1

Screw the long winded analysis.

If Obama signs the Freedom of Choice Act into law by executive order, may God damn his soul to everlasting hell. 

2 I follow your interpretation and can agree with it for the most part. It is clear however, that anyone that supports abortion and votes for a candidate with that being one of the reasons for support should be denied Holy Communion. It is never acceptable to support the act.

That would also logically excommunicate members of the church who are politicians that supported pro-abortion policies and encouraged such behavior.

3

If I had known that the number of those who profess to be so devoted to their beliefs had no problem voting for a candidate who is more extreme on abortion than NARAL then there would have been no problem nominating Rudy Guiliani as Republican candidate.

54% of the Catholic vote went to Obama?

How I am to have any faith  in the 'culture of life' stuff considering the high % which flushed that argument down the toilet when they voted for the candidate who openly advocated against the Born Alive Protection Act during his tenure in the Ill State Legislator?

To think, we could have had Rudy had not been for the abortion issue.

 

 

 

 

4 I agree with NJRob, even if your interpretation is correct, it should still result in the automatic excommunication of any politician that votes for laws intended to increase access to abortion, as well as any justices that favor pro-choice policies, and any citizens that donate to pro-choice causes such as NARAL or Planned Parenthood...Maybe we can follow the NO on PROP 8 example and search NARAL and Planned Parenthood donor lists for practicing catholics so that they can be summarily excomunicated.

5 Gabriel, shut the fuck up.

Anyone who supports abortion supports murder and God bless the Catholic church for being my moral ally in this cause.

If you take the opposite position, you're an evil fuck who supports -- well -- evil.

6 "If Obama signs the Freedom of Choice Act into law by executive order, may God damn his soul to everlasting hell. "

Fucking right.

7 Gabriel: I'm interested to know how you morally justify your rape exception. Wouldn't the abortion of a child conceived by rape simply be the compounding of one violent act with another? What about rape changes the moral value of the child conceived?

And even if you do justify a rape exception, why have that and not an incest exception? Or are you folding that under the category of rape? (A reasonable choice, it seems, I just want to clarify that's what you're doing.)

8

Voting for a politician who advocates partial-birth abortion and infanticide in the name of 'choice' is wrong on every level.  The politician is advocating evil.  The Catholic church's position is clear, abortion is wrong. Forget the semantics.  Also, for those not religiously inclined, Reason will also point the way to the truth.  

9 Posted by: Christoph at November 16, 2008 01:50 PM (hawOV)

Wow your logic and thoughtful argument childish name calling really will impress a lot of people.

Why exactly are you still here?

10 this has been the one thing that has really stayed with me - seriously disturbing me - after this election.

I feel like this battle - the battle for the human rights of the least of our brothers and sisters; the battle for essential human dignity in the face of selfish power - has been lost. Even my fellow Catholics are pro-choice now. They've given up, or they never really cared all that much about it.

I've never even been that "activist" about it, just a quiet "in-my-heart" type of pro-life person, but now . . .

I'm actually happy with the political/legal state of things right now - being pro-life but understanding that now that we have legal abortion it's probably best to retain it as an option in the Clintonian "safe and rare" sense. But this FOCA law - wow. The whole thing just depresses me.

11 See, I was always of the mindset of "sin is sin is sin."  It doesn't matter why you do something, justification doesn't change it from being wrong.  You might feel better voting for Obama because of some non-abortion related issue, but the end result is the same no matter why you voted for him. 


Considering this is one of those "life or death" issues (at for Catholics),
you'd have to have a darn good excuse for voting for a pro-choice candidate to make this at least plausible.  As in, there will be a greater propagation of evil and death, despite his continued support for abortion, if he doesn't get into office.

12 "Incidentally and it shouldn't matter, but I oppose abortion in all cases except for rape or when the health (narrowly defined) or life of the mother require it."

Okay, better. And I don't know shit for Catholic doctrine. But kevlarchick is completely right that if Obama signs that monstrosity, he has participated in evil on a massive scale and may he burn in hell if there is one, or otherwise if there isn't.

Finally, regardless of whether Ed is or isn't right in his analysis of Catholic doctrine, he should be. Those bastards -- that's right, bastards! -- who voted for Obama voted for the pro partial-birth abortion pro-infanticide candidate.*

Fuck them Hell as well.



* Mostly so they could get personal socialist goodies for themselves, at the productive citizens' expense.

13 Finally, I think a plain reading of paragraph 2272 shows that it was never intended to be wielded against Catholics who vote for pro-choice candidates in the manner that Ed suggests.

He didn't say that--he said that it's the "next logical progression", i.e. that what comes next might very well be that. Why are you putting words in his mouth?

Between this and the 'it's understandable that gays are going after Mormons (but not blacks and hispanics)' posts, my faith in this site is being sorely tested.

14 "Why exactly are you still here?"

To denounce evil shitheads who support abortion in any way, shape, or form, including defenders of collaborators in that crime, such as Obama's evil voters.

Fuck you, Drew M.

15 Opposing abortion except in cases of rape and incest is the height of all hypocrisy. What is the difference? Are you not still murdering the same human being with the only difference being that the child was conceived during a rape or by incestuous acts. Is that not the height of all hypocrisy?

16 Support in part, is support of the whole!

17

Voting for a politician who advocates partial-birth abortion and infanticide in the name of 'choice' is wrong on every level.  The politician is advocating evil.  The Catholic church's position is clear, abortion is wrong. Forget the semantics.  Also, for those not religiously inclined, Reason will also point the way to the truth.  

Posted by: maureen at November 16, 2008 01:51 PM (vPj5M)

Yes. Exactly. Every singly word including the last sentence.

Think about it for a second. If you support human rights including and especially the right to life and... for the sake of argument... if Christianity and other religions aren't true, then abortion is a far worse crime.

If it is true, the killed children maybe go to heaven. Who knows?

If it isn't true, every bit of experience in their life is taken from them. People who do this or defend others who do this are to one degree or another, evil.

18 If the child was conceived during or rape or through incest, put him/her up for adoption. There is no way you can justify killing an innocent human being especially when they are the weakest among us.

19 Or should be "a rape"

20 Catholics are told there are certain "non-negotiable" issues: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, assisted suicide.  All other issues, (war, contraception, death penalty, etc), the church has positions on in the Catechism, but individual Catholics are allowed to differ in terms of voting.

21 As a Catholic who is unequivocal in his condemnation of abortion, let me throw a small wrench into the works.  Making abortion legal (which I oppose) isn't the same as helping to actually procure one.  This is where I'd draw a (thin) line between "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice."  The former says "Heck yes!  Murder 'em babies!" while the latter says "This sucks, but this is something that should be governed by morality and not law."  Both are wrong, but I think the first view would incur automatic excommunication while the latter woudn't.

Also, it might be more fruitful (and healthy to our own souls) to hope for a swift and decisive repentance, rather than eternal damnation, for pro-abortion politicians. 

22 When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

-

Question - what do you consider proportionate reasons?

23 Imagine that a woman conceives through rape, but for some reason all the abortion doctors are away at a conference for the entire 9 months.

Based on the intellectual reasoning of the "rape exception" that once the infant was born, you should be able to hand a knife to the mother for her to execute the child herself.

24 Rape/incest is obviously a touchy subject, and I'm not one to tell someone else what to do, but the nature of the unborn child does not change with how it is conceived.  It's still a human life.  If one really is pro-life in all of the meaning of that phrase, there's no difference. 

Not that that will be a popular position, which explains why The One went out in search of a woman who became pregnant from rape so he could bash Palin (who, incidentally, never made an issue of it during the campaign and never tried to govern according to her own opinions while in Alaska)

25 Sorry, Gabriel - a far better analysis of Cardinal Ratzinger's (now Pope Benedict XVI) note on "proportionate reasons" is presented at Catholic Answers (LINK).

It boils down to this:  If candidate A supports the FOCA, euthanasia, and taxpayer funding for both - and candidate B opposes both, then candidate A fails the "proportionate reason" test. 

Father Newman looks like a very formidable man, in any case.  Especially when he stands on firm moral ground.

26

"which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons"

The key word here is "proportionate," which is what the lefties have been twisting to make their case. There is no proprotionate reason that can counter 1.3 million murders a year for 40 years. No other issue on the table has had that kind of impact.

Keep in mind, as well, that the 53% of Catholics represents all self-identified Catholics, but not necessarily those who attend Mass regularly. In the latter group, the majority voted for McCain.

27

This hasn't stopped Catholics from quietly dissenting from Church teaching on other matters, like contraception which if polls are to be believed anywhere from 75-90% of American Catholics ignore the Holy See about.  In this case though there is a big difference:  an actual human life is at stake and not just a view about sexual morality.  It's definitely an issue for me in deciding whom to vote for, at least when I think a candidate has an actual say in the matter.

<blockquote>If Obama signs the Freedom of Choice Act into law by executive order, may God damn his soul to everlasting hell.</blockquote>

I'll leave such judgments up to God since its beyond our competence to decide, but FOCA does seem to be good grounds for a First Amendment challenge in court and civil disobedience to boot.  I stand with the Church and others on this one. 

28

WOW, talk about a lot of self-righteous bull shit. Everyone of you people who called the people or politician who voted for pro-life issues to be condemned to hell are also in violation of the teachings of Christianity.  There is one major teaching that says “judge not lest you be judged”. When you call for someone to be condemned to everlasting hell you are, in fact, substituting your judgment for God’s. You do not have to agree with them and you can even condemn the sin, but you should be very very careful in condemning the sinner.

 

And in addition to that little bit of internet preaching, one should keep in mind that legal abortions by definition are NOT murder. Murder is a legal term reflecting the intentional and unlawful taking of a human life. Most people  do not consider human life to begin at fertilization. Through out history people have not been considered people until they were actually born, and in some religions, even after that.

 

I know I am going to catch a lot of grief over this but I don’t care. To me abortion has gotten to be another one of those subjects like race. It is beaten into the ground by zealots of both sides until the average person like myself is sick to death of hearing about it.

29

I think this, i.e, your statement on Church teachings, is right concerning laypersons as opposed to public officials.

It's interesting to recall that in the 1960's that Bishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans threatened to excommunicate Catholic public officials and actually did excommunicate (at least) three private citizens for their opposition to the integration of Catholic schools, which at the time were funded with state dollars.

 

 

30

One other thing, if the Catholic church were to actually call for a religious action to be taken against people who voted in any particular way they would most likely have the IRS deny their tax exempt status and it would be done rightfully so because they would have become a political organization and not a religious one.

31 I am certain that if there is a God who judges us morally at the end of our days -- something I'm not yet convinced of -- and only one of the two men were to pass the test, Gabriel would burn in Hell (literally) and Father Newman would not.

I don't think anyone will burn in Hell (literally). But if Catholic doctrine is true and only one of those two men made it into Heaven, that one would be Father Newman. I thoroughly believe this and am not making a rhetorical point nor even an angry one: Newman's position is far more good.

32 And in addition to that little bit of internet preaching, one should keep in mind that legal abortions by definition are NOT murder. Murder is a legal term reflecting the intentional and unlawful taking of a human life.

Vic, there was a time when it was considered legal and okay to kill Jews because they didn't fully count as human.

There was a time when it was considered legal and okay to kill black slaves because they didn't fully count as human.

Am I still allowed to call those cases "murder?"

33

And in addition to that little bit of internet preaching, one should keep in mind that legal abortions by definition are NOT murder. Murder is a legal term reflecting the intentional and unlawful taking of a human life.

That may be the current definition in civil law but such is not the Catholic understanding.  In Catholic teaching willfully procuring or performing an abortion is indeed an act of murder.

One other thing, if the Catholic church were to actually call for a religious action to be taken against people who voted in any particular way they would most likely have the IRS deny their tax exempt status and it would be done rightfully so because they would have become a political organization and not a religious one.

 

Wrong.  Churches are free to discipline their members for breaking its tenets.  These are voluntary associations, not forced.  For you to suggest otherwise would undo the very essence of the First Amendment when it comes to religious freedom.

34

You might feel better voting for Obama because of some non-abortion related issue, but the end result is the same no matter why you voted for him. 

If people voted for him for other reasons, then all those pro-life Obama supporters will stand up and scream if he tries to change abortion laws, right?

We'll see if that happens. I have my doubts.

35 "Also, it might be more fruitful (and healthy to our own souls) to hope for a swift and decisive repentance, rather than eternal damnation, for pro-abortion politicians."

Wolfwood,

I'm not a Catholic nor a Christian. I oppose evil and wish its destruction, and the destruction of its practicioners and enablers.

If they can be brought around as allies short destruction, wonderful.

Vic,

I PLAINLY made clear above in comment #17 above that my position is based on the right to life, not on Christianity. maureen in comment #8 expressed the same basic idea.

"Everyone of you people who called the people or politician who voted for pro-life issues to be condemned to hell are also in violation of the teachings of Christianity."

In my case, my answer is, "So what?" I'm not a Christian. I'm someone who opposes killing of innocent life and who wishes defeat -- in whatever form -- upon practicioners and enablers of evil.

"I know I am going to catch a lot of grief over this but I don’t care. To me abortion has gotten to be another one of those subjects like race. It is beaten into the ground by zealots of both sides until the average person like myself is sick to death of hearing about it. "

While you're sick to death of it, unborn children are being sliced and diced and bloodied and are being denied their right to be sick of anything. You're evil, Vic. You are scum.

Your life is worth less than one of these innocent children. I believe people are born equal, but choose their moral worth as they progress. I don't know what mine is, ultimately, but I know I would never harm a child or tolerate someone who does.

You, however, are "sick to death of hearing about it..." and you think this matters somehow. You make me want to vomit.

36 Oh, well then what's the proportionate reason for voting for Obama ? Change? 

37

LOL, I knew it was coming so:

 

Vic, there was a time when it was considered legal and okay to kill Jews because they didn't fully count as human.

 

Please provide a link to a civil law or statute that states it is legal to kill Jews because they are not human.  Even the Nazis did not go that far. They tried to hide what they were doing from the world and did manage to do that to a large degree. And many of them were hanged for doing that. The burnings and executions of Jews in the dark ages were also not done as part of any “legal” proceedings, they were done at the orders of some local despot or at the hands of a crowd of local vigilantes.

 

There was a time when it was considered legal and okay to kill black slaves because they didn't fully count as human.

 

Too much history from TV, comic books, and Northern liberals. It was NEVER legal to kill black slaves for ANY reason.

 

Both of the above arguments, in addition to being not true, fail the logic test as well. If they had been true and it had been “legal” to summarily execute Jews and black slaves for any reason, then by definition, it would not have murder.

 

Churches are free to discipline their members for breaking its tenets

 

Sure they are, and the IRS is free to deny tax exempt status when the church punishes based on political actions.

 

A quote from the IRS:

 

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

 

38 "Rape/incest is obviously a touchy subject, and I'm not one to tell someone else what to do, but the nature of the unborn child does not change with how it is conceived."


I agree with Dan. I find it difficult to justify punishing the innocent unborn for the crimes of their father.

39

You, however, are "sick to death of hearing about it..." and you think this matters somehow. You make me want to vomit.

 

I have learned a long time ago that it is pointless to argue with morons, fence posts, and dirt. You qualify for the “no-argument list” on all counts.

40 Dear 54% of voting Catholics,

Kiss my ass, you imbeciles.

Love ya!
One of the 46

41
I think Gabe has it much more right than wrong. If the voter believed that McCain was determined to fight a war in Iraq for another 100 years (as the Obama campaign falsely claimed), then they might judge that to be a greater evil than. Obama's stance on abortion. Particularly since McCain was unlikely to do anything about abortion.

If the Church is going to insist on its members voting per its directives, then it's back to the Kennedy days, where people were concerned about electing a Catholic as President because he would be subject to orders from the Pope. That's a pretty long step backwards in terms of engagement in the political process.

42 Vic, you remind me of one of my favourite quites from J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings:

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them?"

I cannot give life to the dead, and in most cases I cannot give death either. In cases where I could give it, I don't.

Nonetheless, on the "deservedness" factor, you are less worthy of life than many of these innocent unborn children you're sick to death of hearing about.

When you wrote:

"If they had been true and it had been “legal” to summarily execute Jews and black slaves for any reason, then by definition, it would not have murder."

... you revealed your ugly character. Again.

43 Vic, I seriously doubt that that particular IRS regulation would be found to apply in this case. The IRS hasn't lifted a finger when, for instance, a Catholic priest has instructed a politician not to take communion because of his views. Even less so, then, if they give similar admonitions to a voter.

44 Right, Catholics are not required to be single issue voters. But if you cannot back your religious values, then you are also not required to be Catholic. Nor is the Church obligated to include everyone into its laiety: Muslims, Protestants and atheists need not take communion.

If you don't pay dues, you don't get to hang out in the clubhouse.

Free Association, tis a bitch sometimes, huh?

45 Cristoph: I think in your haste to condem Vic you're not seeing his point. The term "murder" is a legal term of art, and its use depends upon the legal or moral code you're applying. Under U.S. law, abortion is not murder; under Catholic teaching, it is. Not all killings are murder---not even all immoral ones. No doubt you and I agree abortion is immoral killing, but to say it is murder requires a specific legal context.

46 For instance, Wikipedia (not your most reliable source, I admit) defines murder as the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought.

The legal term "homicide" refers to any act of killing another human being. It includes murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, as well as legal acts such as self-defense, capital punishment, and legal acts of war.

47

Actually, abortion is murder in the sense that it violates the commandment : Thou shalt not murder.

Murder in the commandment means unjust taking of life.

48
Even less so, then, if they give similar admonitions to a voter.

Seems like the scale should matter - giving voting admonitions to an entire congregation breaches the church/state divide more severely than admonishing a single politician. At least it seems like it does.

49 Vic, in some alternate history where gold flowed out of people's asses it may not have been legal and okay to kill blacks in the slave-era South, but not in this one.

I hate resorting to this, but I really don't feel much of a need to have to justify that.

If I get the spare time, I might, but you might as well ask me to prove rain falls from storm clouds.

I'm sorry.

As far as the the Nazis who were hanged, you know as well as I do they weren't hanged by fellow Nazis.  While what they did was horrible, the laws they broke were pretty much ones that we decided existed after the war was over.  The fact was they were following orders.  Hitler made the law.  Ultimately, we just decided they were pieces of shit for doing it.  The Jews in the middle ages were often killed with the consent or order of the king - which, again became the law.

But this still doesn't change the fact, you're trying to justify a position where if the law says killing someone (who I think is human) is okay - I should say it's okay, and not fight it.

The law can say whatever it wants.  If it says it's okay to kill you, Vic. I'm still going to say it's murder.

50 mcg, I see Vic's point. I also see his character.

I despise that man. I hate him with a passion. He's more concerned with tax policy than with innocent life. He'd have been a defender of slavery as being necessary for the Southern economy before the Civil War and he'd have been a defender -- or a "look the other way-er" of the slaughter of Jews and homosexuals during the rise of Nazi Germany.

Vic is an evil selfish bastard.

51 I think in your haste to condem Vic you're not seeing his point. The term "murder" is a legal term of art, and its use depends upon the legal or moral code you're applying. Under U.S. law, abortion is not murder; under Catholic teaching, it is.

Then the question is which is superior, and germane: Church law or US law. As we are discussing the Church, US law is informative but it isn't terribly germane.

52 True, but Cristoph does not claim to be a Christian. He is not adopting the Catholic moral doctrine when pronouncing abortion to be murder; he is using his own.

53 * I left out disabled. "Jews and homosexuals and the disabled..."

54 I was going to make a snide remark about how Gabe is pretty damned smart for a homo, but Christoph seems to have co-opted all of the assholishness in this thread.

55

I'd say that those catholics are right to take a stand.  They should just be clear that they aren't promoting Republicans.  That is the only way they would be forcing catholics into 'one-issue' voters.  Catholics can vote 3rd party/independant.  They can write in a candidate of their own.  At some point, you can't just say that a candidate is the lesser of two evils when you can in fact vote for whomever meets the constitutional criteria.

That is the way I vote.  If Rudy had been the republican nominee, I would have still greatly preferred him to Obama, of course.  But I could not have supported him or voted for him.

56 Very well put, Tachyon. And some Republicans are pro-abortion, sadly enough. Some (a few) Democrats are even pro-life.

57 I had a neighbor who expressed her considered beliefs thus:  I'm prochoice and I don't want to think about it.

I think there's a lot of that going around.

58

I think its high time the church started clearing up the moral confusion that really started with Mario Cuomo's "I'm personally opposed, but won't impose my will" hypocracy. As he had no problem imposing his will about the death penalty (opposed) on the citizens of NY. Many politicians have used Cuomo's dodge to gain the support of feminists, and the liberal elites over time. Recall that until he ran for VP, Al Gore was pro-life.

Oddly enough most Catholic voters I know who vote democratic are cultural democrats. Either when they emigrated here, or grew up here, they were told that the Democrats watched out for the little guys like them, and watched out for the Catholics. There's a massive disconect between what they think the Democrats stand for, and what the Democrats actually stand for. They can't imagine Democrats being unpatriotic. For literally generations they've been told that the Republicans are evil and are out to get them.

I think this ties into people really not knowing their history. Catholics in America really don't know their faith. They might go to Mass 3 times a year and think they're good Catholics. But unlike our school systems, the church, under B16 is trying to rectify this failing.

59

One thing is sure in this debate. The American Bishops have done a terrible job in explaining the Church's position. The leftists have been able to completely muddy the waters with nonsense about "seemless garment" and "social justice".

They say, if the candidate is pro-minimum wage increase and pro-immigration amnesty it outweighs his pro-abortion stance.

60

For case law on 501c(3) denials look at the wording of this case in which the court overruled a district case to restore tax exempt status. I know, they gave back status, but the wording is important:

 

that the appellee "has not endorsed a political candidate, and has not instructed its followers as to how to vote but only to vote." On the

basis of its findings of fact, the court concluded as law that the appellee fell within the terms of 501 (c) (3).

 

case shortcut The wording implies that the ruling would have been different if they had instructed the parishioners in who or how to vote.

61 Technical point:  The Church does not excommunicate people.  They excommunicate themselves, by making a conscious, fully informed choice to deviate from Church teachings.  Out of respect for maintaining the sancticty of the Eucharist, and as an act of tough love for those who attempt to commit sacrelige by recievieng it while in a state of mortal sin, the sacrament is witheld from those who make that decision.

I honestly don't understand where there can be confusion about whether or not it is morally permissible for anyone who is pro-life to have voted for Obama.  He was on record as supporting partial birth abortion, and McCain stated clearly that he believes life begins at conception.  Palin, of course, is a walking, talking, pro-life spokeswoman, having faced the issue from two different dimensions and chosen life both times.  There was clear alternative in this race.

I voted for him in the primaries, and encouraged others to do so, because I could not bear the thought of Hillary Clinton holding the honor of the first female nominee.  I just thought they were the same pro-choice squishes.  Knowing what I now know about Obama's abortion positions, I would have sat it out or stuck with the Republican ticket, even though the matter had been settled by then.

Anecdotally,  I've never heard so many political sermons in the run-up to an election as I have this year. Without exactly naming names, priests in my diocese were begging people to fight Obama.  Some parishes had Rosarys every hour on the hour with Exposition on Election Day.  FOCA has the bishops screaming from the rooftops.  Although I'm extremely not-thrilled to have Obama elected, perhaps he will be a galvanizing force for American Catholics.

62 I think Gabe has it much more right than wrong. If the voter believed that McCain was determined to fight a war in Iraq for another 100 years (as the Obama campaign falsely claimed), then they might judge that to be a greater evil than. Obama's stance on abortion. Particularly since McCain was unlikely to do anything about abortion.

First of all, under Catholic teaching it is really not an individual's job to make judgements on the relative levels of evil, particularly when the Church itself has made such an explicit determination.

Secondly, there have already been 36 million abortions worldwide in this year alone I don't know the proportion that have been committed in the U.S. however, I doubt that even by the most liberal overestimates of the death toll due to U.S. warmongering would it measure up to this stark statistic.

Thirdly, that death toll due to war has dropped precipitously this year, and continues to do so. Given that both McCain and Obama are advocating some sort of surge in Afghanistan, it really cannot be argued that there is a substantial difference between the two when it comes to war moving forward, at least in the short term.

Finally, it's not just that McCain "is not likely to do anything." Though he is almost certain to appoint more conservative justices than Obama, let's suppose for the sake of argument that would not have happened. Even if he were to do nothing but preserve existing law, Obama is by contrast far worse in that he has promised to take affirmative steps towards liberalizing abortion law in this country, stripping away the power of states to regulate abortion in ways that have been demonstrated to reduce their numbers. In other words, Obama has promised to make sure that more abortions occur. McCain did not do that.

If the Church is going to insist on its members voting per its directives, then it's back to the Kennedy days, where people were concerned about electing a Catholic as President because he would be subject to orders from the Pope. That's a pretty long step backwards in terms of engagement in the political process.

I think that's a straw man. We're talking about a single political issue, one whose effects worldwide are in the tens of millions of lives lost, more than any other identifiable cause of death, natural or manmade. Even the deaths due to the Holocaust or purges in China or the Soviet Union do not measure up.

It is not the Church's fault that this one issue is so tightly correlated with our party divisions. It is not the Church's fault that Democrats are not only almost uniformly pro-abortion but limit the voice of their pro-life colleagues. Who was the last seriously pro-life Democrat in national politics?

63 but Ed's insistence that Catholics must be single-issue voters goes against the teachings of the Pope. And I won't be silent about that.

I don't see how any Catholic of any stripe -- other than the cafeteria variety -- can support someone who sees nothing wrong in letting an abortion survivor die of ill will, exposure and neglect but mostly ill will rather than afford them the same right of protection as any other human who is outside the mother's womb.

But if you think Bennie the Sixteenth would make an exception, why don't you ask him?

64 2.  Syrian willingness to talk and make a deal.

3.  King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia proposed the outlines of the deal we are talking about.

4.  King Abdullah of Jordan is willing to talk and make a deal.  Personally, I'd like to see him retake sovereignty over the WB, but I doubt he wants it.

5.  Morocco, Tunisia have no problems with Israel now.  The "new" Ghaddafi is ready to sign on, I'm sure.

Icus, the idea that because somebody's willing to "talk" means they're cool with you, and willing to accept you, brings up a number of historical analogies (including one in particular) that I'm sure you can think of and I don't think it's necessary for me to reference them - particularly when Arab leaders say other things when they're talking in Arabic.

More importantly, though (and I realize they aren't Arab, but re: Israel's safety):  If Iran attacks Israel, with what army is Saudi Arabia and Jordan going to defend it? (Presuming they would)

65 My bad - wrong thread.

66 I really got to get better at that...

67 Check out this world clock.

Year to date, there have been about 53.5 million deaths worldwide, not including abortions. There have been 36.5 million abortions.

There is no single cause of death that even comes close to abortion. Heart disease? 15.7 mil. Cancer? 6.8 mil. Car accidents? 1.1 mil.

I don't trust the war/violence numbers; I think they are based on statistical averages, and as such I don't think they necessarily reflect individual actions such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, etc. I think the true numbers even this year are larger than this clock suggests. However, they are still a fraction of the numbers for abortion.

In fact, abortion takes more lives than all causes of death except heart disease and cancer, combined.

68 First of all, under Catholic teaching it is really not an individual's job to make judgements on the relative levels of evil, particularly when the Church itself has made such an explicit determination.

It is, however, the individual's duty to make their own moral decisions. The freedom to choose wrong action is integral to the Christian experience (unless you're a Calvinist, I suppose). The point isn't that you can't think of "proportionate reasons" to support Obama. The point is that those Catholic voters who picked him could.

As to your much, much earlier question about rape and incest, I do not believe that abortion should be available in the case of incest except in cases of rape. The difference is over what we can morally expect of women who voluntarily participate in a procreative act (even one with only a minuscule chance of conception). Presumably, non-rape incest is voluntary.

69 Vic.
Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.

Founding fathers were attuned to this concept. So I would disregard your notion of SCOTUS being the final arbiter of right and wrong.

70 "In fact, abortion takes more lives than all causes of death except heart disease and cancer, combined."

I agree 100%, and you're still overlooking one point. Every single victim of abortion is innocent.

71 It is, however, the individual's duty to make their own moral decisions.

Yes, but if those individual decisions contradict Catholic teaching, they are in sin according to the Catholic church, no matter how honest their intentions are. And if that teaching is clear before the decision was made, then the individual is choosing to go against the teachings of their church. Hence the warning to avoid Communion in those circumstances is particularly important.

The difference is over what we can morally expect of women who voluntarily participate in a procreative act (even one with only a minuscule chance of conception).

So the life of the unborn child is worth less because the woman didn't choose to conceive it? Again, I don't think the Catholic church agrees with you.

72

[T]here was a time when it was considered legal and okay to kill Jews because they didn't fully count as human.

Good point. Mine here is one of rhetoric, not politics or theology.

The Hitler Youth was supposed to graduate remorseless, Jew-hating killers. By 1941, Hilter Youth alumni were officers in the German army and the SS. They went village by village through eastern Europe, rounded up the Jews, confiscated all their possessions including the clothes they were wearing, and shot them in the head above their graves. Machine guns were more efficient, but this whole process had a problem.

Despite being trained to follow orders and to kill without a second thought, Germany started losing these soldiers and officers to alcoholism and suicide. These nazis were human, and no amount of training, hatred and indoctrination could silence their consciences. Deep down, they knew that they were murdering fellow human beings and that it was very wrong, regardless what was considered legal at the time.

Abortion seems wrong to me if it can be avoided. It seems really wrong to that priest in South Carolina, and it seems really, really, really wrong to Christoph -- and I get that. But the accusations of murder and the parallels to the Holocaust don't wash with me -- not without a few former abortion doctors describing their deep regret over what they've been doing for part of the past 35 years. If they're indeed murdering fellow human beings, then they'd know it. They couldn't not know it. I'd like to hear from them. So far, I haven't.

Testimony from a hundred or so doctors and nurses should be easy enough to produce and would go a long way to changing people's minds. Failing that, find out how the lives of abortion practitioners have been: As a lot, are they divorced or addicted more than the average for whatever demographic? How many have drastically changed their careers? In short, are they well-adjusted, or do they seem troubled? That itself would speak volumes for the unborn.

(And remember: If you eat meat, someone's calling you a murderer.)

73 Actually, make that you're overlooking two points: every single victim of those other causes of death has at least had the benefit of some experiences. Abortion victims are denied all experiences, except that of being killed in (or out of: thank you, Obama) the womb.

74 #59-- Completely agree.  When Catholics are prayer-painting and making felt banners instead of learning catechism, as pre-Vatican II children did, we shouldn't be shocked when they are ignorant of basic teachings.

And frankly, I have zero patience with priests or bishops who tell me that the proper "social justice" thing to do is to support illegal aliens.  I once read in an NYC bulletin that we were to contact Congress to support amnesty bills.  Really?  How is that justice for the people who did it the right way?  The "loving" thing to do is encourage lawbreaking and make sure that their wages stay ridiculously low?  If that's to be supported, we're then rewarding the rank exploitation of which their employers are guilty.  Go after them.  If the jobs dry up, so does the endless march over the border.

75  Let's be clear:

I'm not saying that voting for Obama is a moral choice. Obviously it's not, not least because of his support for FOCA. I'm saying that voting for Obama does not, within Catholic doctrine, equal "formal cooperation in an abortion" nor does it merit automatic excommunication.

76 It seems like this is an exhibition of how to have one's cake and eat it, too. What follows is the hubris of man to rationalize behavior.

I'm not Catholic, so grain of salt here, but as an outsider of the religion, I've always understood conception to be the beginning of life and that any abortion is against the Church. That seems pretty clear cut no matter how nuanced one tweaks things to reach the decision that pacifies one's "soul." Should you opt out of that belief or disregard its consequences, one of a list of beliefs required to be in the club, then you're essentially rejecting the Church. It follows that the Church would, and should, penalize those who do not follow its teachings even if it has been "slothful" in the past.

What would be the point of joining the Church, any church, if the selection of edicts followed are to be a la carte? It would seem to me that such arbitrary commitment would condemn one at one's earthly death while providing a false sense of salvation during one's life. The rationalizations just blind one's destiny, a blinding self-imposed because it makes life more difficult.

We are imperfect beings wanting acceptance and to "live" forever. The creation of vehicles to see that we a) live on forever and b) enjoy some bond with those around us during that time is innate. However, if one wants the political/sociological cover to behave a certain way such that one's bond makes life more acceptable or palatable, one necessarily must commit to the rules of the clan. Reject the rules, then reject the clan and accept the consequences - for better or for worse. Embracing the rules, essentially superficially, while in actuality ignoring them while still in the clan makes one a hypocrite.

Sorry, Gabe, but I see a good bit of rationalization in your post and agree more with Morrissey, Cardinal Mahoney's teachings (radicalism?) notwithstanding.

77 If they're indeed murdering fellow human beings, then they'd know it. They couldn't not know it. I'd like to hear from them. So far, I haven't.

Confession of an ex-abortionist by Dr. Bernard Nathanson.

Opening quote: "I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions."

Enjoy.

78 Sort of OT- I just had a very unpleasant discussion with an old friend of the family who voted for Obama, who is also Catholic. I mentioned I couldn't vote for him because of his support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois. Not only did she not believe that ever happened, she then stated that if Obama did believe in killing babies that survived aboriton, the media would have covered it. When I noted that media was in the tank for Obama, she finally just said said something like 'well, you never agree with everything a politician says, he's the best man for the job, and people malign him because he's black.' I just walked away.

Moral of the story? Liberal views trump Catholic doctrine. Sad, but true.

79 I'm saying that voting for Obama does not, within Catholic doctrine, equal "formal cooperation in an abortion" nor does it merit automatic excommunication.

I think you're probably right on those two specific points.

80

Who the hell you think you are, Pope Nancy?

Stick to what you are competent about -- politics.  Don't be so arrogant and presumptuous as to try to make judgments on what is or is not proper or accurate Church teaching.

81 Oh, can it, Bender. Such judgements are a necessary part of every religious person's life. If you disagree with Gabriel, make your case, but "shut up" isn't a case.

82 If they're indeed murdering fellow human beings, then they'd know it. They couldn't not know it. I'd like to hear from them. So far, I haven't.

Meet the Abortion Providers by the Pro-Life Action League. Testimonies of six abortion providers, including 3 doctors who actually performed abortions. Also includes a link to an article "The Ex-Abortionists: Why They Quit" by Mary Meehan.

83 If they're indeed murdering fellow human beings, then they'd know it. They couldn't not know it. I'd like to hear from them. So far, I haven't.

I've known a few women who had abortions. Not many that have said so to me.

Of those that had, a majority have expressed regret and two have shown signs of depression over it, one of whom swallowed two times the median lethal dose of acetaminophen over her guilt and ended up in intensive care, then in a psychiatric hospital, and now, 18 years later, still feels guilty over it.

She got pregnant twice in the intervening years and bore both children despite economic difficulty. The other female friend I had who felt guilty about her abortion -- you've SEEN how staunchly I oppose abortion here -- she became friends with me AFTER I told her what I think about it, and that yes, I thought she had murdered her child. She cried and said she thought she did too. This was 17 years ago.

She has a child now and is in a stable relationship and opposes abortion and God bless her.

84 Firehorse, a Doctor who helped to found NARAL has become a pro-life crusader. He has a book called ,"Hand of God" by Bernard Nathanson.

85 For the record, I knew of Bernard Nathanson already. But all it took to find the second link was a quick Google search for "former abortionists". That's just one of the many relevant links I found.

So anyone who claims they just "haven't heard" of abortionists who knew they were committing murder are intellectually lazy. Period.

86 "So anyone who claims they just "haven't heard" of abortionists who knew they were committing murder are intellectually lazy. Period."

I word say worse, but you're a nicer person than I am. Not necessarily more accurate, but nicer.

87

Founding fathers were attuned to this concept [natural law]. So I would disregard your notion of SCOTUS being the final arbiter of right and wrong.

 

I don’t think I said that SCOTUS was the final arbiter of right and wrong, in fact, if I recall correctly I said that that duty belonged to God. I discussed the use of the legal term MURDER and 501c(3) requirements.

 

Be that as it may, however,  if the founding fathers were so in tuned with “natural law” as you put it, why then did that participate in writing laws?  Also, if natural law is your position for code of life, try refusing to pay income tax because the federal government uses your money in violation of “natural law” and see how far it gets you.

 

Remember the most quoted thing of the Natural Law” advocates is the opening statements from the Declaration of Independence (which has NOTHING to do with the Constitution).   The DOI is a document explaining to the King of England and to his Parliament why the colonies were committing treason against the crown.  

 

If the colonies had lost, everyone who signed that document most likely would have been executed in a manner similar to Guy Fawkes (attempted hanging, drawing, and quatering).

88 In all my 60 years of existence I have never seen the Catholic Bishops come out more emphatically and clearly in their opposition to abortion and the politicians who support the same....Never!   You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not acknowledge the clear opposition to obama by the bishops in this country.  Being from Massachusetts, and having a great many "catholic" politicians that energetically support, advocate and legislate abortion, I am familiar with the contortions attempted to justify voting for obama.  They do not pass the test.  Obama did a great job hiding his support for infanticide, and the Catholic church has not done a great job in educating its members about the value of life.  However, reading Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict, one can not be in any doubt about the evilness of abortion and the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion and just exactly how important it it to oppose abortion and the legislators who advocate for it......NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER.

89

 Judgments about what an individual subjectively thinks is proper and moral may or may not be part of every religious person's life, but judgments about what is or is not Church teaching are NOT part of every religious person's life. 

We don't get to decide for ourselves what the Church teaches.  The Church decides that.  We are not each magisteriums unto ourselves -- not you, not Malor, not Ed Morissey, not Deal Hudson, not Pelosi, not Biden -- none of us.

90

I disagree with Gabe on this one. The bottom line is that if you justified your vote for Obama as a Catholic on other "issues," you fooled yourself there as well. I explain it here. An Open Letter to Catholics Voting For Obama.

You should have read the comments I got at the Chron blog. The truth is a difficult thing to hear sometimes.

91

We don't get to decide for ourselves what the Church teaches.  The Church decides that.

 

Damn skippy.

92

Stick to what you are competent about -- politics.  Don't be so arrogant and presumptuous as to try to make judgments on what is or is not proper or accurate Church teaching.

Did you miss that section up there where I quoted and agreed with the Pope? Surely you believe that he is qualified to "make judgments" on what is or is not proper Church teaching.

If you have a substantive disagreement, I would appreciate hearing it. My purpose in reading the comments is to find out what you guys are thinking about the substance of my posts, whether you agree or disagree. Perhaps especially when you disagree, since those are often more interesting to consider.

93 but judgments about what is or is not Church teaching are NOT part of every religious person's life.

Of course it is. That doesn't mean the judgement can't be wrong; indeed, in the case of abortion, we know that Pelosi is, for instance. But not every issue of church teaching is as clean cut as abortion. And even in such a clear cut case, what constitutes "proportionate reasons" isn't always so well defined.

94 "We don't get to decide for ourselves what the Church teaches.  The Church decides that.  We are not each magisteriums unto ourselves -- not you, not Malor, not Ed Morissey, not Deal Hudson, not Pelosi, not Biden -- none of us."

From a Catholic point of view, I am certain you're right. And I don't mean to demean believing Catholics, because they are among my greatest allies on the issues of life I feel so strongly about.

One of the reasons I'm not Christian is I can't abide by some of the things I see in the Bible. My classic example is God ordering Abraham to kill his son as a test of loyalty, as if loyalty is sufficient reason to kill a child. It sounds to me more like something you'd see in a crime family, and even then, you probably wouldn't be ordered to kill your own child.

If the Christian understanding of God (I have another) was real, hope I'd have had the courage to say, "No!" and fight God with every meagre part of my ability, casting stones at the Heavens and cursing him in vain if need be.

I'm not looking to have a debate with Christians over this story in the Bible. I've done so a hundred times and never heard a satisfactory explanation. I don't think I would today either.

I'll just say I believe we are all magisteriums (whatever that word means: "kings", maybe?) unto ourselves and fully responsible for our actions or non-actions.

95

mcg: Thanks for the links. My computer's having problems with the first one. I'll definitely take a look, though. Again, thanks.

Christoph: Just curious about your tactic of making enemies as a first step in the persuasion process. How effective is that?

96

Sure they are, and the IRS is free to deny tax exempt status when the church punishes based on political actions.

Indeed because tax-exemption isn't a right but a privilege.  However, a church excommunicating a member for a political stance that is contrary to its tents does not in any way violate IRS regulations.  Try again.

97 The issue of denying Communion became a hot topic when B16 came to visit, and Pelosi et al trotted up the line bold as brass, and were even permitted the honor of personaly greeting the Pontiff at the White House.  Obviously, everyone is a sinner, and if only perfect people were chosen to interact with the Pope, he'd be awfully lonely on the tarmac.  But these politicians were living in public and flagrant disobeyance of Catholic teaching, thuse causing scandal to the Church. 

I think that infuriated a lot of traditional Catholics when nothing was done about it, which may have caused this Obama/abortion issue to boil over for those, like Ed, who were already angry over enforcement issues.

98 Wonderful post, RightWingSparkle. You're still more beautiful inside than out, and you look great.

99

So murderers are ok to recieve communion.  Ok got you.

idiot

100 A quote from Dr. Anthony Levatino (see the second link)

Most of the time in our practice was spent providing obstetrical care for people who wanted their children. It is very common for an obstetrician to have an ultrasound machine. We use that ultrasound machine on a daily basis.

As a doctor, you know that these are children; you know that these are human beings with arms and legs and heads and they move around and they are very active. But you get reminded -- every time you put that scanner down on somebody's uterus -- you are reminded. Because you see the children in there -- hearts beating, arms flinging.

We have a ball with it. It is a lot of fun. We have people coming in who have bleeding and who are afraid they may have a miscarriage -- now this is someone who wants to have their child. There is no better news for me than to put that scanner on them at seven and eight weeks and show them a heartbeat and say: Your baby is okay. You do that as an obstetrician all the time.

And then, an hour later, you change your clothes, walk into an operating room and do an abortion. If you have any heart at all, it affects you.

101

One of the reasons I'm not Christian is I can't abide by some of the things I see in the Bible. My classic example is God ordering Abraham to kill his son as a test of loyalty, as if loyalty is sufficient reason to kill a child. It sounds to me more like something you'd see in a crime family, and even then, you probably wouldn't be ordered to kill your own child.

you really don't get it.  God had his own son put to death.  death is nothing but a new beginning.  You look at death as the final act. 

102

If they had been true and it had been “legal” to summarily execute Jews and black slaves for any reason, then by definition, it would not have murder.

And thus the Revolution is undone and the Founders are revealed to be the traitorous rebels they truly were.  Or perhaps, could it be that there are eternal truths and "inalienable rights" that go beyond civil law?  They do not have to be recognized by civil law but that doesn't make them illegitimate either.  Murder isn't necessarily defined by current civil law alone.

103 Vic

"Murder is a legal term reflecting the intentional and unlawful taking of a human life."

My statement about SCOTUS was in reply to above statement by you. A believer in Natural law would say that murder is always wrong. This is difficult to explain. My training is medicine and not law. Perhaps a legal person could step in here.

The attempt to codify natural law was to set a standard for behavior that would be understandable by all. Judeo-Christian teachings support this concept. To your point, just because one knows something is wrong does not keep one from committing wrong. Therefore laws and punishments that reflect not collective values but a deeper intrinsic law that is natural to man.

104

The Bishops of Dallas and Fort Worth issued a joint document concerning Catholic's political responsiblities. It said in part:

To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or "abortion rights" when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil - and, therefore, morally impermissible.

Given the education involved in becoming a priest and then a Bishop, I'm pretty sure they are up on Church teaching. 

105 "Christoph: Just curious about your tactic of making enemies as a first step in the persuasion process. How effective is that?"

I can't persuade someone like Vic. He's someone who would side with the enemy on these moral issues and would -- literally -- have to have his side defeated in battle before he would come around when his self-interest was in play.

Not everyone can be persuaded. They have to sometimes be defeated. Listen to Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin or somebody.

Persuasion can only work with the reasonable and the good at heart.

To wit, read my comment #83. Notice that by speaking clearly and honestly, a person who had done an evil act -- an act of murder -- admitted her culpability honestly, had felt genuine regret, and I was indeed able to identify if not create an ally.

That's all I can do, speak the truth.

The Bible -- Jesus no less, because this isn't in the Old Testament -- says evil doers who don't repent will be cast in Hell and tortured. I may wish for such powers (I don't really: No person should have them)... yet I don't have anything like those powers.

All I do is call evil what it is. That is much -- far -- milder than what Jesus did and threatens to do.

However, if Hell exists as Jesus promises, then maybe that isn't an entirely bad thing.

Finally, slavery wasn't overcome in the United States by persuasion (it was blessedly enough in the United Kingdom and eventually Canada): It was accomplished by war.

I want a victory against this mass murder and evil however it comes. There will be many different personality types and communication strategies united on the winning side whenever it comes (this century, next, the one after it).

In the meantime, shaming, denouncing, and causing any manner of negative feelings in and toward evil doers and their enablers is a small victory. It is worthwhile for its own sake.

106 So murderers are ok to recieve communion.  Ok got you.

No, "murders are not OK to receive Communion," and nobody here has said that.  The Church teaches that if anyone is conscious of being in mortal sin, that person has a personal responsibility to go to Confession and repent before receiving Communion.  But since priests can't know for sure what people's sins are, they are not able to deny the sacrament unless they know for sure that a person is flagrantly in mortal sin.  And that is the case with Pelosi and Guliani; their positions and actions are publicly known and have not been recanted.  Therefore, they are eligible to be refused the sacrament.  Since they are not recusing themselves from Communion, as they should, the Church as a responsibility to protect the Sacrament and refuse them when the attempt to recieve it.

107 "You look at death as the final act."

An astute observation. This is why I oppose abortion more strongly than even most Christians.

108 Oh, unseen, I now see you were being sarcastic-- sorry!

109

This is not a "one issue".  This is THE issue,  without life you have no other issues.  Period.  The catholic church should have brought this to churches way before the election,  it gave some catholics an "out" to vote for Obama.  Now after the fact they are putting pressure on this issue via their parishoners.   This is the most basic tenant of the Catholic Church.  I feel betrayed by my church that they could not talk about this before the election but in the most vague terms and now after they want us to put pressure on people about FOCA.  This would not be an issue if Obama were not the President - Elect.

 

110 But locus, not all killing is wrong, even under natural law or virtually any moral or religious code. Exceptions exist, such as self-defense. That's why the definitions of the words matter. Murder is wrong, by definition! But killing is not necessarily so. That is not to say moral and legal codes can't be in conflict; there might be some killings that are murders in one context but not another. But that means that the context must be made clear.

111 "This is not a "one issue".  This is THE issue,  without life you have no other issues."

Yes.

112

Let me make this last point, the quote from above from the Pope has been used by liberals as a way to justify voting for Obama or any pro-choice candidate (which I  am sure is appalling to our Pope who is a great defender of life) His quote:

"When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

The reality is, as the Bishops point out and I'm sure the Pope agrees, is that things such as war, healthcare, death penalty ect. that are issues at present ARE NOT proportionate reasons.

 

113  I'm going to say it again because I think that some of you are not hearing me on this (or you're responding to others here and not to me; I can't tell).

Let's be clear:

I'm not saying that voting for Obama is a moral choice. Obviously it's not, not least because of his support for FOCA. I'm saying that voting for Obama does not, within Catholic doctrine, equal "formal cooperation in an abortion" nor does it merit automatic excommunication.

114 I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about Church teachings re: abortion (except the obvious, really well-known ones). And while against abortion I've always been inclined to let people make their own choices. They have to face their decisions at some point, not me. (And, as someone mentioned, that's pretty much how Sarah Palin governed. She never tried to force her beliefs re: this on others. I don't recall Palin ever mentioning hell, though.)

However, I can see why it may have become a so-called one issue vote in this election because of 1) leaving babies to die after a botched abortion is inhumane and disgusting. I don't know if there are words to describe it and 2) forcing federal funding to pay for them is abhorant. While I'm for letting people pave their own way to hell if it exists and if they want, I don't see why I should be made to help finance it.

And then this whole threat of punishing hospitals who won't get with the program by yanking their federal funding absolutely delegitimizes the idea that there is any choice involved (unless it's one that goes in lock step with Obama's agenda.) There's a difference between making it available and creating some mandate.

Moreover, shuttering a hospital and denying an entire community medical care contradicts Obama's supposed concern re: medical care for all. Not to mention the massive unemployment issues it would cause.

As an aside: for me there were plenty of reasons to despise Obama, so abortion was one more in a long list.

115

Gabe,

I'm not sure about automatic excommunication, but the Bishops of Dallas and Fort Worth disagree with you. I'll repeat their declaration:

To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or "abortion rights" when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil - and, therefore, morally impermissible.

116 Oops. I meant to bold "would be to cooperate in the evil." 

117

The attempt to codify natural law was to set a standard for behavior that would be understandable by all. Judeo-Christian teachings support this concept

 

What you describe is more in keeping with “religious law” and not what most people refer to as “natural law”, although they are closely related.

 

All of the arguments against abortion at any stage rely on the concept that a human life exists with a quality described as a soul at conception. Historically that has NOT been the interpretation of the Christian church or other churches. The great crusade against abortion is a relatively modern thing.

 

My own feeling with regard to abortion is that Roe v Wade was bad law from a liberal activist court and there was absolutely no rational basis for the ruling. The entire issue should be returned to the States and the legislators allowed to reflect the will of the people. Prior to Roe some States allowed abortion at will up to the last trimester, some allowed none at all, but most allowed it with some restrictions. There was no huge outcry for or against it.

 

And yes, murder is a legal term used by anti-abortion people as an emotional goad. Any time you hear someone refer to an abortion as “murder” you already know that you are not likely to get a rational argument.

118 That's the same mistake that Ed makes, RWS. "Cooperate in the evil" does not equal "formal cooperation." "Formal cooperation" is a term of art for a specific act which triggers automatic excommunication according to the Catechism para. 2272.

Paragraph 2272 was not intended to be used to purge all Catholics who merely vote for a pro-choice candidate, as the Pope's letter makes clear. They have sinned, but have not formally cooperated in procuring an abortion.

119

We are given one way in our government system to be true to our convictions as Catholics and that is to vote.  I do not care if  Catholic church does not within doctrine equate that with cooperation in an abortion,  it is.  How is it not? If FOCA is law, how did that happen without our votes for someone who said that is exactly what he was going to do?  The outcome of that vote is more abortions. 

120 Hit "post" too soon.  That should end:

They have sinned, but have not formally cooperated in procuring an abortion unless they made the decision to vote for a pro-choice candidate because of the candidate' pro-choice position, rather than in spite of that position.

121

Gabriel,

Even if you are correct, what difference does it make? Even if it isn't  "formal" you have cooperated in the evil. You are making a technical case. Why? It's like the murderer who gets off on a technicality. He is still a murderer.

A Catholic may not be "formally excommunicated," but the stain of deep sin is still there.

I just think we need to be careful because others try use these things to justify their votes. Why should we give them some sort of technical reason? It's still evil.

122 I am going to tread lightly here. I am not a Catholic. But the doctrine of the Eucharist as I understand it is the actual body and spirit of Christ are being consumed and power is imbued on the believer.
"Let a Man Examine Himself.For He That Eateth and Drinketh Unworthily, Eateth and Drinketh Damnation to Himself."

I would perceive it as mercy by the priest who is trying to stop a person from damning themselves. The concept is "I am dead to myself" and "I am made alive in Christ."

To me there's the rub so to speak. Not my life but his. If I am knowingly supporting questionable people who promote the opposite of Church teaching, can I then ask for the blessing of Christ?

Again I am not a Catholic. If I were to become one I would realize that it is a package deal. Just how many teachings can you knowingly reject and still be considered a Catholic?

123 Vic, I'm not a religious man myself, but it's just not the case that laws and denunciations against abortion (religious or civil) are merely a modern thing.

http://www.catholic.com/library/abortion.asp

I actually do agree with you in being skeptical of the idea of natural law.  The problem is that brings us back to the Nazis.  That's the kind of thing that was used against them to get them hanged at Nuremberg.  So if you toss that aside, you're tossing both of these aside, and that brings us back to basic morality and ethics--the law be damned.

124 I'm not a Catholic, so it doesn't matter much to me. But quoting Roger "the Patron Saint of Pedophiles and Illegal Immigrants " Mahoney weakens any argument.

125   Even if you are correct, what difference does it make?

I am opposed to Ed Morrissey's fixation on purging Catholics who do not think like he does. I find it offensive. I kept quiet about it for the past months, but his post this morning torqued me off because it does give the uninformed the idea that Catholics be excommunicated unless they are single-issue voters.

126 Any time you hear someone refer to an abortion as “murder” you already know that you are not likely to get a rational argument.

Why is one side entitled to their opinion without being called irrational but the other doesn't get the same consideration? Other than sheer bias, of course.

127 "I'm saying that voting for Obama does not, within Catholic doctrine, equal 'formal cooperation in an abortion' nor does it merit automatic excommunication."

Well, there's the proportional act (that you alluded to earlier) of actually having/performing an abortion versus backing someone whose policy is to endorse abortion, but I'm not convinced that kind of hair-splitting is enough to get you by on a technicality.

Is one a practicing Catholic or not? If one is, there are obligations. Clearly the sanctity of all life (well a fetus, anyway) must be defended by practitioners and those who would not defend it (even if there are degrees of defense) have some penance to pay, namely excommunication. For examples of defense, should one kill to defend the unborn? Publicly protest? Convert family members? Privately vote against pro-abortionists?

What is the most blessed response for a well-defined Church edict? That is certainly debatable, but it seems to me to be pretty clear that a public official who proclaims to be a believer and who also advocates as public policy the endorsement of abortion cannot be supported by theological peers. Supporting that candidate is an endorsement of his beliefs particularly when his policies are as manifestly expressed. Yes, it's a litmus test, but a believer must maintain them to remain in good graces with the church. Abandon them, even by proxy, and you no longer remain a committed servant.

At that point, you may freely leave the church or shop for a sect whose beliefs you share... but you may not, in good faith call yourself orthodox Catholic. Maybe there's a Catholic-Lite somewhere more accommodating. Nevertheless, rationalizing whatever one's position to provide a patina of purity will not give you ultimate salvation if you truly believe what you proclaimed to believe when life was simpler and you were not faced with real choices.

128

Gabriel,

I don't know. Ed isn't exactly hard line and he does make his case in the same way you make yours so I wouldn't call it uninformed.

It's not about purging Catholics who don't think like he does. It's about Catholics knowing the truth. Ed doesn't decide the truth anymore than you or I do. We look to our Church for that.

As I said, you may be right technically, I don't know, but as far as the big picture of voting for someone is pro-choice goes, it is wrong for a Catholic to do so.  

129 Vic,

you and I seem to be semanticists in our definition of murder. I believe the Talmud said all law is about theft. Murder is stealing another's life. Do we have the right to stop the progression of the next savant or in my case the next resoundingly average life?

The problem as I see it Vic is deciding when stopping the progression to life is permissible. The zygote can not speak for itself and the courts have chosen to speak for the mother only. We as thinking men can see the dilemma. We have no authority to make this decision.

It is hubris to think the potential human would reject life on a perceived basis of poverty. Otherwise, we would be right to kill off the population of Detroit.

One last stab at natural law. I believe you are right to infer some religious affiliation with the concept. I don't think that disqualifies it as a useful idea. What is your basis for codified law? The Magna Carta?

130

Why is one side entitled to their opinion without being called irrational but the other doesn't get the same consideration? Other than sheer bias, of course.

 

I’ll repeat MURDER is a legal term referring to the unlawful premeditated taking of a human life.  Regardless of your feelings toward abortion, since it is LEGAL, then it is NOT the unlawful taking of a human life.

131 This is not about "excommunication", which is the Church declaring that the individual has taken himself out of communion. It's a clear declaration that a vote for Obama is sin, and that if take the sacrament without confessing that sin, you are doing so unworthily. It can't be about excommunication, because we have a secret ballot, and there is no way to know for certain (not even via bumper stickers) than an individual has voted pro-abortion. Nor would a contrite confession of such a vote lead to denial of the Sacrament, but rather a call for penance. I see no problem with this whatsoever.

OTOH, if "material co-operation with evil" is the criterion, I'd say that voting, period, takes you out of communion.

132

The problem as I see it Vic is deciding when stopping the progression to life is permissible

 

Wow, I am now the formal dictator of all laws in the U.S. hahahahaha, would that were true, I can tell you things would be very different and there would have been no Roe v Wade.

 

One last stab at natural law. I believe you are right to infer some religious affiliation with the concept. I don't think that disqualifies it as a useful idea. What is your basis for codified law

 

Try 1791 when the first amendment was ratified.

133

It is hubris to think the potential human would reject life on a perceived basis of poverty. Otherwise, we would be right to kill off the population of Detroit.

 

I missed that initially. At no point have I made economics as any point in my posts or arguments for or against abortion.

134 Vic,

Agreed, Roe v Wade is bad law. Larger point is what is really right.


"Try 1791 when the first amendment was ratified.To your "

To your second statement. What buttresses the first amendment? Is it only correct because it was ratified? As I understand you, you seem to be saying morality is a small thing and law is only a man made barrier to behavior.

I am poor at stating my own opinions so I am sure I butchered yours.

135
First of all, under Catholic teaching it is really not an individual's job to make judgements on the relative levels of evil

Not according to the link that you were kind enough to provide, and not according to the Cardinal's letter. They clearly state that the individual makes those judgments, and that they can't be made on a "taxes vs. abortion" basis, but on our best guess as to the prospects of minimizing evil. And having been raised as a Catholic, I don't ever recall receiving a list of relative evils from the Church - they gave the broad outlines and left it to us to try our best to sort things out on a daily basis. I certainly don't recall them ranking war and abortion in terms of evil.

I doubt that even by the most liberal overestimates of the death toll due to U.S. warmongering would it measure up to this stark statistic.

We're in the 1.5 million range of abortions. But the evil of war goes beyond the casualty count. And as I said, according to Obama, McCain's term would have simply added the evil of unending war to the existing  evil of abortion.

Thirdly, that death toll due to war has dropped precipitously this year, and continues to do so.

You know that, and I know that, but many liberal voters still have no idea that the Surge worked and that Iraq has been transformed. In any case, it doesn't matter - the premise is that they believed that McCain wanted to engage in a war for 100 years, so the reality doesn't matter. It's a false premise, but one embraced by many, many liberals. I saw it repeated in the newspaper a week ago.

Obama is by contrast far worse in that he has promised to take affirmative steps towards liberalizing abortion law in this country

Well, the official stance as expressed on his web site is much, much milder than that. I don't doubt that that's what Obama would like to do, but I if you read his stance as expressed on his website, it's pretty much preserving the status quo. I, like you, believe that he wants to be more proactive, but I'm sure many people heard what they wanted to hear and didn't look past his official policy statements. In fact, it seems that most Obama voters didn't look past "Hope" and "Change."

I think that's a straw man. We're talking about a single political issue,

You're welcome to think that. But you should appreciate the opposition's view: our "single political issue" is their "slippery slope."

I didn't vote for Obama, of course, and I'm no fan of abortion. But I hate to see the Church stepping in to directly influence elections. It's one thing to make a strong moral and religious case against abortion, but another to interfere with politics. I remember attending Mass in Boston and being horrified that the homily was almost entirely a discussion of local and Church politics. It seemed sacrilegious.

136
Maybe there's a Catholic-Lite somewhere more accommodating.

That would be the Episcopalian church.

137 Vic
"At no point have I made economics as any point in my posts or arguments for or against abortion."

Agreed. It is a common justification and not one you have stated.

138 RE: Morrissey's UPDATE:

Again I agree with Ed about "the kind of double-talk that leads people to believe that abortion is compatible with the Catholic faith."

This sounds like a business decision more than an doctrinal one. That walk-back was a walking contradiction.

It's not a sin if I really, really, really believe it isn't.

I guess that's one way to grow the flock. Yikes.

139
I don't ever recall receiving a list of relative evils from the Church - they gave the broad outlines and left it to us to try our best to sort things out on a daily basis. I certainly don't recall them ranking war and abortion in terms of evil.

Of course, back then I never received a letter like the one RWS links, that explicitly states that abortion outweighs war as an evil. If you read that and intended to continue practicing as a Catholic, I'd have to agree that it would be very difficult to justify voting for Obama.

140

For years we have asked the moderate Muslims to take a stand and denounce the exrtremists, even if it imperils their lives.  Why not ask the Catholic Church and its priests, bishops, cardinals, pope, to take a clear stand, denounce the pro-abortionists and why, if thepro abortionist believe the Catholic Church, are they voting for abortions and showing up at the communion rail?  It is one thing to attend Mass and hope for God's blessing/intervention, it is another thing to go directly against the teachings of the Church and take communion.

141

locus ceruleus

 

ALL law is something that begins as a series of workings designed to allow people to live together without constant strife. It is the building block of civilization. As nation-states get older the rulers enact more laws and more laws until they get to the point that the citizens can no longer live together in peace and a revolution occurs.

 

Some nation-states use religion as a basis for those laws. Ancient Israel and the more current Muslim countries are examples of those. Some countries use purely secular law. Some use a combination of religious and secular concepts. I think the U.S. falls in that category even though supposedly it is prohibited by the first amendment (as incorporated to the States). Note that things like blue laws to me are patently unconstitutional, but some States still have those.

 

So there you have it. We do have some purely religious State laws that have been left over from old times BEFORE we had “incorporation” that SCOTUS has not removed.

 

Personally, I think that we should avoid having laws on the books that are based purely on religion. Religion by its very nature is not rational and is not meant to be so. When you have laws based solely on religious beliefs you invite strife in the population. The founding fathers recognized this and sought to eliminate that as a problem in the U.S.

The example for treasonous behavior that resulted in execution that I gave above (Guy Fawks) was an attempt to restore Catholicism to England (The Gunpowder Plot). These kinds of things were fresh in the memory of the founding fathers.

142 In what ways does the democrat party align itself with the Catholic Church?  It seems to advocate a great many instances where it opposes the teachings of the Church, not just in abortion.  Actually, if you compare the old democrat party with this new one, they seem to be in complete opposition to one another.....take nafta for example.  Wasn't the old adage of the dems that if the poorer nations participated in free trade they would improve their situations....be able to feed and take care of their people?  Now the dems are opposed to that....just one example.

143 I’ll repeat MURDER is a legal term referring to the unlawful premeditated taking of a human life.  Regardless of your feelings toward abortion, since it is LEGAL, then it is NOT the unlawful taking of a human life.

So slavery was OK because it was legal, then. How could those foolish abolitionists have been so....irrational?

If even I know the difference between what is legally right and morally right, I think you can, too. Your justification, whilst satisfying for some issues, is not for this. And can you actually tell me with a straight face that sticking a baby in a dirty laundry room to die is alright just because it's legal (or not illegal)?

And that "If even I" statement brings me to my question that you danced around. I'm not talking about how it applies to law. I'm isolating it and asking you to tell me why only one perspective gets to be called "rational"? Sure you can disagree with the other side, but to be able to label it as "irrational" needs a bit more of a foundation.

144 But my opposition doesn't require that I support a movement to excommunicate Catholics who support pro-choice candidates.

So the California theater-going community can "excommunicate" members who are not sufficiently gay-friendly in their political beliefs, but the Catholic church cannot explain to its members that they risk excommunicating themselves by cooperating with abortions?

145 Soren and Paul had it right. work out your salvation in fear and trembling, not a Jansenist but the near universal presumption of Salvation is the cause of indifference to the deepest evils of our age. The pass we give ourselves is useless beyond Death's veil.

146

Why try to throw another argument over slavery into the mix? You can not rationally argue abortion as it is.

In any case, I have to go it is time for supper.

147 How could those foolish abolitionists have been so....irrational?

Before slavery was outlawed, abolitionists never said slavery was illegal. They said it was wrong, an abomination, et cetera, but not illegal. Had they done so they would have been rightly painted as irrational.

Vic's point is that the statement "abortion is murder" is incorrect because murder is by definition the illegal killing of a human being. If it's legal, it can't be murder. There are legal and illegal forms of killing; there are moral and immoral forms of killing. Those two methods of distinction are not necessarily equivalent.

But no matter how immoral a legal act of killing may be, it is not murder.

That's Vic's argument, at least.

I do not agree fully with his argument, however. I think one could argue that the phrase "abortion is murder" is in a sense a short-hand for "abortion is murder in a legal framework that is truly just."

148 "In any case, I have to go it is time for supper."

I hope you choke, and die.

149 Vic's point is that the statement "abortion is murder" is incorrect because murder is by definition the illegal killing of a human being.

But it's not.  "Murder" was not created as a word to be strictly applied to illegal killing.

In fact, this is a distinction between the Torah and the Catholic Bible: the Jewish version of the 10 Commandments has though shalt not commit "murder" as opposed to though shalt not kill (yes, I know, it's in Hebrew, but words to that effect).

The law has many specific definitions for many facets of it:  "rape," "burglary," "robbery," "arson," "fraud," etc.  Outside of a courtroom or a law firm, nobody restricts their definitions to the legally specific version of these or "murder" to the legal meaning when discussing them in the vernacular.

To say murder should now only be used in its legal meaning, when countless people have used it otherwise, is not consistent and merely lightens what (however you want to define it) is a harsh act.

There's also somewhat of a pattern in this thread to be in denial that any of the horrific evils throughout history were ever, in fact, legal.

150

My diocese stated somethng to the effect of:  

There is no way to weight a pro-choice candidate's "good" stances on various "moral issues" to counter-balance that candidate's pro-choice stance.

ABS (Anti-war + pro-environment + pro-immigration) < ABS (pro-choice)

That’s consistent with what is written in mrp’s (#25) link.  One implication is that if there is a pro-life alternative candidate, you cannot in good conscious vote for a pro-choice candidate.   (Which is consistent with Rightwingsparkle's comment.) Interestingly, the article in mrp's link states you may vote for a pro-choice candidate if he/she is the lesser of two evils. This might arise if one candidate supports abortion and euthanasia while the other only supports abortion. In that case, voting for the pro-choice candidate that only supported abortion would be tantamount to limiting potential evil. 

Bottom line: There is no way for a Catholic to justify voting for Obama.

Ex-communication is a whole other matter since Ratzinger likens voting for a pro-abortion candidate to remote material cooperation rather than formal cooperation.  There are circumstances where remote material cooperation is OK (e.g., true ignorance, coercion, and the “lesser of two evils” type example above).   But as far as voting goes, it’s pretty clear where the Catholic Church stands on abortion and euthanasia versus other moral or life issues.  Abortion and euthanasia really do reign supreme as issues. 

151

the Jewish version of the 10 Commandments has though shalt not commit "murder" as opposed to though shalt not kill (yes, I know, it's in Hebrew, but words to that effect).

My super socially conservative Missouri Synod Lutheran grandfather always made that same distinction too AD.  I didn't know it came from a Jewish version of the 10 commandments.  Interesting.  

152
Congratulations, Gabe. You just won the Andrew Sullivan award for Heartache in Conservatism and Religious Issues.

153
I hope you choke, and die.

I guess I'd consider that grounds for banning.

Chrisoph has become an astoundingly strong argument for the pro-Choice faction.

154 Vic,

Sorry, life crept in and I just now got back to the group. You stated your position clearly and logically. I would take issue with your statement on religion.

"Religion by its very nature is not rational and is not meant to be so. When you have laws based solely on religious beliefs you invite strife in the population"

Strife comes in a population based on the nature of mankind and not religion alone. Purely secular societies struggle as much if not more with social harmony.

I would ask for your opinion on Wilberforce, Aquinas, Augustine or Johnathon Edwards. Very rational and religious men who's religion enhanced their logic. We could volley on this subject until Obama became a conservative. I believe religion and laws are echoes of deeper truths. How would you define truth? I know quantitative truth such as two plus two equals four. I am interested in your personal belief. Do you believe there is right and wrong?

My deeper problem with your stated position is the temporal and arbitrary nature of the implementation and destruction of laws. Thus the laws are merely a reflection of the fashionable thinking of the times.

This is all just hot air with you and myself. You are a conservative and on most things a compatriot. My only concern is about the recognition that abortion steals the life of one to give a better life to another. Cannibalism.

155 geoff, if I had a nickle for the times various people have called for my death on this blog, I'd have 50 cents by now.

156 Yeah Gabe. I know you're a great guy but abortion does not call for a legalistic solution. I could say that since gays do not reproduce, they have no intrinsic value in a macro-evolutionary perspective, but that would be monstrous. I would be discounting the deeper human aspect. There is no way to morally (remember that word?) justify the killing of the unborn simply for convenience sake. Elective (convenience) abortions make up over 95% of abortions according to Planned Parenthood's own stats. It's a human tragedy.

157 But while I'm at it, geoff: Fuck you too. Die.

158
But while I'm at it, geoff: Fuck you too. Die.

Exactly my point. You do wonders for the opposition who want to paint pro-Lifers as unhinged, violent zealots who should be marginalized from the political process.

Thanks for that.

159
A Canadian, a homo, and a priest walk into a bar...

160
Always the peacemaker, Bart.

161

>> geoff, if I had a nickle for the times various people have called for my death on this blog, I'd have 50 cents by now.

 

Oh bullshit.  Marginal crap bullshit.

 

Now if you had a nickle (Canadian) for every time your strident boring crap pissed somebody off, then you'd have a small fortune my friend.

 

The bishops, and the Catholic Church have a problem with abortion.  Well spank my ass and call me Sandy.  No fuckin shit.  It manifests itself in a political argument.  Duh, de hoody hoo.  Really?

They express concerns, and a particular line on FOCA.  This surprises, uhm, nobody.

I'm a Protestant goof and I can see this shit a mile away.  Anyone remember how the MSM cherry picked the pontiff's homily for political angst, and ignored the danged message?

 

Honestly people, Gabriel made a point a few comments back that's worth reviewing.  IF you voted for Obama BECAUSE of his support for FOCA, well the church has a problem with that.   And this is surprising why?  Because you didn't think the church had a little issue with this whole abortion thingy?

IF another reason, or reasons, well let them be weighed.

 

Funny how it all gets to motive and the desires of your heart.

 

 

Oh, and also, fuck you Chistoph and your preachy preach bullshit angst.  Now you can say "fuck you" to me!   woo.

162 People who are morally compromised themselves, especially in the area of sexuality, tend to be EITHER:
a) more indulgent than they should be of others' sins in that area;
or,
b) more critical and judgmental than they should be of others' sins in that area.

If the shoe fits....

163 Oh, and just so I'm not misunderstood:
I think the SC priest is within his rightful prerogative, and I DON'T think HE's being "overly judgmental." I may or may not agree with his approach, but
IF ABORTION REALLY IS MURDER--
which I think it is--
3,000-4,000 SUCH MURDERS PER DAY ARE BEING COMMITTED.

The Church would do well to get bloody damn SERIOUS about it!!!!!!

164 "People who are morally compromised themselves, especially in the area of sexuality, tend to be EITHER:"

I'm sure that's why I wrote essays against abortion in high school, while I was a virgin.

"IF ABORTION REALLY IS MURDER--
which I think it is--
3,000-4,000 SUCH MURDERS PER DAY ARE BEING COMMITTED.

"The Church would do well to get bloody damn SERIOUS about it!!!!!!"

Agreed.

165

I'm sure that's why I wrote essays against abortion in high school, while I was a virgin.

Hey, me too!

166 Christoph, you're right. I posted without thinking, giving in to that ol' temptation to oversimplify. I became active in the pro-life movement IMMEDIATELY after Roe v. Wade came down--I was a H.S. sophomore at the time--and have been involved with it ever since. Thanks for calling me out on that one. I apologize.

Abortion is such an emotional issue in part because it does relate to our sexuality--but it IS MURDER. Which makes it first and foremost, above all else, the greatest HUMAN RIGHTS issue of our time.

That's why I quit giving money to Amnesty International. They now officially are OPPOSED to the human rights of babies in utero.

167 But it's not. "Murder" was not created as a word to be strictly applied to illegal killing.

Perhaps not, but it was created as a strict subset of killing; it was meant to distinguish between "permissible" and "impermissible" types. The point is that the term "murder" requires a context that separates it from, say, self-defense or acts of just war. The legal context is typically the context chosen, for obvious reasons.

In fact, this is a distinction between the Torah and the Catholic Bible: the Jewish version of the 10 Commandments has though shalt not commit "murder" as opposed to though shalt not kill (yes, I know, it's in Hebrew, but words to that effect).

This is nothing but a translation issue. There is no one-for-one correspondence between Hebrew words and English words. The Torah clearly distinguishes between permissible and impermissible killing. It even distinguishes between murder and manslaughter.

168

I'm sure that's why I wrote essays against abortion in high school, while I was a virgin.

Hey, me too!

Posted by: pajama momma at November 16, 2008 08:01 PM (f3xJa)

Hey, you were a virgin in high school too?

Cool.... I thought I was the only one!



Yes, kidding.

169 I didn't have my first kiss till I was 14

170 course that might be old considering you're still waiting right christoph?

171

I'm sure that's why I wrote essays against abortion in high school, while I was a virgin.

Hey, me too!

Posted by: pajama momma at November 16, 2008 08:01 PM (f3xJa)

It was a high school essay that turned me strongly against abortion.

In Social Studies 11 we had to research and write on an issue of the day. I chose abortion. Before I had bought into the intellectually nonsensical, "I think it's wrong, but it's a woman's decision," position.

Then, I researched it. I saw what they actually did to unborn children. I heard the arguments on each side: One side a moral one and the other side a selfish one. I realized those arguments were roughly the same as the others throughout history I already felt passionately about:

1. Slavery.

2. The Holocaust.

Further, I was on the "look the other way side". The side that always disgusted me in each of those two moral battles on the meaning of personhood.

I changed my position and wrote a passionate, long, well researched, and descriptive essay. It horrified and made my pro-choice Social Studies teacher who had always liked me for my class participation and questions look viscerally ill.

Reading it she asked, "Are you sure you want to turn this in?" I said, "Yes." She gave me a C, despite it easily being the most comprehensive (100 hours in the making. minimum) paper of the bunch. That dropped my grade in the class by a letter as it turned out.

I never regretted it.

Considering the price paid by victims of abortion, it was minimal.

172 "course that might be old considering you're still waiting right christoph?"

You betcha!

173 Hal@11:  You might feel better voting for Obama because of some non-abortion related issue, but the end result is the same no matter why you voted for him.  Considering this is one of those "life or death" issues (at for Catholics), you'd have to have a darn good excuse for voting for a pro-choice candidate to make this at least plausible.

That's what Ratzinger meant by "proportionate reasons."
When we are talking about 3,000-4,000 murders per day in this country, I cannot imagine there is anything "proportionate" to justify its continuance!!!

174

Considering the price paid by victims of abortion, it was minimal.

I've always been involved in the pro-life cause I was raised a strict Roman Catholic I can remember going to pro-life marches in kindergarten. I thought it was cool because I got to miss school.

My freshman year of high school my geography teacher, why it was the geography teacher that gave this assignment I do not know, but he decided we had to have a debate. He gave out a ton of topics, I was the only one who choose the pro-life position to defend.........the entire class was against me and I had to argue with them the entire 15 min. by myself. I actually got an "A" and I was surprised considering the teacher was, in hindsight, pretty liberal.

175 "I've always been involved in the pro-life cause I was raised a strict Roman Catholic..."

I was an atheist at the time and I'm a deist now; I oppose abortion because I believe adults have a duty to children and not the other way around.

176

I oppose abortion because I believe adults have a duty to children and not the other way around.

I'm still making my kids clean their own damn toilet. You know what a bathroom looks like with 4 kids?

177 The first sentence of the current Wikipedia article is as good a summary of deism as any:

"Deism is the belief that a supreme God exists and created the physical universe, and that religious truths can be arrived at by the application of reason alone, without dependence on revelation."

There are different branches of deism, as is not unusual in any belief system!

I tend toward the deism of several of the American founders where they believed in natural laws ("self-evident truths" was Benjamin Franklin's editing change to Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: "unalienable rights" is another manifestation of that idea) and discounted revelation (scripture)... but they also believed in Providence.

Whether this is the intervention of God or whether this is part of the natural laws of the universe available to people(s) who live in accordance with God's natural laws is an interesting question. I don't know.

178 It seems ironic 30+ years after Roe v. Wade that American Catholics seem determined to find themselves a 'softer place to fall' than the stated position of their Church.

If I were a cynic, I would make mention of the fact that American Catholics seem immune to sexually-related Church teachings (Birth-control, homosexuality, divorce-and-remarriage, etc..), and might even be so bold as to suggest that a previous poster's use of the word "club" to describe Church membership is distressingly accurate.

Mostly I suppose I'm just jealous of all the theologians who can operate as if their faith was somehow a franchise they've bought and can operate as they see fit, with the input of the Magisterium acting as some kind of consulting service they need not feel compelled to obey.

More power to them if that actually works, but I suspect they are engaging in a grand self-deception to the detriment of their Church and their fellow believers.

I pray for guidance and humility, and the grace to listen much more often than I speak.

Just sayin'.

179 The "gosh, I realize that this guy is the MOST RADICAL PRO-ABORTION CANDIDATE EVER NOMINATED/ELECTED, but that's not why I voted for him so it's all sunshine and roses between me and my church" excuse is about as weak-ass an excuse I've ever heard, Gabe. But I'm sure it makes your and/or the people who think like you feel much better. "It's not my fault because I made it easier for these innocents to die in the womb! I voted for the guy, but that's not why I voted for him!" Nice work. (And, yes, I am Catholic. And if YOU are "Catholic", it is quite obvious that Ed Morrisey knows more about Catholicism in his little finger than you do in your whole body.)

180 "It's not my fault because I made it easier for these innocents to die in the womb!"

in?

181 Iblis@58:  There's a massive disconect between what [Catholics] think the Democrats stand for, and what the Democrats actually stand for.

Got a great book to recommend:
Can a Catholic Be a Democrat?
(How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion)
by David Carlin (formerly a head honcho in the Rhode Island Democratic Party)
It's a really good, very readable little history of how the Dem Party got to where it is today, particularly as regards the abortion issue

Another one I recommend that is very good on the history of Dems on abortion--but from a totally secular standpoint--is
The Party of Death
by Ramesh Ponnuru

182 According to the exit polls (which I don't trust, so I hope they're wrong) some 54% of  "Catholics" voted for Obama. Even worse, supposedly some 40+% of weekly Mass attenders voted for Obama!!!

I like to think that if they had seen THIS, however, they would not have voted that way:

http://tinyurl.com/6msdcc

And if everyone in AMERICA had seen this 5-minute video, I tell you for sure, Obama would have LOST by a landslide.

183 The election, for the most part, was not discussed from the pulpit.  What happens to Catholic physicians who perform abortions?

184 "What happens to Catholic physicians who perform abortions?"

Nothing, although the death penalty would be appropriate if performed for reasons other than to save the life of the mother.

185 Well I sort of mean "what happens to their souls?"

186 "And if everyone in AMERICA had seen this 5-minute video, I tell you for sure, Obama would have LOST by a landslide."

Sadly, I don't think so.

All it takes is a "man" like my father, to explain to him what partial birth abortion is, or what infanticide is as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and the Illinois Induced Infant Liability Act have him agree these are terrible, expressing shock that they could happen legally in the United States, and then prove to him that not only do they happen, Obama is in favour of them remaining legal, and suddenly discussion of them ceases, it's minimized, and ignored. By my father.

I think you need to come to grips with the fact that half the American electorate supported evil.

187 FireHorse@72:  The accusations of murder and the parallels to the Holocaust don't wash with me -- not without a few former abortion doctors describing their deep regret over what they've been doing for part of the past 35 years. If they're indeed murdering fellow human beings, then they'd know it.

Other people on the thread have given links to testimonials from abortionists who have given it up, Dr. Bernard Nathanson being the most notable.

I live a couple hours from Wichita, "the late-term abortion capital" because of Dr. George Tiller, aka Tiller the Killer, who performs abortions all the way up through the ninth month. Think about that for a minute. Ninth month. (He's a huge donor to our "Catholic" Democrat governor, Kathleen Sebelius, who's probably going to be appointed to something big by Senator Infanticide President-elect Infanticide.

Tiller's a member of a Lutheran church--I know, unbelievable, can you imagine sitting next to this guy in the pews?--and has some sort of a chaplain who is available to these women, and will even baptize their dead babies for them!! Tiller was quoted as saying something to the effect of, yes, even if it means I'm going to hell, I'm going to keep doing this anyway.

This is what we're up against, folks. This is what it looks like when individuals completely give themselves over to the Dark Side. And I fear Obama is one of them. I pray for his conversion (and Tiller's).

188 "I pray for his conversion (and Tiller's)."

While both are difficult, I think my goal of defeating them is more doable.

189 Having read your article, this is what immediately came to mind:
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

190 Filly@106:  Since [Pelosi, Biden et al] are not recusing themselves from Communion, as they should, the Church has a responsibility to protect the Sacrament and refuse them when they attempt to receive it.

To protect: 
1) The Sacrament (from profanation), but also,

2) The sinners themselves (from compounding the sin of abortion advocacy with the additional sin of blasphemy/sacrilege by receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin)

3) All the rest of us (from the moral confusion that comes from seeing people who condone mass murder being treated as if they're in a state of grace)

191 "Tiller's a member of a Lutheran church--I know, unbelievable, can you imagine sitting next to this guy in the pews?--and has some sort of a chaplain who is available to these women, and will even baptize their dead babies for them!! Tiller was quoted as saying something to the effect of, yes, even if it means I'm going to hell, I'm going to keep doing this anyway.

"This is what we're up against, folks."

Don't you get it? The women -- and men -- who hire this man are evil too. They should be punished in a just world.

They kill their own children.

192 momof2@109:  I feel betrayed by my church that they could not talk about this before the election but in the most vague terms and now after they want us to put pressure on people about FOCA.  This would not be an issue if Obama were not the President - Elect.

Wow, I am so with you, hon. You are not alone! I have been very, very angry about this, too. But I'm working on it. We are all in this together, the Church is made up of fallen human beings, bishops are human too, plus we as laity just can't fathom the complexities of pastoring and all the factors that come into play.

I couldn't have spoken in this tone even two days ago. But I went to Confession myself this morning, and to Communion for the first time in weeks. There really is healing grace there!

193 fireweed@114:  shuttering a hospital [because it won't provide abortions] and denying an entire community medical care contradicts Obama's supposed concern re: medical care for all.

No, because then all those people will have no alternative but Obamacare.

Also, we have seen time and time again that the pro-abortion radicals are perfectly willing to sacrifice every other concern for the sake of abortion. It really is like a mental illness--or demonic possession.

194 Vic@117:  All of the arguments against abortion at any stage rely on the concept that a human life exists with a quality described as a soul at conception. Historically that has NOT been the interpretation of the Christian church or other churches. The great crusade against abortion is a relatively modern thing.

WRONG!  You're making the same mistake Nancy Pelosi did. While the Church, pre-modern-biology, knew as little about prenatal development as everyone else did--and debated about when "ensoulment" took place, there was never any disagreement that abortion is always gravely wrong.  It's specifically mentioned in the Didache, one of the earliest surviving documents of the early Christians, dating to the first century after Christ. And the Church has taught that absolutely unchangingly for the last 2,000 years.

If it seems that the anti-abortion crusade is "a relatively modern thing," that's only because abortion on a massive scale--and considered socially acceptable--is a totally modern thing!!

195 Vic@117

"...

"WRONG!  You're making the same mistake Nancy Pelosi did."

They're not making "mistakes". They're both evil.

196

Kathy

 

I am posting this in the event that you come back to review the thread after going to bed last night as I have.

 

You, as well as someone else earlier, stated that the Catholic church forbid abortions in the early years. While this is true, it is not completely true. In the very early days the Pope issued an edict forbidding abortions which took place after pregnancy was noted. At that time this was much later than at “conception”. A later Pope however lifted that sanction and it was not reinstated until some time in the 1800s.

 

That was pretty much the case for secular law in the U.S. right up until the then when it became forbidden after “quickening”.

 

Besides this is the point that women have been practicing abortions since literally the beginning of civilizations.

 

To all of you others who wish to rationalize Aramaic and Hebrew definitions of the term “murder” it is immaterial to the current discussion when opponents of abortion use the term they are not speaking in the Aramaic or Hebrew sense, they are speaking in the 21^st century English sense in a manner meant to be emotional charged.

197 Well, that pretty well illustrates your preposterousness:
<i>"In the very early days the Pope issued an edict forbidding abortions which took place after pregnancy was noted."</i>

If it hadn't yet been noted, you wouldn't really be thinking about getting an abortion would you?

Even the Hippocratic oath has an admonition against abortion.  You need not be modern or even Christian to be against abortion.

Gabe,
<i>"Let's be clear:

I'm not saying that voting for Obama is a moral choice. Obviously it's not, not least because of his support for FOCA. I'm saying that voting for Obama does not, within Catholic doctrine, equal "formal cooperation in an abortion" nor does it merit automatic excommunication."</i>

Yes, let's be clear, I don't know about Morrisey's position, but as for what you're saying, clearly, voting for Obama shouldn't merit automatic excommunication.  If you were uninformed and somehow didn't know about Obama's position on abortion, than you would have a (weak) defense of ignorance, though just the fact he's a Democrat should be a clue.  You'd still be guilty of a sin of omission I'd think.  If you voted for Obama while knowing his position on abortion, how could you find 'proportionate reasons' to vote for him?  If you are going to defend such people (are you?) then you'd need to give at least one reasonable example of 'proportionate reasons'.  Note that, as already pointed out, Bishops have declared war, economic, and immigration issues as not sufficient.

Otherwise, it's really just the point about being knowledgeable or not.

198

To all of you others who wish to rationalize Aramaic and Hebrew definitions of the term “murder” it is immaterial to the current discussion when opponents of abortion use the term they are not speaking in the Aramaic or Hebrew sense, they are speaking in the 21^st century English sense in a manner meant to be emotional charged.

 

In other words ,"These people are religious and their viewpoints come from thier religion except when it is convenient for me to say otherwise."

 

And just where do you think the 21st century English sense came from? A murder is an unjust killing unless you are in court (where it may be something else).

 

Gabe, if you look back in, your take on this has a wiff of the pharisees about it. You are a bit too concerned about the letter rather than  the intent of the law. 

 

The good thing about your faith is that you do we are called to do, which is to struggle with the parts of our faith that give us pause.  Pray for me. I will pray for you.

199

The Church says and does much more than is ever reported. They did speak out against Obama during the election. The links I gave of Bishop Chaput of Denver were during the Democratic National Convention. Strong blunt words.

There is no doubt where the Church stands on this, but many Catholics ignore the horror of abortion. 

200 VIC@196

You're just plain wrong. I have been involved in the pro-life movement for 35 years--long before I joined the Catholic Church--and I did a lot of study of the Catholic Church before I joined. I don't know where you're getting your information, but trust me, it's not a reliable source. The Church has always, always, always taught that abortion is WRONG.

And the only reason it's not specifically mentioned in the Bible is because it was an absolutely foreign concept to the Hebrews! Have you actually read the whole Bible from cover to cover? I have. And trust me, children are regarded as blessings throughout. The only agony and despair relating to pregnancy that you see in the Bible--other than the agony of pregnant women for fear for their children when Jerusalem is being destroyed-- is the despair of women who can't have children! Sterility is considered a curse and a punishment.

And all through the writings of the prophets, you see a special "wrath" from God where child-sacrifice is concerned. The pagan peoples around the Hebrews did sacrificed children--although even those were already-born children--to their gods, and sometimes the Hebrews fell into the same idolatry. When they did....whewee, the consequences were DRASTIC.

201

We're not talking about excommunication, the issue is committing a grave sin. Catholics who voted for Obama precisely because of Obama's support for abortion have committed a mortal sin.  Caltholics who voted for Obama in spite of his permissive abortion stance are guilty of a mortal sin as well, unless there are proportionate reasons for doing so.   Catholics are not one issue voters, but we do start with key life issues like abortion.  The question in this election became:  What policy or policies did McCain advocate whose sole purpose is the murder of 1.5 million Americans a year?  (This where we look at the other issues) What is proportional do this slaughter?  Many bishops are on record as syaing they could not think of a proportionate reason. 

Catholics voted for their pocketbook over the abortion issue, presumably because of ignorance.  Sadly, ignorance is no excuse.

202 "Catholics voted for their pocketbook over the abortion issue, presumably because of ignorance."

No, no, NO damn you!*

They (not you) voted for Obama out of evil. Complicity. How can you say they voted for their pocketbook over 1.5 million lives -- or any innocent lives -- and this is out of "ignorance"?

Willful ignorance, at best. I saw the ads with the abortion survivor talking about Obama's support of infanticide and many of these voters did too. We all knew the differences between the candidates on abortion vs. pro-life. The Catholic Church's position in particular is hardly unclear.

Not only that, many of those Catholics -- millions of them! -- voted for Obama because he gives them and their "loved ones" the ability to fuck and not be punished with a baby. That simple.

It's terrible, but the truth isn't less so because of it.




*Rhetorically speaking. You're a decent guy.

203

There is no doubt where the Church stands on this, but many Catholics ignore the horror of abortion.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at November 17, 2008 09:25 AM (JhfZB)

Yes, sadly. But exactly.

204 Christoph,
Perhaps it is easier for you to "damn" other people to hell because you don't really believe in heaven and hell? I, on the other hand, very much believe in those things, so would shudder to bid anyone go to hell. In the Divine Mercy devotion, we Catholics pray that everyone may accept the mercy that God offers to everyone, and be saved.

I do appreciate your fierceness on this issue. I think there are many roles in this struggle. I admire people like Frederica Mathewes-Green, who has dialogues with the pro-abortion people, I think it's called the Common Ground Project. Myself, I could not do this. I recognize it as a necessary part of the struggle, however. That kind of dialogue is at one end of the spectrum, your fierceness is at the other. I guess I fall somewhere in between. We who are in the struggle need to value all the different roles, I think. Let's not fight against each other! Reserve that energy for the opponent--which I think is the Devil, who loves loves LOVES baby-killing.

As you demonstrate, Christoph, one needn't be a religious believer to "crusade" against evil. I remember the great atheist Camus--still one of my heroes--gave a speech one time to a group of Christians (and I think he wrote several things on the topic, too) exhorting them to live up to their own creed. Something along the lines of, here he was, this atheist, who could clearly see right and wrong, and do his best to promote the right, so why couldn't Christians, who supposedly have access to Truth, do at least as well as he?

205

So Gabriel is playing at being a Catholic again?

Gabriel Malor: "Once again I have to tell my Church to fuck off. I'm really getting tired of that."

Must be nice to drape on the Ima Catholic robes whenever you see fit to call attention against them.

 

You should really make peace with your own self loathing.

206

Christoph,

The exit polls showed that the economy was the #1 issue.  This seems to be true as well for Catholics. 

I think many Catholics were blissfully unaware of Church teachings.  Does anyone think your average cultural Catholic (the majority) was going to read 30+ pages of Faithful Citizenship?  (That might be a good argument for invincible ignorance).  In my parish in the Diocese of St. Pete, you could hear crickets chirping when it came to the election and abortion.  The bishops of Florida put out a statement, but it was never read at Mass or put in our bulletin.  While some bishops made news, it was pretty quiet here.

Again, ignorance is no excuse. Catholics have a duty to form their consciences properly, and many apparently did not (as evidenced by the number of Catholics who actually voted for The One).

207 Darryl, I think many Germans were blissfully unaware of the death camps near their communities.

Those who were actually unaware were a much smaller percentage.

Evil isn't rare.

208 Darryl, you're exhibiting blissful ignorance... although not of the same evil nature.

209

There is no doubt where the Church stands on this, but many Catholics ignore the horror of abortion. 

At the level where the Church touches the daily lives of Catholics, there is not much said about abortion. Yes, Rite to Life makes the church bulletin but so does Boy Scouts. It is the rare Priest who has the courage to speak about abortion from the pulpit. Those who I know have done, were shocked by the vitriolic reaction.

210 "At the level where the Church touches the daily lives of Catholics, there is not much said about abortion."

The Democratic party says a lot about it. Any 16-year old child knows they are "pro-choice". The supporters of Obama, Catholic or otherwise, have no defense.

211 "Those who I know have done, were shocked by the vitriolic reaction."

Because the people who responded to the truth-telling priest with vitriol are evil.

Catholics. And evil.

Good vs. evil isn't defined by membership in a religion! It is defined by action, a life well lived, and yes even by supporting or opposing an unborn child's right to life.

212 Unfortunately, in Los Angeles, it was a very similar situation- little was actually said from the pulpit, and let's face it, most Catholics don't read the bulletin, much less a treatise on responsible voting.  As for the lack of courage from our priests, I have to point right to the Bishops (much less so those like Chaput, much more so those like Mahoney).  If our leaders have no courage in their leadership, how can our priests feel they have the support of authority in addressing these difficult issues?

It's gotta suck to be a priest right now.

213

Just so we're clear -- voting for a pro-abortion candidate when there was a viable pro-life candidate was gravely sinful.  I think many Catholics sinned and I'm just sayin that ignorance of Church teaching is no excuse.  I'm more worried about the culpability of bishops in this matter.  On the other hand, more and more bishops are standing up for life, so the tide may be turning... 

214

Re:  "Proportionate Reasons"

Douglas:  Priests that I know aren't troubled in the least.  They preach the good news, do the Lord's work, and let the chips fall where they may.  At my parish (San Diego diocese) I heard at least two homilies against abortion prior to the election. 

Malor:  There's a world of difference between funding school lunches for children, and pureeing children.  Hard to see the proportion in that.

The FOCA law will force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.  The bishops are talking about shutting down the 500+ Catholic hospitals rather than complying.  They won't sell to another medical outfit which would then perform abortions, they'll just tear down the buildings.  I'm of the opinion that Obama would seize the hospitals and jail some bishops if it came to that.

 

215

Gabriel:

 

I agree with you nor should the Church excommunicate pedophile priests; satan worshipers; or other buffet Catholics who decide which of the Church's doctrines they will suffer.

216 The Catholic church shouldn't be toning down it's rhetoric at a time like this.  We now live in a nation of liberal illuminati leftists who are determined to not only undermine our nation, but to destroy life here as well.

217 balance of shoes nike shoes shoes.com adidas shoes puma shoes womens shoes dress shoes. casual shoes wholesale shoes sport shoes nike shoes shoes boots sandal shoes basketball shoes slippers shoes . replica rolex watches rolex watch replica watches- cartier watches- cartier watches swiss watch automatic watch chronograph watch. mens watch watch com men's watch the watch womens shoes leather shoes dress shoes running shoes . adidas shoes tote bag golf bag plastic bag purses bag briefcase bag steve madden shoes gold watch rockport shoes repairs watches best replica watches youtube watch youtube watch rolex watch rolex watches casio watches watches online timex watches tag watches. nike jordan shoes ladies watch leather bag replica handbag replica handbags wearing fashions clothes jorand shoes . oyster rolex dive watches replica watches- watches for men- timex watches buy watch rolex mens chrono watch elgin watch. automatic watch ladies watch mens watches new shoes steve madden shoes sneakers shoes sneaker shoes jorand shoes . rolex replica belts bag diaper bags travel bag laptop bag shoulder bag wears art glass urban wear fendi bag briefcase bag nike shoes men shoes fashion shoes women's shoes shoe store nike shoes best replica watches nike shoes men shoes fashion shoes women's watches cracked- medieval times- cidreq cidreq mens health ukraine 2009 calendar. chopper leipzig madsen donald duck isis king ncaa mens soccer cuny portal croazia . pasolini safari e-buddy espace pub rugby henderson waves jewelry ring wrist watches rolex watches replica watches fine watches casio watches watches online quartz watch. nike shoes ladies watch men's watch nike shoes running shoes Tiffany Bracelet basketball shoes jorand shoes . replica rolex watches rolex watch replica watches- fine watches- rolex datejust rolex mens watch repair oyster rolex watch. air flight ladies watch men's watch rolex submariner running shoes Tiffany Bracelet rolex replica jorand shoes . rolex replica watches rolex replica nike shoes rolex replica rolex replica fake rolex replica rolex replica watches rolex replica rolex replica rolex replica watches rolex replica best replica watches watches diamond watches replica watches rolex watches casio watches watches online timex watches tag watches. nike jordan shoes ladies watch luxury rolex watch nike shoes running shoes Tiffany Bracelet basketball shoes jorand shoes . oyster rolex dive watches replica watches- watches for men- rolex datejust buy watch rolex mens watch repair oyster rolex watch. air flight ladies watch seagull watches rolex submariner running shoes Tiffany Bracelet rolex replica jorand shoes . rolex replica watches rolex replica nike shoes rolex replica rolex replica fake rolex replica rolex replica watches rolex replica rolex replica shoe store nike shoes best replica watches nike shoes men shoes fashion shoes women's shoes shoe store nike shoes best replica watches nike shoes men shoes fashion shoes women's watches

218 Perfect iPod to PC transfer software helps you transfer between iPod/iPhone and personal computer. The iPod to PC transfer can transfer iPod/iPhone music, video, photos, iPod podcast and TV program to PC. It can transfer iPod to PC, transfer iPod to iTunes, transfer between iPod and iPhone, and among several iPods/iPhones. transfer iPod to PC is versatile iPod transfer software to help you backup Songs & Videos from ipod to computer. The iPod to PC transfer software can efficiently transfer iPod music, photos, video and movies. The iPod transfer software connects your iPod to PC with the ability of transferring all kinds of files from iPod to Computer.The FLV to iPod software is a powerful software which can convert FLV to iPod with hight outputquality either extract audio from FLV to iPod supported audio such as AAC, MP3, WAV or convert FLV to iPod supported video formats such as mp4, m4v, mov, H.264, MPEG4, etc......

219 Mac DVD Copy,Mac DVD Creator,Mac DVD Ripper,Mac DVD Burner,Mac DVD Converter,Mac DVD to MOV,Mac DVD to MP4,Mac DVD to iPod,Mac DVD to PSP

220 Video Joiner,TOD Converter,MTS Converter,HD Video Converter

221 SWF Converter,SWF to AVI,SWF to MP4,SWF to FLV Converter,SWF to WMV,SWF to MOV,SWF to 3GP,SWF to MPG, MPEG,SWF to VOB,SWF to iPod,SWF to iPhone,SWF to Apple TV,SWF to PSP,SWF to Zune,SWF to MP3,SWF to WMA,SWF to JPG, JPEG,SWF to Gif, Animated Gif,SWF to PNG

222 Wedding Dresses

223 shanghai massage

224 Some people like LV handbags,Some people like Chanel handbags,but most popel have been keeping an eye on cheap fashion brand handbags .we often talk about all kinds of designer handbags with my friends,most of my friends also like cheap fashion brand handbags.We admire cheap fashion brand handbags designer who often be able to design so many stylish handbags.We want to be a handbag抯 designer in the future too. In our store online，you can buy all series of cheap fashion brand handbags，include: Louis Vuitton,LV Luggage,LV Wallets,LV Agendas,LV Belts,LV Shoes,LV Accessories,Gucci,Gucci Wallets,Gucci Shoes,Marc Jacobs handbags,Marni handbags,Miu Miu handbags,Mulberry handbags,Prada handbags,Thomaswylde handbags,TOD handbags,Bottega Veneta handbags,D&G handbags,Dior handbags,YSL handbags,Coach handbags

225 Air force 1 shoes
Nike air force one
Nike air force
Air force 1 mens
Air force one
UGG Boots
UGG Australia
UGG Shoes
UGG Sale
Lebron Shoes
Cheap UGG
UGG Boots
UGG Shoes
Discount UGG
UGG Australia
UGG Sale
UGG Online

226 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

227 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

228 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

229 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

230 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

231 soccer jersey wholesale | Replica Rolex | Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica Cartier | Replica Omega | Christian Dior Watches | Girard Perregaux Watches Replica | Wholesale Bedat & CO Watch | Replica Richard Mille Watches | Jacques Lemans Replica | Oris Watch Replica | Replica Bulova | Fake Movado | Fake Omega Watches | Seiko Replica Watch

232 Replica watches | Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica Rolex | Replica watches | replica soccer jersey | Fake Richard Mille | Replica Blancpain | Replica Girard Perregaux Watch | Audemars Piguet Replica Watch | Zenith Fake | 2009 New Arrival Watch | Daniel Roth Replica Watches | Montblanc Watch Replica | Rado Watches Replica | Corum Watches Replica

233 Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica Watches | Replica Rolex | Fake Cheap Rolex | Fake Watches | Dolce & Gabbana Fake | Richard Mille Watches Replica | Replica Mont Blanc Watch | Technomarine Replica Watches | Wholesale Patek Philippe Watch | Christian Dior Watch | Replica Swiss | Roger Dubuis Replica | Christian Dior Replica Watch | Girard Perregaux Fake Watches

234 Replica Omega | Replica Cartier | replica soccer jersey | Replica Rolex | Replica Watches | Fake Breitling | Maurice Lacroix Wristwatch | replica wristwatch | Calvin Klein Fake Watches | Fake Hublot Watches | Cheap Movado Watches | Cheap Jaeger Lecoutre Watches | Cheap Iwc | Fake Titoni Watch | Rolex Watches Replica

235 mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

236 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

237 hot news for brand shoes online store ,do you want to win more discount ?and popular for younger,and nike air maxwith top quality A ,come on all air max shoes with lowest price for highest quality !

238 Replica Watches | Replica Cartier | soccer jersey wholesale | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica watches | Fake Cheap Rolex | soccer jersey supplier | soccer jersey wholesale | replica watch | watches brand | replica watch | replica watches | replica watches | replica watches | watches brand | Luxury watches | Luxury watches | replica watch | replica wristwatch | best replica watches | replica watch | replica watches | best replica watches | best replica watches | replica watches | replica watches | watches brand | best replica watches | watches brand | watches brand | replica watch | best replica watches | Luxury watches | replica watches | watches brand | best replica watches | replica watch | best replica watches

239 We supply authentic discount Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Trainers
New Lacoste
Lacoste Sale
Mens Lacoste
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste trainers shoes
lacoste camden retro
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste carnaby shoes
lacoste carnaby retro
lacoste shoes sale
New Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes online
cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoe
mens lacoste shoes
Lacoste Shua Lace
Black Lace shoes
white Lace shoes
lacoste swerve shoes
White Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes sale
Cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste Women Shoes
Women Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Shoes online
on line, cheap price,Top quality,Free shipping!

240 Dior Jewelry Fashion | Tungsten Rings Best | Charms Tiffany | Wholesal Stainless Steel Bracelet | Stamping Necklaces Luxury | cross pendant | Gold Pendants Luxury | Business Card Holder Best | Stainless Steel Bracelets Fashion | Rubber Necklace Best | Wood Bangles Yiwu | Wholesal Carbon Fiber Cufflink | Laser Earring Luxury | Wholesale Wood Bracelet Jewelry | Laser Earring Luxury | Carbon Pendants Wholesale | Wholesal Pendants Tiffany | Wholesal Tiffany Jewelry | Wholesal Pendants Tiffany | Ceramic Bracelet Yiwu

241 Replica Juicy Couture Watches | Jacques Lemans Fake Watches | Replica Gucci wallet Watches | Jacob & Co Replica Watches | Maurice Lacroix Replica Watches | Replica Hamilton Watches | Watches Maurice Lacroix Fashion | Gucci Belt Replica Watches | Replica Gucci wallet Watches | Replica Patek Philippe Watches | Watches Louis vuitton Belt Fashion | Watches Cartier Fashion | Chopard Fake Watches | Replica Blancpain Watches | Jacob & Co Replica Watches | IWC Replica Watches | Watches Zenith Fashion | Piaget Fake Watches | Watches Maurice Lacroix Fashion | Franck Muller Replica Watches

242 Best Swiss bags | Replica Ebel Handbags | Replica Fashion Gucci handbags | Rolex Replica bags | Replica Bvlgari Handbags | Replica Ebel Handbags | Luxury Exchange Fee handbags | Luxury TAG Heuer handbags | Omega Fake Handbags | Corum Fake Handbags | Replica Porsche Design Handbags | Replica Fashion Rado handbags | Replica Franck Muller Handbags | Luxury Vacheron Constantin handbags | Luxury Louis vuitton Belt handbags | Luxury Chanel handbags | Vacheron Constantin Replica bags | Replica Fashion Oris handbags | Luxury Vacheron Constantin handbags | Luxury Bvlgari handbags | Replica Zenith Handbags | Replica Fashion Movado handbags | Replica Girard Perregaux Handbags | Alain Silberstein Fake Handbags | Replica Piaget Handbags

243 Replica Jimmy Choo Handbags | Replica Louis Vuitton Monogram Denim Handbags | Luxury Chanel Wallets handbags | Best Versace bags | Luxury replica Armani sun-glasses handbags | Chanel Fake Handbags | Replica Fashion AH handbags | Luxury Prada handbags | Dolce & Gabbana Replica bags | Replica Louis Vuitton Epi Leather Handbags | Best Versace bags | Luxury Chanel Wallets handbags | Chanel Fake Handbags | Fendi Replica bags | Christian Dior Fake Handbags | Luxury Balenciaga handbags | Replica Fashion Prada handbags | Best Fashion bags | Best Chole bags | Best Christian Dior bags | Gucci Wallets Replica bags | Christian Dior Fake Handbags | Best Versace bags | Louis Vuitton Monogram Vernis Fake Handbags | Hermes Replica bags

244 Gowns Wedding Gowns, Wedding Gowns Dresses

245 Gowns Wedding Gowns, Wedding Gowns Dresses

246

Swiss replica watches Now while replica watches you can buy a good digital replica watches and pocket watch you might need to see what features are present on your new purchase. This is important as you should know and understand the quickest way to set any of the watch brands. You will also need to familiarize yourself with how to know when you will need to change the batteries on your digital watch.The key to finding your perfect watch is mainly replica watches keeping your options open. There are flea markets where you should be able to find replica watch stalls. You can see if you will come across any great antique watch brands in auction houses. These places will sometimes have fantastic looking antique pocket watches that will grace the hand of any owner.These facts may seem to be quite daunting but if you have ever owned a watch of any kind then you will replica watches know that you just how replica watches easy wristwatch these devices can make your life. The many different styles and features that you can find on an average watch will make choosing the right watch brands an exciting experience.

247 Certainly watches are Replica Watches used to help people record rolex Watches time, but rolex watches nowadays its functions have enlarged. Replica watches are now tag heuer Watches not only objects that tag heuer watches can tell you what time it is, they are also a status symbol. You should not feel strange when you find someone wearing a watch on his wrist, but use the cell phone to tell time. In that situation, the watch is just showing its luxurious function cartier watches. It is normal and cartier watches perhaps also happens to you. .If asked that among the watches of various brands, which one can suit your taste? There is no doubt that most people will choose Rolex. Whichever social class you are in, it is naturally Rolex was known breitling Watches and cherished breitling watches for a long time. However, the elements do not usually enter the market alone, always come with the price tag up to the hand. For this reason, many people, especially men, their dreams of luxury Rolex watches are buried in omega Watches his heart omega watches. What should I do? Rolex watches are simply stunning worn by the rich and famous, right? No, this world is not the world's richest men, is the world of each. All are equal before the search of luxury and be men's watches respected. Within men's watches, the law, when consumers are in the market, women's watches they should women's watches receive the same treatment. This is the real reason why replica Rolex watches are ladies watches ladies watches more welcome than Rolex. Because in this world are not difficult to understand that the rich are much less than people with low income, you agree with me? You are forced to nod and say with certainty that is the reality. These low-income people do not have enough money to save every month. They can not afford such luxury Rolex watches

248 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.