The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
MagdalenaRuth, gepaul, Thomas Taylor, samson, Joseph Stitzel
5,667 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (Devin1890), 138 guests, and 186 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
by likethethief, June 12
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,892
Posts412,950
Members5,667
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,634
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,634
I believe George Bush's (and John McCain's) economic, health, and social policies will lead many to poverty - which will create an alarming rise in the number of abortions performed by the poor and those at lower middle class levels.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,680
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,680
Establishing legal protection for the pre-born, I am sorry to say, will not end abortions in the US. Abortion was certainly available prior to Roe, when it was illegal.

Politics is the "art of the possible." Many believe that the legal and constitutional battle over abortion has been lost. As a result, they are turning their attention to end or restrict abortion in other ways than the law. Support of crisis pregnancy centers, etc, is just one example of how one can combat the evil of abortion. Just because one may think the legal battle is lost, does not neccessarily mean one is indifferent to the evil of abortion.




Last edited by Deacon John Montalvo; 10/15/08 01:21 PM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 1
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Deacon John Montalvo
Establishing legal protection for the pre-born, I am sorry to say, will not end abortions in the US. Abortion was certainly available prior to Roe, when it was illegal.

Quite true. Laws against other forms of murder don’t completely stop them from happening, either. The logical conclusion of such an argument, however, is to repeal the laws against everything that we consider immoral. People will always find a way to kill, to steal, etc.

Originally Posted by Deacon John Montalvo
Politics is the "art of the possible." Many believe that the legal and constitutional battle over abortion has been lost. As a result, they are turning their attention to end or restrict abortion in other ways than the law. Support of crisis pregnancy centers, etc, is just one example of how one can combat the evil of abortion. Just because one may think the legal battle is lost, does not neccessarily mean one is indifferent to the evil of abortion.

Might I remind you that the very same people working towards the legal protection for those humans still in the womb are the same ones that are supporting pregnancy centers?

To give up is to abandon those in the womb. It is to say that some things are not possible, even with Christ.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 1
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
But my particular issue is the idea that under a McCain presidency, the numbers of abortions would decrease moreso than under an Obama presidency. Of course, the difference would have to be greater than the number of lives that one believes could very well be lost under McCain over and above Obama.

You cannot judge accomplishments merely by the number of abortions in a given political cycle (either at the local or national levels). President Bush has accomplished much, but his greatest contributions to the pro-life effort are his Supreme Court appointments. As judges who respect life are appointed to the court over time we will see a chipping of Roe (as we have these past years). Eventually it will fall and the battle will move to the states. Protection of human life will never be something that is accomplished once and for all. Evil always attempts a comeback and the people of God will need to be ever vigilant. The struggle to establish protection for human life here in America will remain a multi-generational one.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Fr. Deacon John,

You have no argument from me recording battling the terrible scourge of abortion on many fronts. At one time I served on the board of a just such a Crisis Pregnancy Center. One should neither reduce the battle of abortion to the legal dimension, but nor should one eliminate the legal/constitutional battle as a possible means for change.

If one considers the myriad of decisions the executive branch makes, including nominations to the Supreme Court, which can increase, limit or possibly virtually eliminate abortion, who is in the White House is not simply a matter of indifference. We should not simply throw up our hands and say "well the legal battle is over". It most decidedly is not. FOCA will set back the pro-life work done at the State and Federal level for decades. And all with the swipe of President Obama's pen.

More people WILL die through abortion under an Obama administration.

So it is not a matter of accusing people of "indifference". I doubt that there are many (if any) pro-choice people on this Forum. But I do think in view of other very important issues about which people feel very passionate (the poor, the war, etc etc), it is difficult to forgo a vote for the candidate that supports their POV because of his stand on this fundamental human rights issue.

Of course, we have not even broached the issue of homosexual marriage...

God bless,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 1
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
I believe George Bush's (and John McCain's) economic, health, and social policies will lead many to poverty - which will create an alarming rise in the number of abortions performed by the poor and those at lower middle class levels.
That is a typical political ploy of the pro-aborts each election season, one not rooted in fact. Don't believe it. During the 2004 election cycle Planned Parenthood (the largest abortionist in the U.S.) released fake statistics claiming that the rate of abortions had risen under the first Bush term. The media triumphantly reported them. After the election they were debunked and shown to be false. As to poverty levels, they have decreased significantly these past 8 years.

Michael (and others), why not work for the cause of life by voting only for pro-life politicians? By refusing to vote for pro-abortion politicians (and saying so loudly)? Why not work to push the abortionists out of the Democrat Party and make it a party of life? Why do you keep trying to cover for them?

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,943
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,943

14-October-2008 -- Catholic News Agency

Palin Blasts Obama for Opposing Protections for Infant Abortion Survivors

Johnstown, Oct 14, 2008 (CNA).- Republican vice-presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, in a speech at a Saturday rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, has attacked what she called Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama’s “extreme and troubling” stand on abortion. Palin argued that there are few issues more important than who is protected under law and insisted that everyone “belongs in the circle of protection.”

“As defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life,” Gov. Palin began. “I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child?”

“Every innocent life matters,” she continued. “Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection … and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake.”

Palin recalled how she greeted the news that her youngest son Trig would have “special needs” before turning to an attack upon Sen. Obama.

“At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I’ve learned already. … As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore. We feel blessed,” Palin said.

“It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.”

Palin attacked Obama’s remarks he made in a Johnstown appearance about not wanting his daughters “punished with a baby.”

“It’s about time we called him on it,” she said, charging that the Democratic presidential candidate is “vague and evasive” on the subject.

Palin argued that Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion, citing Democratic Sen. Patrick Moynihan’s description of the procedure as “too close to infanticide.”

She then noted Obama’s Illinois Senate votes against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), charging:

“Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants – often babies with special needs – are simply left to die. “

She also stated that Obama had misrepresented his record on BAIPA.

“In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sided with those who won’t even protect a child born alive,” Palin asserted.

Noting that there are many concerns at issue in the election, Palin commented:

“It’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late.”

She claimed that Obama would support “activist courts” that will “continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level.”

Earlier that week, in a Thursday interview with radio show host Laura Ingraham, Palin called Obama’s position on the Illinois BAIPA “absolutely atrocious” and “appalling,” Cybercast News Service says.

“I wish I had more time to explain to people what Barack Obama’s position has been on this. Because I think, Laura, it has been missing out there in the discussion, in the debate, about the choices that they have in candidates on November 4th.”

“I think that if more Americans could understand how absolutely extreme that position is, there would be a heck of a lot more outrage than we already see,” she continued.

Palin also attacked Obama’s BAIPA position while speaking at a town hall meeting in Waukesha, Wisconsin on Thursday.

“What I don't find compassionate is Barack Obama's vote, as an Illinois senator, when three times he had the chance to vote to be able to provide health care for a child who was born alive as a result of a botched abortion,” she said.

www.ewtn.com

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299
As I have reminded people on this forum before Obama will sign into law the freedom of choice act. The democrats have the support and he will sign it. This will take away the rights of Catholic hospitals to refuse abortions, take away rights of medical personnel to refuse to do abortions, take away all state restrictions on abortions, and start funding abortions on a federal level. He has promised to fund programs that spread the abortion message overseas. His judges will be pro-abortion.

The basis of all Catholic and Orthodox social justice is the right to life. Archbishop Burke who is now in Rome said the democratic party is becoming "the party of death." Not my words but his.

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,943
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,943
Originally Posted by MrsMW
As I have reminded people on this forum before Obama will sign into law the freedom of choice act. The democrats have the support and he will sign it. This will take away the rights of Catholic hospitals to refuse abortions, take away rights of medical personnel to refuse to do abortions, take away all state restrictions on abortions, and start funding abortions on a federal level. He has promised to fund programs that spread the abortion message overseas. His judges will be pro-abortion.

The basis of all Catholic and Orthodox social justice is the right to life. Archbishop Burke who is now in Rome said the democratic party is becoming "the party of death." Not my words but his.


Thank you for clearly and calmly reminding us of what this candidate intends to do as President.

Alice

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Originally Posted by MrsMW
As I have reminded people on this forum before Obama will sign into law the freedom of choice act. The democrats have the support and he will sign it. This will take away the rights of Catholic hospitals to refuse abortions, take away rights of medical personnel to refuse to do abortions, take away all state restrictions on abortions, and start funding abortions on a federal level. He has promised to fund programs that spread the abortion message overseas. His judges will be pro-abortion.

The basis of all Catholic and Orthodox social justice is the right to life. Archbishop Burke who is now in Rome said the democratic party is becoming "the party of death." Not my words but his.


I am no fan of the Freedom of Choice Act but I see nothing in the bill that would mandate that any private hospital provide abortions or that any medical personel could be forced to provide abortions (unless perhaps they were government personel).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020:

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Also, I'll add that the language of the bill does not take away all state restrictions and regulations. It merely affirms that Roe v.Wade is federal law. It seems to me that the real intent of this bill is just to guarantee that the rights secured by Roe v. Wade remain in place should Roe v. Wade be overturned. Now, this is still a horrible bill. But we should not exaggerate what the bill actually says and does. We should stick to the facts.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299
Even if what you say is true that alone would make me think twice before voting for Obama or any other politician who support this bill. I would encourage anyone to go to the right to life website and read it for yourself. Read what the Catholic bishops have to say about it. Orthodox Christians for life also has some good pro-life resources.

What would we say if a president was great on every issue but he thought that people shouldn't have the right to live past the age of 75? Would we try to say that is just one of many issues? 4,000 babies die every day in this country. This should make rise up to end this evil practice.

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 90
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
Also, I'll add that the language of the bill does not take away all state restrictions and regulations. It merely affirms that Roe v.Wade is federal law. It seems to me that the real intent of this bill is just to guarantee that the rights secured by Roe v. Wade remain in place should Roe v. Wade be overturned. Now, this is still a horrible bill. But we should not exaggerate what the bill actually says and does. We should stick to the facts.


Unless I'm misinterpreting something, this bill does take away all state restrictions by this section (section 6),
Quote
This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.


In section 4 it states,
Quote
Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or


(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.


The reason why hospitals fall under these categories is because they receive Federal dollars via Medicare and Medicaid. If any hospital wants to survive they need to receive this money.

I wish that I could believe that this bill is only affirming that Roe v. Wade is federal law, but I sincerly don't believe the sponsors of this bill for one second. Not that I doubt these sponors think they are doing something good, but I believe them to be dead wrong.

Just my two cents.

In Christ,
Aaron

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Quote
MrsMW said: What would we say if a president was great on every issue but he thought that people shouldn't have the right to live past the age of 75? Would we try to say that is just one of many issues? 4,000 babies die every day in this country. This should make rise up to end this evil practice.


We have no disagreement here! But let's look at it this way. Theoretically, let's say it's the law of the land that you can kill people 75 or older. One candidate, the one who one believes is great on every other issue, supports this. The other candidate, seems to be mildly against it, but has been shown to be a moderate who doesn't really pursue trying to outlaw it. In fact, a president from this second candidate's own party, who is far more avowedly anti-killing-75-year-olds-and-older, has had 8 years as president and the number of these murders continues, in addition to hundreds of thousands of lives lost through a needless War, and with the gap between rich and poor widening every day to frightful lengths, which as Fr. Dcn. mentioned earlier, could very likely lead to an increase in the number of these murders.

Now, to me, it seems not to be as you caricatured it.

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
I misspoke. The first candidate supports the "right" to kill these older people, but has vowed, convincingly in my opinion, to work towards diminishing these numbers as much as possible without taking the "right" away.

Alexis

Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5