Iacobus Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 Micah that is abusrd. I mean what if he applied that logic to all life issues. There are 1 million abortions in the US a year. Seeing as it is pre existing I won't do anything about it except limit it to 1 million abortions a year. There are X existing lines of emb. stem cells. You can kill all you want in those lines but you can't make others. That is not prolife. That is being poltical. You can't be kinda pro life. There aren't degrees to prolifeness. You are or you aren't. Bush is showing that he isn't with his stem cell polices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleflower+JMJ Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 [quote name='Raphael' date='Jul 26 2004, 07:40 AM'] Iacobus, the numbers are much different from your example. I don't support any embyronic stem cell research, but you must keep in mind that Bush at the very least has stopped any further lines from being created. He's not completely pro-life, but he's more pro-life than Kerry by far, and he is building a foundation which can be expanded upon by more pro-life presidents in years to come. [/quote] agreed. [quote]You know... the more I think on that. The more I think I could vote for Kerry and feel good about it.[/quote] thats just wrong...there is no way anyone should be encourging a vote for a pro-choice candidate..... the Church says that abortion is the MOST important issue if you do not abide by that you are giong against what She teaches...... please dont undermine what the Church has instructed upon this matter..... who cares what party the vote goes for.....what matters that it doesn't go to one that will spread abortion and its evilness and error like a plague here and to other nations........... just like voting for any pro-death candidate will do..... ps. and in europe....their population is dying out....and it can't be fixed....their in trouble..... pax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 About the whole abortion rate going down during Clinton's presidency... Just because two events happen simultaneously doesn't mean they're related. For example, my height hasn't increased since W got elected, but it increased during the Clinton, HW Bush, and Reagan years. Does this mean that W is the cause of my lack of vertical growth? No! The real reason I stopped growing is because I left puberty. We should find the real reason stuff happens besides who the president is. Second, just because fewer abortions were 'performed' doesn't mean there were fewer aborted babies. Abortions caused by the pill are just as much abortions as abortions from surgery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 previously created embryos are allowed to be used for study. you just cannot create more embryos for the sake of study. that's completely different than saying a million abortions per year. if they said you can create and study x amount of embryos per year, that'd be the same. but those which are dead anyway being allowed to be used is simply because we can't go into the past and make them not die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phikoz Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 democratic convention is almost underway, blah. i heard that in John Kerry's acceptence speech on thursday for the democratic presidential canidate [b]he will quote scripture.[/b] sickening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 [quote name='Iacobus' date='Jul 26 2004, 12:05 PM'] Micah that is abusrd. I mean what if he applied that logic to all life issues. There are 1 million abortions in the US a year. Seeing as it is pre existing I won't do anything about it except limit it to 1 million abortions a year. There are X existing lines of emb. stem cells. You can kill all you want in those lines but you can't make others. That is not prolife. That is being poltical. You can't be kinda pro life. There aren't degrees to prolifeness. You are or you aren't. Bush is showing that he isn't with his stem cell polices. [/quote] i agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 [quote name='Jericho923' date='Mar 25 2004, 11:04 PM'] Life for the unborn, and life for the unforgiven...PRo life needs to be across the board, not another cafetria item thing; but you are right..at least he chooses one way to be pro-life [/quote] yup. sounds like what Iacobus is saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 26 2004, 03:58 PM'] previously created embryos are allowed to be used for study. you just cannot create more embryos for the sake of study. that's completely different than saying a million abortions per year. if they said you can create and study x amount of embryos per year, that'd be the same. but those which are dead anyway being allowed to be used is simply because we can't go into the past and make them not die. [/quote] Someone explain to me how me saying abortion is wrong and we should fight for all life and look beyond poltical sound bits (all of which is IN hte teaching of the Church) is wrong but that is right. [quote]2300 The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy;91 it honors the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit.[/quote] The Church teaches that Embryos are alive. For them to than be dead they must have died. Therefore, CCC 2300 tells us we must treat them with respect and charity and bury them. Nowhere does it say we are free to do what we please with them after they have died. Moreover, the embs in these lines were aborted and killed in violation of the CCC for medical and scienftic use. It doesn't grandfather them in seeing as the Church has been around much longer than those lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 okay you definitely got me there. if i had the oppurtunity i'd break into one of them labs and steal all the embryos to give them a proper burial. it's still better that he's cut federal funding for them to continue making embryos just to study them than if he had done nothing. it's government sactioned desecration of bodies rather than government sanctioned murder. do you honestly expect any politician to call for a proper burial of all embryos in these labs? I doubt that would even be enforced, everyone would just consider it nuts. a perfect president would call for that, but a president who's taking steps toward a pro-life government can't afford to call for that. what he did is as good as or better than what anyone else would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 [quote]That is not prolife. That is being poltical. You can't be kinda pro life. There aren't degrees to prolifeness. You are or you aren't. Bush is showing that he isn't with his stem cell polices. [/quote] What you're proposing is that a small blemish on Bush's pro-life record makes is acceptable to overlook Kerry's entire record. BUSH IS EVIL!!! LET'S CANONIZE KERRY!!! I may make people mad with this comment, but there are degrees to being pro-abortion. Yes, there is only one way of being pro-life, but when it comes to pro-abortion, there are many degrees. Bush is on the side of overturning Roe v. Wade, but does allow the use of existing ECC lines. Kerry wants to keep RvW from being overturned, create more ECC lines, increase funding to 'family planning' programs that promote abortion, and legalize same-sex marriage. He'll spout off the usual irresponsible politcal (and sadly common amongst 'catholic' politicians) BS about being 'personally opposed.' If Kerry were against stem cell research, this would be an issue, but since this is a common point between both candidates, it cannot be used to contrast the two candidates. I will pray for the conversion of pro-abortion politicians and those who support them with their money and their votes. God bless you all, Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 in my previous quote explaining what was "allowed" i was simply saying what is now legally allowed, not what is morally allowable. I do not condone the use of these embryos for study, but it's the best we can do now to allow the existing ones to be used but stop any future ones being made for the sole purpose of study. we stopped the murder, we were simply unable to salvage the bodies of those that had already been murdered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaireBear Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 GO BUSH! Watching the democratic national convention last night made me want to lash out irrationally... but man, Clinton [i]is[/i] an awesome speaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 [quote name='Iacobus' date='Jul 25 2004, 03:58 PM'] You know... the more I think on that. The more I think I could vote for Kerry and feel good about it. Kerry is, unwittingly, pro life. Yes, I said pro life and is. So was Clinton. Between 1980 and 1990 (The Reagan and 2 Bush years) abortions rose by 0.2 Million per year. And they were pro life. Under Clinton the abotion rate went down by 0.6 milllion. Lets do a double take. The abortion rate went down by 0.6 million. Whoa! Down? 0.6 MILLION! Under Clinton??!?! Poor Clinton. He tried so hard to make it easier to get abortions but made a life giving mistake, he addressed the social issues that lead to abortion. Almost ONE MILLION lives difference between the pro life and the pro aborts impacts. Whoa. Thats big. And whoa, could it mean that abortion is more than skin deep? A law banning abortion wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on. BUT you could treat the factors that give rasie to abortions. And if the factors that lead to abortions are smaller, than the number of people seeking abortions is smaller, and than the number of abortions go down. And someday, without a skindeep ban it will be gone. Notice, the US has a higher abortion rate than the liberal western Europe. Hmmm.... they have socialist welfare and health care... maybe that is key. [/quote] Percentages started going down during the Reagan years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 [url="http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html"]Abortion Statistics in the United States[/url] Study those and see when the percentages began to fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allis-challmers Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 I know that this won't be veiwed very well but I don't know who I am going to vote for yet. One guy don't care if we kill babys and the other one is sending people to there deaths after they turn 18. they are both killing people one is just killing them younger than the other one. Also Bush is bad news for my job. I also think that this is one of the reasons some people might have abortions if they don't have any finacial securaty. I work construction and historically when a democrat is in office buisnesses expand and when republicans are in office they don't this means that I have more work when a democrat is in office. Why can't there be a pro life Democrat??????????????????????? : :angry: 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