Winchester Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332457392' post='2405606'] Not really. I'm going to read The Road to Serfdom sometime this summer but I really haven't read much. [/quote]I added to that post, because it was a rotten way to respond to you. Hayek is okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332447038' post='2405505']Why Catholics continue to allow the republican party to dupe them into believing that any substantive anti-abortion action is going to take place on the federal level is beyond me.[/quote]Sometimes it just works anyway: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/84031-what-bush-has-done-for-the-pro-life-cause-in-america/#entry1635991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 Hasan, I don't understand how you can honestly say that the president has no power over abortion when... Obama rescinded the anti-abortion "Mexico City Act"--so we are now providing funding for overseas abortions. He instituted the HHS Mandate which will provide free abortion inducing drugs, and has the power to take this one step further and provide free abortions. He has appointed pro-choice supreme court judges--whereas, if we had a pro-life president instead of Obama, there would be a pro-life majority in the supreme court right now. The list goes on. Are you misinformed or misleading? One of those has to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) The Supreme Court was wrong on slavery from 1789 until the president (not the Supreme Court) issued the Emancipation Procalamation - about 75 years. The Supreme Court was wrong on separate-but-equal from Plessy vs. Ferguson in 1896 (or thereabouts) until Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 - 58 years and the subsequent Civil Rights legislation. 75 + 58 = 133 years of legal-but-wrong out of 165 years of the nation's history to that date. On that issue, the Supreme Court was wrong 80% of the time. Edited March 23, 2012 by Luigi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 As if this thread couldnt be made for whatever John Jackson, Jack Johnson, pod person is the current frontrunner of the GOP, christian faithfuls are supposed to like and support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the171 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I say! Vermin Supreme for president!! Free unicorns for all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332437526' post='2405390'] [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/ron-paul-tonight-show-birth-control-_n_1369569.html"]http://www.huffingto..._n_1369569.html[/url] Ron Paul is against banning the morning after pill. Ron Paul think abortions in the case of rape are acceptable. This completely contradicts what should be, as Catholics, the single most important issue for us. [/quote] Right, because finding a candidate that pays lip-service to the pro-life cause is the only thing that ever matters when picking who is going to run this country. Making abortion illegal right now is about as effective at ending abortion as Prohibition was to eliminating alcohol use. We should instead be focused on changing the cultural attitude towards abortion, contraception, sex, marriage, and women, and provide so much support for women that abortion should never be thought of as a serious option. But I suppose you'd much rather us all support Rick Santorum, who probably can't even spell "subsidiarity." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1332469105' post='2405737'] But I suppose you'd much rather us all support Rick Santorum, who probably can't even spell "subsidiarity." [/quote] And thinks that inflation is just dandy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the171 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE&feature=youtube_gdata_player I mean free ponies for all!Vermin is a friendly fascist and a tyrant we should trust. A vote for Vermin is a vote thrown away! Here here!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marie-Therese Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332461625' post='2405641'] Hasan, I don't understand how you can honestly say that the president has no power over abortion when... Obama rescinded the anti-abortion "Mexico City Act"--so we are now providing funding for overseas abortions. He instituted the HHS Mandate which will provide free abortion inducing drugs, and has the power to take this one step further and provide free abortions. He has appointed pro-choice supreme court judges--whereas, if we had a pro-life president instead of Obama, there would be a pro-life majority in the supreme court right now. The list goes on. Are you misinformed or misleading? One of those has to be true. [/quote] If I might comment here, Hassy isn't talking about peripheral legislative matters or funding issues. He means that the President of the United States, in and of himself, does not have the power or authority to repeal abortion, which, at present, is considered to be a protected activity under the legislation of the country and upheld by multiple rulings of the Supreme Court. That doesn't make it good, but it DOES make it law. No President, ever, no matter what party or platform, will ever have the ability to do away with abortion under his own power. It is part and parcel of the checks and balances inherent in the Constitutional structure. The instances you cited here have to do with the President facilitating, or not, funding issues that are peripheral to abortion. None of these things make abortion less legal. It's all about funding pet projects. And in terms of the Supreme Court appointments, while a highly conservative sitting court might make some impact on the issue, it is hardly singly a Presidential influence which would make the court so inclined. A President makes appointments, which then must be approved by the Congress. So long as there are a majority of Congressional members who tend to favour abortion remaining legal, then it doesn't matter if the President appoints the Pope himself to the Court. Basilisa Marie is correct. The only way that the issue will see a wholesale change of opinion in this country is if there are substantive scientific arguments made, along with a serious cultural shift regarding the value of human life. When Hassy said this [quote][color=#282828]W[/color]hy Catholics continue to allow the republican party to dupe them into believing that any substantive anti-abortion action is going to take place on the federal level is beyond me. They have, however, done a beaver dam fine job of convincing many Catholics to turn their back on the social justice aspects of their faith in the irrational hope that somehow by electing a pro-life President they are conforming to the moral demands of their Church, despite the President's impotence on this matter. [/quote] he was, seriously, spot on. I have spoken with many people who refuse to take the pro-life argument seriously when the same person crusading for the unborn vigorously supports continual war and the death penalty. Btw, that is not to say that every pro-lifer holds that position, obviously, but it's the popular perception held by many that life is only important to conservatives if it's one that isn't born yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XIX Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332454312' post='2405570'] How is this intellectual dishonest? First of all, my comment was not specifically about phatmassers it was about Catholics in general, although I should have instead said politically pro-life Christians. Second, I find your premise a little difficult to take seriously since we are currently posting on a thread dedicated to dissuading Catholics from voting for Ron Paul because of his refusal to take an unequivocal stance on abortion. Voting for abortion makes sense on a state level since there has been real, anti-abortion legislation passed on a state level. It makes very little sense for the federal Presidency since he really has little to no say about abortion. Many Catholics complain about the attempts of the GOP to woo them during the Presidential race with pro-life promises yet again and again I see here and elsewhere injunctions to remember to 'vote pro-life' during the Presidential races. And where am I 'really' coming from? I don't usually take insults seriously as I have a 'sticks and stones' attitude towards words. But you calling me a liar is a charge of a certain level that I think it merits you presenting some evidence as I really don't take that particular insult lightly. [/quote] I'm very sorry. I was completely out of line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332461625' post='2405641'] Hasan, I don't understand how you can honestly say that the president has no power over abortion when... Obama rescinded the anti-abortion "Mexico City Act"--so we are now providing funding for overseas abortions. He instituted the HHS Mandate which will provide free abortion inducing drugs, and has the power to take this one step further and provide free abortions. He has appointed pro-choice supreme court judges--whereas, if we had a pro-life president instead of Obama, there would be a pro-life majority in the supreme court right now. The list goes on. Are you misinformed or misleading? One of those has to be true. [/quote] With all due respect, I think you've presented a false dichotomy. There is always the possibility that I am both ignorant and a liar. Edited March 23, 2012 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='XIX' timestamp='1332470992' post='2405776'] I'm very sorry. I was completely out of line. [/quote]Hasan gets all the apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='XIX' timestamp='1332470992' post='2405776'] I'm very sorry. I was completely out of line. [/quote] [img]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/4/14/128842190595390730.jpg[/img][quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1332471629' post='2405797'] Hasan gets all the apologies. [/quote] Maybe you'd get apologies too if you were a little more emotionally available Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1332471629' post='2405797'] Hasan gets all the apologies. [/quote] That's because we can file criticizing, insulting and general berating of a Church Militant under Fraternal Correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now