The way to plan the family is natural family planning, not contraception.

In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so it destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily.

I also know that there are great problems in the world - that many spouses do not love each other enough to practice natural family planning. We cannot solve all the problems in the world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of all, and that is to destroy love. And this is what happens when we tell people to practice contraception and abortion.

The poor are very great people. They can teach us so many beautiful things. Once one of them came to thank us for teaching her natural family planning and said: "You people who have practiced chastity, you are the best people to teach us natural family planning because it is nothing more than self-control out of love for each other." And what this poor person said is very true. These poor people maybe have nothing to eat, maybe they have not a home to live in, but they can still be great people when they are spiritually rich.

When I pick up a person from the street, hungry, I give him a plate of rice, a piece of bread. But a person who is shut out, who feels unwanted, unloved, terrified, the person who has been thrown out of society - that spiritual poverty is much harder to overcome. And abortion, which often follows from contraception, brings a people to be spiritually poor, and that is the worst poverty and the most difficult to overcome.

Those who are materially poor can be very wonderful people. One evening we went out and we picked up four people from the street. And one of them was in a most terrible condition. I told the Sisters: "You take care of the other three; I will take care of the one who looks worse." So I did for her all that my love can do. I put her in bed, and there was such a beautiful smile on her face.

She took hold of my hand, as she said one word only: "thank you" - and she died.

I could not help but examine my conscience before her. And I asked: "What would I say if I were in her place?" And my answer was very simple. I would have tried to draw a little attention to myself. I would have said: "I am hungry, I am dying, I am cold, I am in pain," or something. But she gave me much more - she gave me her grateful love. And she died with a smile on her face. Then there was the man we picked up from the drain, half eaten by worms and, after we had brought him to the home, he only said:

"I have lived like an animal in the street, but I am going to die as an angel, loved and cared for."

Then, after we had removed the worms from his body, all he said, with a big smile, was: "Sister, I am going home to God" -and he died. It was so wonderful to see the greatness of that man who could speak like that without blaming anybody, without comparing anything. Like an angel - this greatness of people who are spiritually rich even when they are materially poor. We are not social workers. We may be doing social work in the eyes of some people, but we must be contemplatives in the heart of the world. For we are touching the body of Christ and we are always in his presence.

You too must bring that presence of God into your family, for the family that prays together, stays together.

There is so much hatred, so much misery, and we with our prayer, with our sacrifice, are beginning at home. Love begins at home, and it is not how much we do, but how much love we put into what we do.

If we are contemplatives in the heart of the world with all its problems, these problems can never discourage us. We must always remember what God tells us in Scripture: "Even if a mother could forget the child in her womb - something impossible, but even if she could forget - I will never forget you."

And so here I am talking with you. I want you to find the poor here, right in your own home first. And begin love there. Be that good news to your own people first. And find out about your next door neighbors. Do you know who they are?

I had the most extraordinary experience of love of neighbor with a Hindu family. A gentleman came to our house and said: "Mother Teresa, there is a family who have not eaten for so long. Do something." So I took some rice and went there immediately. And I saw the children - their eyes shining with hunger. I don't know if you have ever seen hunger. But I have seen it very often. And the mother of the family took the rice I gave her and went out. When she came back, I asked her: "Where did you go? What did you do?" And she gave me a very simple answer: "They are hungry also." What struck me was that she knew - and who are they? A Muslim family - and she knew. I didn't bring any more rice that evening because I wanted them, Hindus and Muslims, to enjoy the joy of sharing.

But there were those children, radiating joy, sharing the joy and peace with their mother because she had the love to give until it hurts. And you see this is where love begins - at home in the family.

So, as the example of this family shows, God will never forget us and there is something you and I can always do. We can keep the joy of loving Jesus in our hearts, and share that joy with all we come in contact with.

Let us make that one point - that no child will be unwanted, unloved, uncared for, or killed and thrown away. And give until it hurts - with a smile.

Because I talk so much of giving with a smile, once a professor from the United States asked me: "Are you married?" And I said: "Yes, and I find it sometimes very difficult to smile at my spouse, Jesus, because He can be very demanding - sometimes." This is really something true.

And there is where love comes in - when it is demanding, and yet we can give it with joy.

One of the most demanding things for me is traveling everywhere - and with publicity. I have said to Jesus that if I don't go to heaven for anything else, I will be going to heaven for all the traveling with all the publicity, because it has purified me and sacrificed me and made me really ready to go to heaven.

If we remember that God loves us, and that we can love others as He loves us, then America can become a sign of peace for the world.

From here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak - the unborn child - must go out to the world. If you become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for. God bless you!

 

 

um. maybe I used the wrong term.

I didn't specifically mean to call out the Catholic Church. I meant to call out right wing religion (and fundamentalism) of all stripes and creeds. Their parishes and shuls and temples tend to be staffed with cuckolds, and their leadership tends to be rapists, people who consider their flock to be something to prey upon, not protect. It's a known fact that persons of authority in right wing churches tend to impregnate more of their young women than in left wing religions. I believe the logic is twofold:

1. if you are taught not to question, and instead to revere the church leader, then if the church leader decides to do something that is utterly immoral, women tend to feel shame, feel as if they were somehow the culprit.

2. women are often taught that they are lesser beings, unworthy of leadership positions in the church. If it becomes "my word against his" who will be believed?

I have watched documentaries on how women are treated in right wing religions, as well as experienced it from the perspective of a relative and a friend.

[by the way, as much as I believe in that last paragraph and have research to back it up, I was using it as an example of "why it's a bad idea to say that the other side is the bad guy." I firmly believe that it is counterproductive to a good discussion].

If you asked me to bring up an example of rape by a person of authority in a church, I'd bring up Palin's daughter (even without the research, she fits the profile of someone likely to be raped. didn't experiment with sex, trained to think sex is bad, intelligent and knowledgeable enough about sex to understand what a rapist is doing). I'd hardly think that she was purposefully dooming her mother's career for a moment of fun.

Continuing, rape is a natural thing. In nature, rape is the norm. Our human biology has designed it so that women are susceptible to rape, particularly before they've really experienced their hormones (read, been pregnant). And yet, sadly, the woman is the one who is supposed to show more self control -- because she GENERALLY can, except for the short period where she is fertile. ain't biology disgusting, sometimes?

Mother Teresa has the cred to talk the talk, I'll give her that much. I do not believe that we should take the decision out of a mother's own hands -- in no small part because that invalidates her choice to become a parent. Someone forced to do something will not do it in as good a grace, or with as much care, as someone who seeks it for themselves.  But I firmly believe in the actions of private citizens, and I would encourage anyone who believes as she does, to work towards finding homes and care for all pregnant women and all children. I believe that such actions are likely to save more lives.

Oh, and I only respond on weekdays, but I'm delighted to continue this conversation whenever you find it possible -- and convenient!

ok.back.

"I didn't specifically mean to call out the Catholic Church. I meant to call out right wing religion (and fundamentalism) of all stripes and creeds. Their parishes and shuls and temples tend to be staffed with cuckolds, and their leadership tends to be rapists, people who consider their flock to be something to prey upon, not protect. It's a known fact that persons of authority in right wing churches tend to impregnate more of their young women than in left wing religions. I believe the logic is twofold:

1. if you are taught not to question, and instead to revere the church leader, then if the church leader decides to do something that is utterly immoral, women tend to feel shame, feel as if they were somehow the culprit.

2. women are often taught that they are lesser beings, unworthy of leadership positions in the church. If it becomes "my word against his" who will be believed?

I have watched documentaries on how women are treated in right wing religions, as well as experienced it from the perspective of a relative and a friend."

isn't this painting the picture with a broad stroke and how does this relate to abortion?

For now let's set that aside and consider how our culture treats women.

I think that has far more impact than a few fringe ppl.

Let's also look at statistics.Hate em but sometimes you have to.

Less than 1% of all abortions are done for incest and rape.

That said,why do we give the death penalty to the innocent?

I was calling out these men in the Catholic Church-we did have a scandal.

It can't be ignored but i questioned the audacity of the immoral swamp of our culture pointing a finger.

They seem to tolerate all kinds of other immoral behavior very well. Even encourage it.

So i didn't figure they had much room to talk or take the higher moral ground.

For the sake of discussion though we have to seperate the actions of a few from the teachings.Sin has been part of the human picture from the beginning.

Evil exists.Rape is NOT a 'natural' thing.Maybe in the animal word but there are vast differences between us an animals.i know the similiarities.No need to point them out.It's the differences that matter here.

"to work towards finding homes and care for all pregnant women and all children. I believe that such actions are likely to save more lives." We've killed 4 million unborn to date.Probably 4.000 per day.I hate to count the number that have been killed as i write this.

We agree up till you say that such actions are likely to save more lives. Nope.Ending abortion will save more lives-but that doesn't preclude compassion towards those who need help and care.

Most women have an abortion not because it's a choice-who in their right mind would want to kill their unborn baby?

Most have an abortion for the exact opposite reason;because they feel they have no choice.  Our culture is no help.They feel a loss,grieve and suffer and the culture ignores them.We're progressive and sophisticated? I don't think so.

 

 

 

Okay. sorry, I think sometimes I talk too much.

The thing is, if someone's reproductive strategy is to rape young women and then get them married off, then it is in that person's best interest to get abortion banned. It is a clear conflict of interest, and is in fact a very immoral reason to want to get abortion banned.

And oh, my goodness! yes, that was indeed painting with a broad stroke, and I did not by ANY means mean to suggest that all right wing priests are like this!

If 80% of teenage pregnancies are 'unplanned,' I think it is not much of a stretch to say that more than 1% of them are rapes. I count a rape when the woman does not want to copulate, before, during and after the act. I believe that many women believe that they must be able to protest in order to call it a rape(and to actually say something). It is worse for the large population of women who actually orgasm during a rape. In most of these instances, the woman is shamed. When you are raped by a family member, or someone else in authority over you, you are less likely to say "I was raped". It's actually worse if you are raped by someone who is younger than yourself (picture an 18 year old getting raped by her 12 year old brother). Women enjoy a double standard -- they are supposed to stop sex from occurring, so even when they are unable, they are still blamed, while the boy gets away scot free.

But let's take you at your word. If 33%of these abortions come from people who "think they can't afford a baby, or that it will interfere with their education" -- couldn't you save those children by providing programs where women are not penalized for bearing children?

(By the way, at least 6% are because the woman is concerned about either her baby or her own health)

Do you really think that banning abortion will end abortion? My mother remembers the coat hanger abortions, and SkepticalBrotha lost a family member to a chemically induced abortion (most abortifacients are poisons). Would you really do what we do with Marijuana, which is prosecute anyone who grows Tansy?

If I could not give a child the best that I could offer, I would certainly think twice before having the baby. It might be different if every born child got a good family, but most orphans don't.

 

with all due respect, I reject one of your foundational

assumptions. I do not believe that sin has been with us from the very beginning. You see, I am not Christian, and though we use some of the same source material, I do not believe in Original sin, as it is not one of the tenets of my religion.

I find things like this inteeresting, which is why I bring it up, not to say that "you're wrong", which would be asinine, as we clearly both believe.

Why I became A Rep in the first place

I was a Democrat for years. Registered and voted in the Dem party.Voted for Dem candidates most of the time.

The reason i became a Rep is not because i left the Dem party.It left me.


What attracted me to the Rep party was their platform of principles and the first George HW Bush and again his son,George W. Bush.


I voted for George HW once and he lost to Clinton;voted for George W twice and would do it again.NO apologies.

Now there are some politicans in the Rep party who are pro abortion.Right off the bat i can name 3 without having to think twice;Rudy Guilliani,Tom Ridge, Arlen Specter. Sure there are some Republicans who are pro abortion.If some of the leadership is;no doubt there are going to be some in the rank and file too.( Let's be realistic. )This doesn't mean that the platform has to be changed so the party can spread out a bigger tent.

If the Republican party is going to do that what do you think ppl like myself will do?

If the Republican party isn't going to be any different than the Democratic party may as well rejoin the Dem party.

Certainly we make up our own minds whether  to be pro life or pro abortion. The Rep party cannot FORCE ppl into accepting a position on ANY issue;i don't expect anyone to be in 100% agreement on anything but there have to be non negotiables. What attracts a person to one party or the other;one candidate or the other is they  know this is a party/person  willing to stand up for what it(he/she)beleives in.Bottom line.

Liberty? Liberty is not being able to do whatever i want.Freedom is being able to do the[moral]good or ought. We are NEVER free to commit a morally evil act.That's not freedom,that's license. We never tolerate evil;that's not tolerance.That''s permissiveness.

We seem to be mistaking freedom for licenstiousness.

We can certainly leave room for civil discourse on these issues but you change the platform and i guarantee that will be demise of the Republican party.

I know i'd go out the door.

 

 

 

 

I really like that

Liberty is not being able to do whatever i want.Freedom is being able to do the[moral]good or ought. We are NEVER free to commit a morally evil act.That's not freedom,that's license. We never tolerate evil;that's not tolerance.That''s permissiveness.

 

+1 

Usury.

is legal in this day and age.

or haven't you heard of credit cards?????

I may support Free Loan Societies, and other morally good things, but just because something is morally wrong doesn't make it something that needs to be illegal.

You mean like...

...cutting a big, loud fart in a church?

I would like people to go to prison for this.... 

rofl.

I think that's just impolite. ;-) but each to his own.

morally wrong/illegal

in case you didn't notice most of our laws(what is illegal)IS based on moral law.

 

Here's something to chew on though:

Law can tell us it's lllegal to murder,assult,steal or kidnap.

Moral law  also tells us we ought not  hate, hurt or covet.Now if it comes down to just what is illegal in this country-rather than what is moral-then all we become is a nation of enforcement and co-erction.All you can do is control illegal behavior by force.

In the end those who enforce,make and legislate will come down to what can one do without getting caught.Sleep on this.

 

 

 

 

Saul Anuzis

What does he have to say on this?

I'll try again.

Does abortion kill a living human being? In the third trimester the answer is almost always yes. As that fetus could most likely live independently outside the mother if delivered by C-section. Before that point, I would have to say definately not in the first trimester and questionable and unanswerable except in a case by case basis in the second trimester. That is why Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood recognizes differences in what restrictions can be placed on abortion based on a trimester schedule.

So if you and I have a 13 year old daughter who has been raped by a close relative and through shame and/or  ignorance has kept her pregnancy secret until the fourth month.  Me being pro-choice and you being a "pro-lifer" who makes exceptions for rape and incest differ how? We both recognize that, tragically a living human being will die so that another heinous tragedy can be ammeliorated.

If you are one of the 13% (or probably less) who makes no exceptions at all. Proudly call yourself a pro-lifer, and promote your intellectually and morally consistent view to your hearts content. As they say, I don't agree, but will defend to the death your right to speak freely.

If you are one who allows exceptions, call yourself pro-choice, or just admit that your position has nothing at all to do with the taking of a human life, but instead making sure that everyone else's liscenteous sexual behavior have the consequences you have deemed appropriate.

I see.

So an unborn child, right after the moment of conception, is what?  Not alive?  Or not a human being?

And since when did the definition of life follow a trimester schedule?

Definitions

The trimester schedule set up in Roe v. Wade does not "define" life. It simply provides a framework that is consistent with how scientist attempt to define life. It's been a long time since biology class. But I remember that scientists ask questions to see if the thing in question behaves like other known living things.

Does it reproduce and evolve through natural selection in subsequent generations? Does it take in and use nutrients, gases, and energy from it's environment? Does it react to consistent stimuli in a consistent fashion? Does it increase in mass and area over time? etc. etc.

So an embryo meets most of these criterion and is therefore a living thing. The question of whether it is a human being is not so easily defined. My take is that a human being must have been born and capable of living outside it's mother.  That is probably why we usually have funerals for babies who die within minutes or hours of being born, but do not usually have funerals for miscarriages or stillbirths.

If you are a "Life begins at conception" kind of guy you have a few sticky wickets to deal with. Because implantation of the pre-embryo into the uterine lining is just as critical a factor as conception. Most fertilized eggs never implant and are flushed out with urine or blood. So nature (or God) is the world's most efficient abortionist of fertilized eggs.

Also, IUD's do not prevent fertilization at all. They prevent implantation. So why aren't pro-lifers picketing and protesting IUD manufacturers? Their product dooms to a quick death a post-conception fertilized embryo. Far more than all the abortion doctors on the planet combined.

And I notice that no one still wants to take on my question. But they respond with other questions. Which I am all too happy to attempt to address. I'm familiar with the technique from Hannity and Limbaugh. When asked a question you don't have a good answer for, respond with a different question that redirects the discussion to a tangentially related area.

I am not one wio believes

I am not one who believes that 24-hour old clump of cells is a person.

For those of you who do: why aren't you out picketing IVF clinics and legislating for their closure? Afterall, there is no equivalent to Roe v. Wade to frustrate your efforts.

I cannot understand your logic: women that accidentally become pregnant are demonized, but couples who intentionally create and then destroy multiple embroyos are given a pass?

You will notice that chemjeff was, earlier in this thread, too much of coward to tackle this question. I hope one of you will be kind enough to explain this inconsistancy to me.

I see it as analogous to the flaw in the "no gay marriage" issue. We are told that marriage is sacred and must be protected. So then, why is gay marriage the issue, and not divorce? Where is your Prop 8 for making each marriage last "till death do us part"?

an embryo cannot live without it's mother

therefore it is only a potential living thing, just like you DO NOT call a mitochondria a living thing. Without a cell, it is dead.