October 12th, 2012
12:01 AM ET
Question on Catholicism, abortion, makes for dramatic moments in vice presidential debate
By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor
Washington (CNN) - It was the first-ever debate between two Roman Catholics vying for a White House perch, and in Thursday’s face-off between Vice President Joe Biden and vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, the question was put plainly: How does your faith shape your position on abortion?
It’s one of the most divisive questions in American politics, and the query from debate moderator Martha Raddatz, asked near the end of the sole vice presidential debate, set the table for some of the night’s most personal and poignant moments.
“I don't see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith,” said Ryan. “Our faith informs us in everything we do.”
“My religion defines who I am,” said Biden. “I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life.”
But the two men took very different tacks on applying their faith to the abortion issue. Ryan said his religion – combined with “reason and science” – led him to oppose legalized abortion, and that “the policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.”
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
Ryan recalled when he and his wife, Janna, saw the ultrasound of their firstborn child, Liza. “We saw that heartbeat – a little baby was in the shape of a bean,” he said, noting that they still called their daughter “Bean” and saying he believes that “life begins at conception.”
“With respect to abortion, the Democratic Party used to say they wanted it to be safe, legal and rare,” Ryan continued. “Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding … that to me is pretty extreme.”
Biden said he accepted his church’s anti-abortion position – “life begins at conception in the church’s judgment” – but that he refused to impose that view on “equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews.”
“The next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees,” Biden said. “That’s how close Roe v. Wade is. … Do you think (Romney is) likely to appoint someone like Scalia or someone else on the court far right that would outlaw abortion? I suspect that would happen.”
Both men also used the question on abortion and Roman Catholicism to pivot to other issues, with Ryan saying the Obama White House is “infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals” presumably because of a new rule requiring insurers to provide free contraception coverage for virtually all American employees.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
Before answering the abortion question, Biden said his Catholicism has “informed my social doctrine … about taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help.”
The Obama campaign and liberal Catholic groups used the debate to organize Catholic watch parties and to argue that Ryan’s proposed budget in the House of Representative ran counter to Catholic values.
About one in four American voters is Catholic, though there is such a broad range in Catholic political concerns and voting habits that many political experts reject the notion of a cohesive Catholic bloc.
Catholics have voted with the winning presidential candidate in every election since the early 1990s.
Obama camp, liberal groups use VP debate to organize Catholic voters
In 2008, Obama beat John McCain among Catholics by 54% to 45%. In 2004, John Kerry – the first Catholic nominee for president since John F. Kennedy – lost the Catholic vote to George W. Bush, provoking Democrats to take Catholic outreach more seriously.
Both major parties had America’s highest-profile Catholic cleric, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, give the closing prayer at their recent political conventions.
About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.
The God of the Bible emphatically says that there is ONLY ONE GOD and He will not share His glory with another. The Bible talks a lot about false prophets...Joseph Smith–your leader and founder–was a false prophet. If you remain deceived it is because you choose to. Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to God and no ceremonies and fairy tales will save your soul. As for the book of Mormon, God gives some stern warnings for those who would add to His word or take away from it–
My goddes gave birth to your god. Is he pis.sed off that 'mommy' can send him to his room?
Such a petty, jealous, vengeful and small-minded god ya got there Willie. You can love it, but such a god deserves ridicule more than respect, etc.
You said, "In answer to your question, I do believe I have the opportunity to become a god of my own worlds having my own spirit children."
Thank you for answering my question. The Mormons do offer the King James Bible on their commercials so I'm sure you'll have no objections to me quoting from it...does the God of the Bible say that there are many gods?
Isaiah 43:10 ...before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isaiah 44:6 ...I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Isaiah 44:8 ...Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me...
Isaiah 45:6 ...there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
Isaiah 45:21 ...there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
Isaiah 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
Isaiah 46:9 ...I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
Romans 1:22-23 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Billy Graham let apostate Catholic Bishop bless new converts
In 1962, a Roman Catholic bishop of Sao Paulo, Brazil, blessed the people that came forward at the invitation. (Daily Journal, International Falls, Minnesota, Oct. 29, 1963, cited by the New York Times, Nov. 9, 1963).
Those poor people came to Graham for help and he let an idolator bless them. Has he not read that behind every idol is a devil? Yet he let that man "bless" the people of God.
Billy Graham thinks that infants can become Christian through baptism
But the Bible says that by the works of the flesh shall no man be justified. Baptism comes after faith in Jesus Christ. Look what Billy Graham told the Lutheran Standard in October 1967,
"I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant... we cannot fully understand the mysteries of God, but I believe that a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, MADE CHRISTIAN, THROUGH INFANT BAPTISM."
Billy Graham receives honorary degree from Catholic college
Billy Graham received an honorary doctorate from Catholic priests at Belmont Abbey College in 1967. He called it, "a time when Protestants and Catholics could meet together and greet each other as brothers, whereas 10 years ago they could not". He joked around, "I'm not sure but what this could start me being called "Father Graham".
("Belmont Abbey Confers Honorary Degree," Paul Smith, Gazette staff reporter, The Gastonia Gazette, Gastonia, North Carolina, Nov. 22, 1967).
Billy Graham praises the pope, a man who allows himself to be called God (see Blasphemy 101)
When Billy Graham was on the Phil Donahue show on 10-11-79, he said that pope John Paul II was someone that he could quote with "some real authority." He also said that the world was looking for a spiritual leader and that the pope didn't pull any punches. [Lord have mercy, Jesus]
For a newspaper clipping showing Graham praising the pope as "almost an evangelist",
CATHOLIC TRADITION – The church is founded on Peter.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. Peter was a man like you and me. Jesus called Peter "Satan" in Matthew 16:23 when Peter rebuked Jesus dying. When Cornelius tried to worship Peter, Peter responded, "Stand up; I myself also am a man." (Acts 10:26). The pope needs to remember Acts 10:26 when he has men bowing to him and kissing his hand like he is worthy of worship.
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
CATHOLIC TRADITION – Mary never had other children after the Lord Jesus. She remained a perpetual virgin.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – After Mary delivered our precious Lord Jesus Christ into the world, Joseph did know his wife. Joseph and Mary indeed had children together, plenty of them. They were the Lord's half brothers and sisters for their father was Joseph and mother was Mary.
Matthew 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not TILL she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
CATHOLIC TRADITION – Forbidding the priesthood to marry.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS –
1) It is a doctrine of devils to forbid God's people to marry.
4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, GIVING HEED TO seducing spirits, and DOCTRINES OF DEVILS;
4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
4:3 FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
2) Peter was married (remember the pope is supposedly continuing the apostolic line through Peter).
8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
1:30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.
4:38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her.
3) Paul, a great apostle, remained single; however he made it very clear that he could marry if he wanted to.
9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
What child of conception can honestly be found guilty of anything worthy of pulling the plug in their wanting Life and a chance to be born and live life? Freedom to be born vs freedom to pull the plug on children without yet a say is tantamount to destroying the next Darwin or DaVinci or Einstein! It is of little wonder that Christ said, "Suffer the little children".
This is a circular argument and doesn't contribute anything new. If you define a human's life at the moment of conception (which you do with your first phrase), then obviously abortion is considered murder. I suggest using other philosophical resources other than the Bible to make your case stronger. For a start, read Thomson's Violist.
If my choice is joining the Catholic Left or the Catholic Right, I say "no thanks, and thank God for the Protestant Reformation, imperfect as it was."
That would be exponentially easier for you. Here's an example of what Catholic voters face: the Industrial Revolution produced millions of slaves to crass capitalism. The exploited laborers fought for the right to unionize. Pope Leo, who wrote Rerum Novarum, was a great champion of unions. So Catholics are found on the Democratic side. Catholics are also opposed to the destruction of innocent unborn humanity. This aligns Catholics with the Republicans. When a Catholic goes to the poles, he has much more conscience work to do. This is because Catholicism, being universal, umbrellas the interests of both parties. Apparently, the "Reformed" people do not have enough height, breadth, or depth to suffer much over voting decisions.
One's best choice is to be reasonable and get out of any religion.
The problem is that everyone who has ever had or been a part of an abortion, even "Roe" of Roe v. Wade, knows very clearly and deeply that it was wrong to do it and a true negative in every sense of the word. So for some people they feel abortion is an economic issue because if it is illegal, rich people will still be able to obtain them and poor people will not, and I understand the ideal of wanting to reduce economic discrimination, but no matter how you cut it, protecting abortion "rights" is protecting peoples' supposed right to do something damaging to themselves, the father of the baby, and society in general.
Bob, you seem to be able to read everyone's mind. Or are you just talking from personnel experience?
You don't have a clue what "everyone knows," you old billy-goat. You couldn't begin to imagine the breadth of experience women bring to an abortion, nor can you begin to understand or even imagine what they encounter after.
Stop posing, you obnoxious twerp. You don't know many women at all, and I'll bet not a one of them wants to discuss her experience with the village idiot.
Could we invite anonymous women who are glad they had abortions to post their views?
When I was dating the woman who is now my wife she accidentally got pregnant. At the time we were both 19. We decided to terminate the pregnancy. Both of us still regard that as on of our best decisions.
My partner, who was raised in a Catholic family, had an abortion when she was a teenager.
She had become pregnant despite the use of contraceptives.
At the time, she didn't feel she could discuss the situation with her family as their reaction would've been predictable and she had many good reasons not to marry the sperm donor, nor could she properly care for an infant on her own.
Fast forward a decade or so, when Ishe becomes pregnant with my child.
We discussed all of our options - including abortion.
I let her know what I thought, but that regardless of how I felt about anything, it was ultimately her choice and I would support whatever decision she made.
The undeniable, absolute fact is that it cannot be anyone else's choice but the mother's.
The male in the equation can choose to either run away or face his responsibility but nothing short of putting the woman in a straight jacket to make her carry the child to term or a direct physical assault to force a miscarriage can take the choice away from the woman.
She feels that this time, having a baby was the right thing to do just as having an abortion was the right thing to do when she was young.
Today we are a healthy, happy and loving family, though we will never get married nor have another biological child together.
You can personally be for or against abortion, but you cannot take away other people's choices!
You can try – but even if you succeed in making abortions illegal across the board, you won't stop abortions from happening – you'll merely drive them underground where hygiene, safety and professional oversight don't exist.
So go ahead and voice your opinion – but understand that in a very real and practical way, it is not – and can never be – your choice.
So, two men so far but no women.
I've been part of an abortion and it was a horrific experience and by far the worst thing I have ever been a part of.You know it while you are in there, you have a terrible feeling, and all the people who work there have convinced themselves that they are somehow humnitarian for killing babies. You have to shut off your emotions and pretend it is something else to go through with it, because a little piece of you literally and figuratively dies when you take a life that way.
It's something people do out of fear. They are afraid they can't handle it, afraid they will be poor, afraid the baby won't have 2 parents, etc. Nothing good comes of the decision to murder or to do anything out of fear. It's a bad seed from which only bad fruit will grow.
You have no idea what your wife feels like inside after tearing her fetus out of her, and she has undoubtedly buried those emotions as deep as possible so as to never have to see them, but they are in there.
Believe me, everyone who participates in murder knows it's wrong.
Thank you ladies. Your silence speaks volumes.
Well I had an abortion and I know it was the right thing. I was young and got pregnant despite using contraception (and I used it correctly). Was it a difficult decision? Yes. Was it a decision I took lightly? No. But would I go back and change it? Absolutely not. My three beautiful children would not be here if I had not made that decision. I would not be married to my wonderful husband.
And the guy that got me pregnant is Catholic (I'm agnostic) and he had no issues with my decision. He wasn't any more ready to be a father than I was a mother.
And now it's Billy the Dick's turn to be silent. Good. You finally shut up the azzwipe, Jenn.
You label me with a perjorative becasue you don't like my position TT. That's your style. We all get it. I notice you don't try to dissuade men from commenting on the issue when they support your side. The truth is you simply would rather hide open and frank discussion of this issue behind a veil of "it's a women's business" as if that is not a seexists statement in itself. I had every reason to believe someone like Jenn would step forward and claim her life was a testament to the virtues of abortion but my heart goes out to the, no doubt, more numerous women who took pause to recall their dilemna with regret. The truth is that abortion is not a religious issue, it is a human rights issue and while it will probably remain legal in this country it is also very much a woman's choice because women will demand the autonomy to keep it to themselves without regard to the wellbeing of the unborn and certainly with little or no regard for the father. We're not even allowed to comment are we? My fervent prayer and earnest request is that women would make it their choice and would realize that the choice to kill 50 million unborn children is the most heinous testimony towards women imagineable. If a government or religion was responsible for these acts there would be rioting. When will women choose life?
You label me with a perjorative because you don't like my position TT. That's your style. We all get it. I notice you don't try to dissuade men from commenting on the issue when they support your side. The truth is you simply would rather hide open and frank discussion of this issue behind a veil of "it's a women's business" as if that is not a seexists statement in itself. I had every reason to believe someone like Jenn would step forward and claim her life was a testament to the virtues of abortion but my heart goes out to the, no doubt, more numerous women who took pause to recall their dilema with regret. The truth is that abortion is not a religious issue, it is a human rights issue that religion recognizes, and while it will probably remain legal in this country it is also very much a woman's choice because women will demand the autonomy to keep it to themselves without regard to the wellbeing of the unborn and certainly with little or no regard for the father. We're not even allowed to comment are we? My fervent prayer and earnest request is that women would make it their choice and would realize that the choice to kill 50 million unborn children is the most heinous testimony towards women imagineable. If a government or religion was responsible for these acts there would be rioting. When will women choose life?
You have no idea what your life would have had in store for you if you had not aborted your child, so of course, it is factually true that you would have the life you have now had you made a different decision and kept your baby, just like you would not have the life you have now if any of your decisions had been different. The way you are putting it, you're basically saying that you made a living human sacrifice out of fear of the unknown and hopes for a better life, much like primitive people would offer human sacrifice to the gods by throwing them in a volcano. Then, if something good happened to them after that, they would attribute it to the human sacrifice, just like you are doing now. Think about it, is it really any better just because we don't consider ourselves "primitive"? Beyond the spiritual and moral issues, there are long term psychological ramifications of abortion on all women who have them that can't be healed by wishing them away or ignoring them. I'm the first to admit I was weak and scared and allowed that to influence me making a terrible decision, but to defend one's abortion is a pretty clear statement to everyone around you that if they inconvenience you or threaten your livelihood in some way, you would rather terminate your relationship with them, or possibly their very life, than to be hurt for their benefit. This tells your existing husband and kids that they better watch their step and that love is not truly unconditional. The only difference between killing the baby that wants to show up before you've established your earning potential and killing the stockbroker who bankrupted you with bad investments is that the stockbroker was not made in your body, is not innocent, can beg for mercy, can physically defend himself, and has the law on his side.
I don't know whose post is more unintelligent, Bob or Bill's. Bill, come back when you finish fourth grade and learn how to spell dilemma or imaginable. You can spout off your opinions as fact all you want (by ignoring what I said about the father being supportive and saying that fathers have no say), or saying that most women don't think like me (you have NO IDEA) or calling an embryo a 'baby'. Those aren't facts. You don't know when life begins. Neither do I. Neither does anyone. I don't consider a five week pregnancy of a clump of cells anything like what is inside me now two weeks before delivery. You can call the clump of cells and the 6 pound fetus with a brain, nervous system, heartbeat, etc the same thing. They are not in my opinion. You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine. Your opinion does not get control of my body. I have endured hospitalization and life risking c-sections to have my children. Until you do the same your opinion is irrelevant.
And Bob, your post is just too stupid to respond to. Actually, I met my husband working an 80 hour/week job after earning my masters degree. If you think that a single mother with no support can finish a masters and work 80 hours/week with no one to watch their child then you are a mor-on. I don't know what my life would have been like. But it wouldn't have turned out the way it did. My three children with my amazing husband would not be here. That is a FACT. And the rest of your post is just too ridiculous to address. Make as sumptions all you want about how I am as a parent. I personally think someone with your level of intelligence should not be a parent EVER. But again, that's just my opinion.
Bill, if you were any dumber, you'd be HeavenSent. I applaud men who recognize the fact that a woman is the one who bears the risks to health and life in pregnancy, you moron. Those who can't grasp the concept, like you, I write off as idiots who can't figure out that the principle upon which the right to choose is based is that of the right to privacy; the right to be secure in one's person. The state cannot compel a person to donate an organ or even one drop of blood to another, even in a case of life and death. That same principle applies: the state cannot compel a woman to continue to support the life of an embryo or fetus against her will. If you don't want the state to be able to force YOU to do something to your own body, Billy the Boob, then figure out that women have equal rights to THEIR bodies and the contents thereof.
A huge study was done recently concerning the effects of abortion on the mental health of women. It found that women who elected to terminate a pregnancy were no more likely to suffer any mental illness, including depression, than women who chose to continue pregnancy. Your assumptions about women are based on the results of what survey? How many bothered to even read your drivel and respond to it? Hardly qualifies as any evidence, Billy. Get a clue. Women DON'T CARE what you think. YOU aren't important to their decisions and your opinions are moot. Women will do as they choose and all your attempts at inducing guilt are in vain.
Bob, you're beyond presumptuous, aside from your ignorance. You are the one who has no standing to tell Jenn that you are better qualified to know what her life would be like had she chosen a different path. I would suggest to you that you proceed to adopt as many children as possible immediately. You will never know what your life would have been like if you don't do so. You'll certainly be rendering a great service and your wife, children and grandchildren will be thrilled by your generosity to them in taking in every child currently languishing in foster care, most of whom are suffering from psychological and physical challenges and need someone like you to make their lives better. Get to it.
Billy, I label you with a pejorative because you earn one every time you post on this topic, you hypocrite. YOU admitted that you impregnated your girlfriend because YOU were so irresponsible that you didn't use protection and then were put out because she decided not to continue the resulting pregnancy.
Cry me a river. If you want a say in abortion, here it is: wear a rubber. That's the extent of your say.
Tom – "Women DON'T CARE what you think. YOU aren't important to their decisions"
I read you loud and clear. You make my point perfectly. Women are elevated citizens and men are second class who have no parental rights due to their gender. Women can pick and choose when to murder their own children and men can either "be supportive" or go straight to hell. Got it.
Again thank you ladies. Your comments have been most enlightening.
And yours have been most satisfactory, Billy. You've shown yourself to be a complete azz, as usual.
Look up "murder" and "child." Nobody's "murdering children." And if you didn't want your girlfriend to have an abortion, then you shouldn't have knocked her up in the first place. You have no one to blame but yourself.
Your comments are enlightening Bill. Do you have one argument to refute mine? Nope. Of course not. You know all you have is your opinion. You can't stand the fact that a person like me is smarter, more educated, better career, better parent, and a nicer person than you are. You can't handle it so you throw out the term 'murder' to make yourself feel better (when the much smarter and educated people that made the law says it is not). Do you call women that will die if they bear a child to term murderers as well? Because if you don't you are a hypocrite. Also, if you believe life begins at conception then the biggest murderer of all is 'god'. Half of fertilized eggs never make it to implantation. Oh no...let me guess...it's okay if god is the murderer of 'innocent unborn children'.
Jen's position is popular in America and relfective of it's collective values, that a Master's degree and future earnings is worth more to her than a human life that she helped to create, and to justify that, she pretends that she knows her life wouldn't be nearly as great had she not thrown the baby in the volcano. The thing is, the only reason she wouldn't do it to a live person who wanted to "steal" some of her resources is because it is against the law and she probably wouldn't be able to physically pull it off. It's not that killing is something she rejects in her heart if the payoff is great enough, it's just a matter of not getting in trouble for it, the risk/reward equation. Why should anyone trust her if the risk/reward aspect of your relationship begin to favor her elimination or rejection of that person? Her track record is clear and she states that she supports the philosophy behind it.
And as for the huge rationalization made that there is no way her life would have been a huge failure because of an unwanted baby, that's al lit is, a rationalization. There is truly no way to know what life would have held for her, as if having a Master's is somehow the be all end all of a great life. I was 22 and in the military making 12k per year when we had our first baby, and there was no shortage of people telling us how we were too young, too poor, too whatever, people telling my wife she was going to end up broke, divorced, unable to support herself because she couldn't finish school with a baby. Guess what, they were all wrong. We're happily married 20 years and have 5 kids with the oldest in college, living in a 5000 sq foot house and with me as sole provider. For some people, accepting and loving what life and God give them motivates them to work harder, not kill out of fear of the unknown. The thing is, young people are too young and inexperienced to know that life is a long road with many ways to get where you need to go, so they make stupid and hurtful decisions for lack of perspective and faith in the world and themselves, and or course, organization like Planned Parenthood prey on the fears and inexperience of these people to keep their numbers up and their organization afloat. It's one thing for a young person to fall victim, but to lock it in a box and occasionally pull it out to talk about like it was a good thing when you're older and should know better is entirely worse.
As with many things, children are often wise beyond their years. If you take a child and explain to them that they could have had an older or younger brother or sister, but that you had it surgically removed, and that you did it for THEIR benefit, see if they don't look at you like you are a 3 headed monster. That's the point where the "You'd understand if you were a grownup" tapdancing thing starts, where you go through all the mental gymnastics and rationalizations needed to justify murder. Kids aren't indoctrinated into adult bs so as for that to make sense to them, because their hearts are pure.
More bullsh!t from the Boob who hasn't adopted or cared for unwanted children.
The day you have to face a decision like Jenn's, Booby, is the day your beliefs will matter.
Bob, you are so slow you don't even see how you contradict yourself. In one point you say that I cared more about material things. Then you brag about your home and that your child is in college. Who cares about you and your material things? If you really cared about life you would be adopting kids and so would your oldest child (instead of selfishly thing about him/herself by going to college). What a hypocrite.
And I'm not American. Im Canadian and despite being less religious there are far fewer abortions per capita. And you talk about God even though I said I'm agnostic. Your god is the biggest killer of the unborn there is. Don't forget that.
I'd like to see statistical proof of Bob's claim that children of women who have had an abortion look at their mothers as if they were monsters with three heads when their mothers explain their reasons for having terminated a pregnancy. What a doofus.
There is nothing contradictory about my statements at all, anywhere.
You made your philosophy and limits clear, that you are willing to value future earning potential over human life, and you live by the philosophy. I stated that I (for the last 20 years or so) value human life over material possessions, and I have live accordingly. When I was dirt poor, we kept the baby, and we've never rejected a baby that was born to us since. I only tell you that I do well financially to show you how impossible it is to know that keeping an unplanned baby will result in long term financial problems. I had few prospects or skills, but when I realized the gravity of the lives that had been entrusted to me, it motivated me and i was successful. Many, many, many women have been financially successful well beyond your liitle career after keeping unplanned babies.
To say that the fact that I don't go out and adopt 1000 babies means I am somehow materialistic, or even that living in a nice house means that I am materialistic, is not defenisible. I'd burn my house down in under 1 second if it meant saving the life of one of my existing or unborn kids. The funny thing for me is that almost every time my wife has been pregnant, we've been in an unstable life or work situation where we were relocating and/or I was switching jobs. And every time, we're scared, and every time, we bite the bullet and know that if we work and pray hard, God will make it work out however it is supposed to work out, whether that means we keep doing well or end up poor, no big deal, I will always have family around and that truly is what's most important. We've just been kind of lucky financially that God hasn't found a good reason to make or allow us to suffer more. The point being, you had no way of knowing if rejecting your baby would have a net negative or net positive long term effect on your phsical and financial life. You only assume the worst would have happened in order to justify the act and promote the idea that killing for material gain is not inherently wrong.
Tom Tom, if I ever get asked by my two daughters I will tell them. I would want them to know that I would support them in any decision they make, like my parents supported me. My mom almost had an abortion with my brother (when it was still illegal), as she got pregnant the first time she had s-x. We understood why she considered it. And there's never been a doubt in my mind how important we are and how loved we are.
Even the most radical religious crazies consider and have abortions. Look at Sarah Palin. She admitted she almost had one when she found out her baby wasn't perfect. And this is a woman that has the financial means to pay away the problem (which she has, she is NEVER with that poor child).
Nope, Bob. Doesn't wash. If you really gave the first goddam about kids you'd have adopted the ones who were born and given up.
Nobody cares what you and your wife chose to do, you moron. That's what you don't get: it's a choice. For everyone. Nobody else got to make the decision for YOUR family and YOU don't get to make one for others. If you can't deal with that, too bad.
Bob, maybe you should join your kid at college because you have zero reading comprehension skills. I never said that I would be poor, etc. I said that I wouldn't have met my husband or had my children (I may have had some other kids, but they would not be the kids I have – because it is a FACT that I would not have been able to work an 80 hour/week job as a single mother and therefore would not have met my husband). Would I be as financially successful? I don't know for sure but very unlikely. Since becoming a mother I have already sacrificed my career to spend time with my children and make significantly less now. The kind of high powered companies I work for are not supportive of anything but a 'work comes first' mentality.
This issue is like a train wreck, surrounded by a forest fire and guarded by a ring of top-notch snipers.
If life begins at conception or shortly after, is it possible that we could see a fetus arrested for murder if it causes the death of the mother?
Bill Deacon: I did consider abortion at 18 and the only reason I didn't was because family friends who wanted children but couldn't have them, stepped forward. Not everyone has that option. I don't feel it is anybodies business what any woman does with her body and am not sure how you can possibly think it is your place? Do you support women having rights to their own bodies?
You should look up Gregory Paul's article The Holocaust of the Children...I don't promise you will like the content in full. This is just an excerpt:
"About 105 billion people have ever been born, and of those born only 50% were able to live past childhood. The other 50% of all the humans ever born died in childhood, before reaching maturity.
The number of conceptions that never made it to birth is closer to half a trillion.
Seeing as Christians think that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception, these deaths could be seen as equal to murder. If there is a god then he will have caused these billions of deaths, robbing them of their lives before maturity.
If god isn't directly responsible for these deaths, then he is at least responsible for creating the environment and diseases that do cause these deaths. Why would god create a world so dangerous that for a long period in early human history only a select few would live to see their teens?
Christians often reply by saying that this world is a necessary hardship that has to be endured to gain entrance to heaven. They say that it is a period intended not to afford pleasure, but to convert imperfect mortal humans into perfect immortal souls.
If suffering is needed to become immortal, then those 600 million living in the First world countries like France and Japan, are enjoying the most comfortable lives in human history and are going against gods will. Starting in the late 1700s, a number of theists opposed various advances in medicine, such as early vaccines and anesthetics. These developments were decried as “playing God” because their use implies that he natural death rate of children is unacceptable, contradicting the need for humans to experience the suffering of the natural world created by this god. Only a few Christian sects still reject the comforts and safety offered by advanced civilization."
Hilarious. Bob says he's been "part of an abortion" and that no one can imagine what it's like for a wife. Yet Bob thinks he's able to do so. No one can know what anyone else's life is like, including Bob. Just because you were in the room, Booby, it does not mean you experienced abortion. You watched one other person experience it and her experience is irrelevant to this discussion because it's not a universal experience, as you seem to think you're qualified to state. "Everyone knows." No, Bob, everyone doesn't 'know,' 'believe,' or 'feel' as you do and you don't have any right whatsoever to say they do.
Jen sacrificed her baby for a potential career and then sacrificed a career for her babies. You got it right the second time, just didn't go all the way with it, but in the end, if you were going to sacrifice your career anyway, why kill a baby in the process? It's not like you're rich or spectacularly accomplished because of your decision, and many women who actually gave birth to unexpected pregnancies ARE rich and successful, not in spite of their babies, but because of them, because they have someone who they created and who didn't ask to be conceived or born to fight for. Why did you not believe in yourself enough to think you could do as well as they without throwing a baby away? You never got the chance to know how strong you could be because you settled for something you could have greater control over.
Like I said, tell the kids, before they are indoctrinated into public school and desensitized by media, exactly what you did and why and see the expression of horror on their faces. Kids think, "That was by BROTHER OR SISTER", and then the next thing that they may or may not think consciously but undoubdetly know to fear is, "Could I be NEXT?"
It's written on peoples' hearts that abortion is wrong, even Canadians.
Bob, have you had your IQ tested? Seriously – you know that you are developmentally delayed correct? I am positive if you were properly tested that you would see that it is below 70. You need special needs classes desperately. Because any normal person would see that at no point did I say that I had an abortion for my career. I don't know how many times I can repeat myself before I can just conclude that you are mentally slow (which is why you can't spell undoubtedly even with spell check). And by the way, my husband and I are in the top one percent (but I am not obsessed with materialism like you are).
And your posts are laughable. So my children will think I am going to kill them? Omg, I can't stop laughing. So because my mom almost aborted my brother (my dad convinced her not to), she is coming after me? Should I have been sleeping with a knife under my pillow for the last 36 years? When is she going to kill me Bob? Clearly it's only a matter of time according to you. You are a joke.
I keep on providing actual ideas analysis and opinions, and all you do is say, "You're so DUMB!" Does that actually make you smart? Do you actually have anything of substance to say? All you've done is call me names.
You said: "If you think that a single mother with no support can finish a masters and work 80 hours/week with no one to watch their child then you are a mor-on."
So you are telling me that you aborted your baby not to finish school and give yourself better financial odds in life, but because you loved someone enough to spread your legs for them, but didn't think enough of him to allow him to help raise the child you conceived together and weren't compassionate enough to give birth to it and give it up for adoption? The "real" reason you aborted your baby was because you wanted really badly to work an 80 hour per week job not for money, but because you were sure that in doing so, you would meet the man of your dreams?
Whatever rationalization you want to flop over to each time I explain why the previous one is indefensible, they are all borne out of the same problem, selfishness. You wanted what YOU want when YOU wanted it, and were willing to kill to make it so. You never wanted to know that there was a helpless baby for whom you were the only possible defender and mother inside you, so in your mind, you converted it to a random mass of cells with a heartbeat so you could kill it without feeling responsible. This sends a clear message to your kids and those around you, that if someone stands in the way of what you want, you will do anything, even kill, to remove the obstable.
If you think that won't cross your kids' minds if and when you tell them, and that it won't affect them, you are wrong. Again, we live our principles. The kids know that they WERE exactly the same as the first baby your carried and they KNOW you were capable and willing to kill it. If you are willing to kill something helpless and easy to kill in order to do what you want in life, then you have no problem killing in order to do what you want in life in general as a principle. It's just a matter of risk and reward of doing so. If your kids get in the way of your plans or desires, you may not actually kill them, but they know you also can't unconditionally love them the way kids need to be unconditionally loved because the most helpless thing that ever needed you did not soften your heart enough to inspire you to give up something that you mistakenly thought was important. Some people actually believe that killing people is wrong no matter what they payoff, and are willing to sacrifice in order to stand by that principle. You are stating clearly to all who know what you have done that you are not one of those people. Why would anyone feel comfortable around someone who espouses such a philosophy? How can they relax knowing that if you don't feel like you are getting what you want out of the relationship that it can be terminated any time at your discretion?
But I feel awful for your brother to have ANY parent tell him that they really wanted to abort him, especially his own mother. Are you honestly going to tell me you believe that doesn't hurt and freak him out, that the person who was supposed to be his primary nurturer had to be talked out of murdering him? I would imagine he has a special appreciation for his father with that being the case.
I would imagine that lack of a nurturing mother helped shape you into the kind of mother you were to your first child, and that is sad that you wouldn't realize how dysfunctional a mother you had.Maybe that is why you were able to make your potential career or the hope of working someplace where you could find a sugar daddy a higher priority than human life. And let's face it, that is what a lot of the "1%" such as your class of people tend to do.
Let me guess, the babies went to daycare at least part time, right?
All you do is keep proving how developmentally delayed you are. Anyone with a normal IQ would see I have never called you a single name. Calling someone unintelligent is not name calling. It's pointing out and observable and glaringly obvious fact.
The fact is that someone with low IQ like you would be scared of their mother, and someone like me with intelligence would not. My brother has an IQ of 160 and does not fear my mother. Because you have had no schooling or intelligence you can't grasp this. I'm sorry that you are not able to think like a rational adult. I'm sorry that you had children because they deserve so much better than you. I will no longer debate with you as my three year old has more schooling and ability than you. Even she knows the difference between a cell and a human. She is amazing and kind and will contribute to the world. You are the exact opposite.
If the basic Catholic tenet of right-to-life had been followed to the letter throughout American history to this point, we now would have a population like China, and our city slums would make the slums of Latin America look like Pleasantville. Come down to reality, Bob.
I feel for any Catholic who is in politics for having to take a position that affects non-Catholics, but it's just not conscienable for a Catholic to enable what they are supposed to believe is murder.
But how can anyone say that abortion is a female's own personal issue if a man was involved in creating the life? She chose to invite him and a baby in, and if a man can be found financially liable for that baby, then he should also have rights regarding it's care and existence.
When the man has equal time carrying the child, paying for the medical bills, dealing with the emotional swings and hormones, then he gets equal say.
Is that same man going to endure horrible labor pains and potential complications that come with said woman being pregnant? Until you've been pregnant you have no comprehension and thus no say.
If that's the case, then there is no justification for men paying child support. Her body, her baby, her cost, right?
Men might as well debate whether woman should use a tampon or a pad for their menstruation for as much right we have to concern ourselves with what they do with their bodies.
Or our children's?
Hhmm, I guess then all responsibility legal and financial for children should be the burden of the female since it is her decision whether the life proceeds, practically speaking that is...
I applaud Vice President Biden for standing up for his beliefs in his house, but not forcing those belief on me in my house.
Now if we could just get his buddy out of the White House
So you're pro choice then. The women in my house are happy to hear.
USCCB's response to Biden's remarks.
Only for the new members of this blog:
Read it over slowly and carefully as it might save a life.
Proceeding to the real issues:
Only for the new members of this blog:
The reality of se-x, abortion, contraception and STD/HIV control: – from a guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-
Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...
The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:
The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% ACTUAL failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% ACTUAL failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.
Added information before making your next move:
from the CDC-2006
"Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
Consumer Reports, January, 2012
"Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-
Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.
"Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (It should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)
Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.
The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":
– (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
– (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)
One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)
Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).
Actually abstinence is only 99.99% effective – you're forgetting the immaculate conception.
In trying to be funny, you may not realize the accuracy of your statement. Immaculate does not equal abstinent. Neither does Immaculate conception apply to Jesus. It is the description of Mary's conception as the mother of God, free from sin.
When you say "ACTUAL" rates, could you please reply sources such as articles from peer-reviewed journals? Because 47% of all statistics are made up on the spot. #parthenogensis
We all know Mary got knocked up by the local blacksmith and needed a cover story. Wait... she never existed either!
Prayer changes things .
I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but your assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module, the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent truths is: "TOTAL FAIL".
I see that you repeat these unfounded statements with high frequency. Perhaps the following book can help you:
I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
by the Alzheimer's Disease Society
"Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to:
"truth be told" degenerates to:
"The Truth" degenerates to:
"Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
"Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
"tina" degenerates to:
"captain america" degenerates to:
"Atheist Hunter" degenerates to:
"Anybody know how to read? " degenerates to:
"HeavenSent" degenerates to:
"just sayin" degenerates to:
"Kindness" degenerates to:
"Chad" degenerates to
"Bob" degenerates to
"nope" degenerates to:
"2357" degenerates to:
"WOW" degenerates to:
"fred" degenerates to:
"!" degenerates to:
This troll is not a christian..
Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!;.
Strawbot strikes again.
@Atheism, etc....--Just wondering why you prepetually post the same sentence for days, weeks on end? Trying to get responses? Rattle someone's cage? Curious.
I agree that prayer changes things. It's not exactly a magic bullet for fun times in this world though, you have to remember that some of God's favorite people got toally screwed in terms of pain, suffering, and death. Of course, that's a drop in the bucket compared to eternity in paradise, but for people who don't believe in paradise it understandably sounds like a bad deal.
Bob = Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things
You're replying to yourself, so your religion makes you delusional.
@The Truth ... Do you suppose the Christian God is opposed to survival of the fittest? Interesting...
If he his, then there is not all powerful because he doesn't do anything about it.
The Christian God as most Christians percieve him or at least claim to percieve him, does not fit with the survival of the fittest model since most claim God makes those choices and get's to pick the winners and losers. If a women becomes pregnant many Christians claim it is God's plan and are murderers for aborting that plan, but when the birth miscarrys it's again God's plan and theres nothing wrong with God aborting a fetus even when carried to almost full term. So I do think Christians believe their God to be opposed to survival of the fittest, however, your Christian God does not exist at all which is why nature fall's back on natural selection even for our own reproduction.
I think the metric that Christianity introduces to the world is the idea that the strong are responsible for the weak. The weak embody the divine as much, if not more so than the strong. Christ himself said And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."