Will The Catholics BID Farwell to Joe Biden?

Obama just lost my vote with this pick.  And also gave McCain a lot of Ads from Biden himself.  He may have been in the running all along, but it still was a bad choice.

ugh!  I can't believe you were actually going to vote for Obama.......but why does this choice break it for you? 

you mean like the fact that Biden said, and stood by his statement he made in an ABC interview,  in 2007 that Obama wasn't ready to be President? 

That should make for a great ad!!! 

Why is abortion the ONLY issue that anyone cares about?  Biden is also pro-death penalty which is also against Catholic church teachings.  Why no fuss about that? 

Because that issue isn't as ridiculously divisive as the questions concerning a woman's right to abort.

However, when you bitch and moan about abortion, it looks like you actually have something to say, even though most arguments (both for and against) are as vapid and empty as my gas tank. 

ha!  I'd say the opposite.  They're both full of gas with no end in sight. 

Good article KFC....you have hit the target dead on with this one.

I agree. Obama has voted pro-abortion without exception...evidently he has racked up a 100%  score from every abortion group out there. What's interesting is he has this record but doesn't seem to be proud of it or in fact trying to hide it in front of any group other than those who favor abortion.

You're right about what he's promising if elected. While addressing a pro-abortion crowd, he assured them the killing in America's abortuaries would continue saying, "The first thing I'd do as President is sign the Greedom of Choice Act. This bill would effectively cancel every state, federal and local regulation of abortion now matter how modest or reasonable."

Obama is SCARY and now scary-er with Biden, a long time lover of abortion,  at his side. Biden claims he's Catholic but he's a hypocrite to say so. No one can be pro-abortion and claim the Catholic faith at the same time.

A few years ago one of the pro-life groups I support came up with 12 nationally known politicians, The Deadly Dozen,  who claim to be Catholics, but publicly support abortion. Of course this is scandalous to the Church.  Canon Law 915 makes it clear that supporting such heinous crimes makes them unworthy to receive Holy Communion. It states "those who ...obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Communion."

Some bishops, unfortunately not all,  have spoken loud and clear about Catholic politicos fundamental responsibility to ensure their public actions reflect the Church's teachings on respect for life and the dignity of the human person from the womb to the tomb.

But instead politicians,  like Biden, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, Susan Collins, Christopher Dodd, Barbara Mikulski, Richard Durbin, Tom Harkin, Nancy Pelosi, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lisa Murkowski, continue to disobey God's Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" vote for abortion and receive Holy Communion unworthily. (I have read though that after Pope Benedict came to the US, that Rudy Guiliani was told by Cardinal George not to receive until he repents and he has complied).

You got that right. It's N'Obama/Biden for me. Then again, I would not have voted for Obama no matter who his VP is. 

Boudica posts:

I'd say the reason is the cause of freedom...and thus our laws that preserve freedom. Back in 1776, as we declared our independence we pledged our lives, our fortunes, and our sascred honor  to the casue of freedom. The Declaration of Independence declared that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Notice the right to life comes first on the list and for good reason. That's why abortion which denies the unborn's right to life is such a hot issue. Are we free or not? or are some more free than others? this is a fundamental question that must be addressed.

There have been staunch pro abortion Catholics all along.  The real question isn't whether or not Catholics support them as much as why does the Catholic church continue supporting them? Catholics have been excommunicated for much less... why doesn't the Catholic church excommunicate these politicians?

Time for a little Devil's advocacy here.

For better or worse, lula, the Declaration is not the Constitution.  It is an admirable statement of principal, but carries no Constitutional weight.  You'll also note that the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were noted by the Declaration to be among those certain unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, clearly implying that there are, or may be, other such rights.

But, for the sake of argument, assume that we are, or should be, bound by the Declaration's language.  How do we resolve a conflict between those enumerated rights?  Assume, again just for the sake of argument, that a pregnancy is incompatible with a particular individual's pursuit of happiness (forget parsing the hows & whys of the pregnancy - that's not addressed in either the Declaration or the Constitution).  The Declaration does not say "...that among them are, in order of precedence, life, liberty..." which leaves us with three 'unalienable' rights of equal weight.  Now suppose that the pregnant individual determines that termination of her pregnancy is necessary to her pursuit of happiness (happiness not being defined by either the Declaration or the Constitution, we'll have to accept the claim per se).  We now are faced with deciding which of those 'unalienable' rights trumps the other (thereby rendering one of them 'alienable').  This requires that we also assume that the same rights devolve to the fetus at the moment of conception, adding an additional layer of dilemma and forcing us to make a determination of which individual's rights are morally, ethically or legally superior.

If freedom is to be the overriding right, as your reply #7 would lead me to assume you believe to be the case, how can we deny the pregnant individual the exercise of that freedom?  But suppose the pregnant woman is addicted to crack.  What then?  Does addiction to crack strip you of your 'unalienable' rights?  Assuming the answer is yes, who gets to exercise those rights on her behalf and are they to be limited?

The point of my remarks is that there can be no legal resolution of this moral & ethical dilemma, we just end up going around in circles - each pregnant woman must act in accordance with the dictates of her conscience.  'Abortion on demand' is morally dubious but the phrase has been equated by the pro-life movement to a 'frivolous choice by a callous individual' at best and 'murder' at worst, with no consideration for the life, liberty & pursuit of happiness of the pregnant woman.  Aside from religious belief, I can see no basis upon which to give a fetus priority over its mother.

I believe it is perfectly appropriate for the pro-life movement to do everything it can to foster an ethical environment which celebrates the miracle of life and discourages the acceptance of 'abortion on demand' as the norm.  It shouldn't be.  It also shouldn't be illegal.

0.02

$$$$.   Thought you'd know better, Ted.

Because it is not a hot button issue.  Some are for it, and some are against it, but in that (the death penalty) at least the person had a choice in it.

Leaving that for the moment, and getting to KFC's question:  I have stated repeatedly my views on abortion.  I certainly respect those who find it murder, as that is my belief as well.  But I can also respect, even when I disagree, with those that do not think it is murder because they do not believe that the child is a human being.

The 3rd class of people in this equation are those that believe the child is a human being, and still believe in abortion.  I think that should explain my contempt for Biden and those morally bankrupt people.

BOUDICA POSTS:

Boudica,

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil as abortion is which is the killing of an innocent unborn baby in the womb. This is why abortion is always evil. The death penalty is a prudential judgement made by the state upon a person who already has been declared guilty.

The Catholic Church teachings are not against the death penalty, nor could they ever be. One, because the Church  recognizes this difference as well two...the death penalty is BIblical, and three....fact that  the state, indeed, has  the rightful authority to render the death penalty. The Christian tradition has always recognized a government's right to protect its citizens by using the death penalty in some serious situations.

ParaTed posts:

I must correct you in that there is a distinction that must be made. Yes, there are staunch pro-abortion Catholics...I just railed against some of them in post #6. 

However, neither the Catholic Church nor her teachings support abortion or those who are staunch supporters of it. The Catholic Church's teachings have condemned the practice of abortion from day 1 of her inception on the First Pentecost for abortion is against the Commandment of Almighty God,  "Thou shalt not kill" and her the Code of Canon Law strongly condemns those who support the practice of abortion as I 've already pointed out.

Excommunication is a very, very big deal for it's an official public action taken by the Church. The Church proceeds very, very carefully and cautiously following specific steps.  The person who is officially excommunicated must be causing grave scandal and directly  threatening  other Catholic's faith.  The most recent excommunication was of 3 or so women who declared themselves priests.  

These politicians who persist in voting for abortion actually excommunicate themselves. St. Paul teaches that  when we receive Holy Communion unworthily, that is in an unrepentant state of sin,  they we bring judgment upon ourselves.  

DAIWA POSTS:

My point is that one issue, life, trumps all the rest. This is true hands down. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were enumerated in this order for good reason. LIfe is first. Without life, we can't have freedom, WIthout life and freedom we can't have pursuit of happiness...

Yes, given the context of our time, I'm a one issue voter...the candidate must be pro-life, the one issue that trumps all the rest.   

DIAWA POSTS:

The answer to this scenario goes to taking personal responsibility and self control for one's own actions.

Why engage in sexual activity taking the chance of becoming pregnant in the first place,  if a pregnancy isn't compatible with an individual's pursuit of happiness? Where does a person's own responsibility to control their own body come into play in this scenario?

The time for the woman's freedom of choice and control her own body is before the pregnancy...not afterwards. After the pregnancy it is not only the woman's body that is under consideration...the baby's body must be considered too.  What about the baby's body? Do you think if the unborn baby were asked he'd  say,  go ahead and kill me? Would you have?

The State must protect the baby's unalienable right to be born and enjoy all of life's choices. The pain and death caused by abortion violates that right.

But with abortion on demand, it's not any wonder why respect for life, commitment, and responsibility have gone out the window.

In this scenario, abortion is the solution...killing the baby solves the mother's or/and the father's problem. For them, the end (maintaining their pursuit of happiness)  justifies the means (killing what's in their way of pursuit of happiness by abortion.) 

Although the Declaration is irrelevant to this discussion, please show me the evidence upon which this assertion is based.

Please show me where this unalienable right is codified in our Constitution.

If you read my entire post, you'll know that I consider abortion morally dubious at best, but Constitutionally there is no way to parse 'unalienable' rights (even if you assume the verbage of the Declaration is or should be incorporated by reference in the Constitution, which it isn't).  I'm exploring the Constitutional dimensions of the problem, you're espousing the religious dimensions, putting words in my mouth in the process.  I'll say it again - there can be no legal resolution of the issue which will be universally accepted.  It is fundamentally a moral & ethical conundrum which the pregnant (or potentially pregnant) woman must decide for herself.  Your argument is one that can & should be made to an individual, but that I believe can't be forced upon a society.

Daiwa:

I have a couple of arguments against your comment above.  First of all, the preamble of the US Constitution is anyone should have to read to be against abortion on demand. 

The US Constitution doesn't tell We the People what are rights are, it tells the Federal Government what authority it has to act  in running the country.

Dredd Scott and Roe vs. Wade were two decisions that were based solely on bigotry and denying human beings their rights based on their physical appearance.  Neither have any Constitutional basis, nor can they be justified by the Constitution.

Can anyone read "secure the blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" and justify abortion on demand?  Abortion is killing an otherwise healthy human being.  30 years ago it might have been possible to define a fetus as other than human, but today, biological science proves a fetus inside a woman can't be anything other than a human being.

Of course, we still live in a society where bigotry and prejudice supercede logic and fact.  We haven't really progressed beyond slavery, we just redefined whose rights we can arbitrarily dismiss.

People say that the woman's right to choose is paramount over the fetus's life.  I ask anyone using that argument, what healthy part of anyone's body can they demand a doctor remove simply because they ask?  There are a few of course, but the law and ethics of the medical profession ban the arbitrary removal of many organs if they are healthy.  Which means it can't be argued that it is a right.

There are those who argue that "the fetus us just part of the woman's body".  This can't be argued using facts either.  Not a single cell or tissue of the woman is shared with the fetus.  The woman and the fetus have DNA that identifies them each as separate people.  No part of the mother regulates any part of the fetal metabolism.  The fetal metabolism is regulated completely by the fetus itself.

So, as I said before, no part of the US Constitution can be used to justify abortion on demand as a "right", nor can any part of it be used to argue for killing a healthy fetus.  Biological science can't be used to justify any of the arguments made for abortion on demand.  It is simply a political issue that should be left on the scrapheap of history like its horrific cousin, slavery.

PS, I use the term "abortion on demand" because there are medical justifications for removal of a fetus, even if it means killing it to do so.

Lula posts:

I thought  I did saying :

The evidence is common sense and a child's knowledge. Without life, (being born) one cannot have liberty. Without life one certainly cannot pursue happiness. One needs liberty to pursue happiness (think Communist China if you need an example).

Lula posts:

PARATED POSTS:

Indeed, imo, your post #17 is irrefutable.   Here's one for you!

You're arguing against positions I haven't taken, Ted.

From Webster's -

Posterity

1. The race that proceeds from a progenitor; offspring to the furthest generation; the aggreggate number of persons who are descended from an ancestor of a generation; descendants; - contrasted with ancestry; as, the posterity of Abraham.

2. Succeeding generations; future times.

I don't believe the language of the preamble means quite what you've taken it to mean.  And I don't believe that the preamble carries any more 'jurisprudential' weight than the Declaration.  The Bill of Rights, on the other hand...

From a Constitutional perspective, it doesn't really matter whether you believe life begins at the moment of conception (as I do, BTW) or not.  You still have the conundrum of having to make a moral/ethical decision about which individual's (fetus's or mother's) 'unalienable' rights are 'alienable' after all.  I happen to agree that there is no part of the Constitution that can be used to 'justify' 'abortion on demand' - I just also believe there is no part of the Constitution that can be used to justify making it illegal.  The Sixth Commandment, on the other hand...

lula - what sort of 'evidence' is that?  That is simply your assertion.  You are welcome to make that argument on a religious or moral level, but that is not evidence that the language of the Declaration is incorporated by reference in the Constitution or that the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration were enumerated in order of priority.  That's a 'because I say so' answer.

And you inadvertently attributed my comments to el-duderino by mistake.

See post #19.  No post is 'irrefutable'.

Daiwa:  Sorry I misunderstood what you meant, and your position.

Actually there is no connundrum here either.   Existing standards of medical care already address the question in rules of Triage.  In a situation where two or more patients require lifesaving medical procedures, you save the one with the best chances of survival first.

In almost every case, it would be the mother.

The thing is, this rule of triage only applies in cases where two or more patients require lifesaving treatment.  Lifesaving treatment is also well defined and not subject to open interpretation. 

The only reason the waters are muddied is there are too many people who say that it should be a medical issue, but insist on arguing it as a purely political one. 

Lula posts:

DAIWA POSTS:

Granted. You point is welll made and well taken....nevertheless, what I said is true and indisiputable...we can't have the other two if we aren't allowed our unalienable right to be born. You can't have one without the one that preceeds it. Simple as that.

I know....Sorry about that! It was late when I  thought of it long after I had turned my computer off for the night!