« Moonbat Journalist Anthony Lewis Makes a Video | Main | AP Manufactures Peace Granny »

At some future point, Pelosi (and many millions of others) are going to have to face their Creator, and asked to explain why they were willing to have millions of babies be butchered for the sake of gaining political power. At that point, she will perhaps realize the horrible bargain she made.

The righteous are punished in this life and rewarded in the next. For the sinful, it works the other way around.

I have a bumper sticker on my car that reads:You cannot be both Catholic and pro-abortion". That is it in a nutshell. Whurl is conservative, so I hope he does the right thing. I also have a problem with so called Catholic pro-abortion politicians receiving Holy Communion. If you cannot play by the rules, join another church whose rules you agree with.

V the K,

Who told you that? Oh that's right, you were spoon-fed a fairy tale from an old book and accepted it uncritically.

And LOL at "babies be butchered", as if a glob of undeveloped cells is somehow a baby. You can always be counted on to deliver a massive dose of over-the-top hyperbole. Please keep it coming! Everyone here gets such a chuckle.

In other news, you'll be delighted to hear that Bush will be sending even more young Americans to their deaths in a primitive desert half way around the world:


Bush to Send More Troops to the Slaughterhouse.


It's party time!

(Wake up fools.)

The weakness in the Catholic Church to uphold it's own spiritual values is the root cause (I'm gonna borrow a popular left-wing phrase here) of it's downward slide. From it's pandering to Muslims, and the Pope's begging for forgiveness at the feet of Muslim terrorists to it's liberal wings who uphold abortion, divorce, single-parent child-rearing, etc. etc. it is no wonder it appears to be in a downward slide. It is a shame, because the Catholic Church is a major building block of Western Civilization and remains the largest Christian denomination. Evangelical Protestant churches are growing rapidly (which is a good thing) but it is a shame that the Catholic Church can't keep up. I wonder if the problem is the church, or the fact that humans in general, and particularly Westerners, are becomming more "liberal" by the day. Maybe no one has the courage to stand for something anymore.

And LOL at "babies be butchered", as if a glob of undeveloped cells is somehow a baby.

He's right, you know.

ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny

It could be a fish, or a lizard, or a frog, or an ape.

Can you imagine a world without abortion? It would be horrid.

Chris,

One problem might be the CC's insistence on alienating its practitioners via its strange positions on sex and birth control, among others. When the church preaches condom usage as a sin, rational people will search elsewhere for their religion fix. That said, Catholic dogma has evolved over time, arbitrarily changing its master list of sins in order to ensure the money keeps flowing. I'm sure the Vatican will invent a new set of forbidden fruits over the coming years that is less eccentric and aberrant.

Let's see, it was okay to kill Terry Schaivo because she was never going to develop into a functioning human being.

But, it's okay to kill babies at any stage of pregnancy, even though they will develop into human beings.

Exactly how much bongwater does one have to drink in order to simultaneously embrace both concepts?

Perhaps leftist ethos is rather more simple: once you designate a being as sub-human (regardless of how many human characteristics it has), you can exterminate it as a matter of personal convenience.

V the K,

A: will develop into human being

B: ok to kill

You seem to think that ARG 1 implies ARG 2:

ARG 1: ~A -> B

ARG 2: A -> ~B

(In other words, you seem to believe that the argument, "It's not ok to kill a fetus if it will develop into a human being" is implied by the argument, "It's ok to kill Terry Schaivo if she isn't going to develop into a human being", because you claim holding both arguments as true is a contradiction.)

However, ARG 1 does not imply ARG 2. In claiming so, you've committed the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.

Holding both ARG 1 and ARG 2 as true is not a contradiction, and thus does not require one drink any amount of bong water before doing so.

That said, I never justified abortion in such terms, so I have no clue to whom you're addressing your comments. Perhaps you think this is the only way to think about the issue? Sadly, that would explain much of what you write.

No, I think of abortion in these terms:

Consequences to mother of unplanned pregnancy: temporary and remediable.

Consequences to unborn child of abortion: permanent and irrevocable.

Logic says that given a choice of causing temporary inconvenience to one life or permanent harm to another, it is immoral to side with causing permanent harm.

And where there is ambiguity over whether life is human or not, the moral position is to err on the side of protecting life.

The leftist, pro-abortion argument is to value expediency over protecting life. When that value system is inplace, all human life becomes devalued.

I agree with the posters talking about the churches slow decent to moonbattery. The problem is the vatican being in left wing Europe.

The old tired line: "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was refuted in the annals of biology long ago...whoever quoted that hasn't kept up. I know this, since I am a biologist. Even so, some writers with an agenda still pull it out of their ass in the hopes that most readers are ignorant of its history. Nice try. It didn't work.

The RCC is on the fringes of Christianity and always has been. They were not the "church fathers" as many have read. Those who study scripture and lean on God and not a man will persevere. All others will fall away including their "churches". Enough on that.

A zygote derived from humans has potential. Biology and common sense prove it is human life derived from no other. Human worth is measured in potential. Its potential does not hinge on the mistakes of the people who produced it. To abort is to pre-judge another human being and to negate their potential based on flawed information. We can't know the future, therefore it is premature and illogical to destroy a being based on that which we cannot predict. Take that to your philosophy class professor.

Let's face it. Abortion is a hot political ticket that's too good to let go of. It's convenient and profitable. In the end we're all going to pay for this, especially the ones who laugh at the anti-abortion crowd. Go along...continue in your misguided pro-abortion beliefs. I'm sure as hell not going to deny you plenty of rope.

I'm sorry Jael, but your opinions on churches and the Catholic Church a misguided. Most of what you wrote about it has been debunked. The Catholic Church contributed heavily to Western Civilization and was hardly on the "fringe" of Christianity. And your comments about "man's churches" ought to make any American shudder because church has been a MAJOR building block of the American community and has aided this country through the centuries greatly. The Founders encouraged religion, and in the words of Washington himself, religious morality is an indespensable(sp?) component of our Republic. We need the churches and the morals they instill to sustain a free society, just like the Founders understood.

The old tired line: "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was refuted in the annals of biology long ago.

It's actually refuted in the link Steve-O provides.

To abort is to pre-judge another human being and to negate their potential based on flawed information.

I disagree slightly. The information is not flawed, the pro-abortion side knows perfectly well they are destroying human life. The moral response to the information is flawed.

It's interesting how much less absolute the right to "reproductive freedom" becomes to its advocates when they are presented with a scenario of a mother selectively aborting when genetic tests reveal a child might be gay.

well, when you bow down to and kiss an old guy's ring - i guess anything goes.

My, my--we've found a few Catholic-bashers spreading their droolings.

How DO those people escape from grade-school?

Chris said:

"your opinions on churches and the Catholic Church a misguided. Most of what you wrote about it has been debunked. The Catholic Church contributed heavily to Western Civilization and was hardly on the "fringe" of Christianity"

No Chris, nothing has been "debunked" concerning the RCC. Its contributions to Western civilization are nothing to be proud of btw. The fact that this church is disintegrating, that it has adopted paganism over and over again and has a priesthood that is contrary to God's law is well known and well documented. I've lived in RCC strongholds, worked among them and have seen their practices up close. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Seriously doubt you have experience in this other than what you've read.

Look at Pelosi. Here is a perfect example of an RCC adherent gone awry. Do you think she's the exception? Actually she's the rule. The fact that you don't see this over and over again attests to your blindness and to the blindness of its adamant adherents.

Martin Luther, a catholic priest understood this, he argued with the papacy for very MANY good reasons, all of which had to do with the corruption within the church and its departure from the true God. His thesis was the shot heard around the world almost 500 yrs. ago and it's still heard today. The RCC has changed very little. Their traditions usurp the commandment of God and because of this, they will fall. Of course, the protestant churches have also adopted paganism and succumbed to societal pressure. They too shall fall. The "Church" is not an organization, it's a body of believers and frankly that's what's going to be left. It's prophecy, not speculation, bashing or politics.

The "anonymous" post is mine

I'm well aware that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has been refuted. It was written with tongue firmly implanted in cheek.

I took it as tongue-in-cheek, Steve-O. My response should have made that clearer.

I know, V the k. My comment was directed at jael, who apparently didn't see the sarcasm. It's so difficult to get that across in text.

I am sorry if I offended you jael, I didn't mean to, it's just that denying the Catholic Churches many major contributions to the West annoys me a bit. Even though I'm not Catholic. I strongly support church and religious morality; we desperately need more of it now that moonbattery is attacking our civilization.

However, you are incorrect. The Catholic Church contributed heavily to Western science, morality, rule of law, economics, etc.. Has all been demonstrated. Catholic priests enunciated free market economics long before Adam Smith was born. The notion that Catholics and Christians borrowed from pagan religions is also untrue.

Dear Chris,

you wrote: " The notion that Catholics and Christians borrowed from pagan religions is also untrue."

I find it astonishing that someone living today, someone who reads scripture (am assuming you might) would believe this statement much less write it. Most of the traditions we observe including Christmas (with its "tree" of german pagan origin) and Easter (the very word is derived from Ishtar from Assyria, eostre from 'spring" and various other derivations are wholly of pagan origin. The word "easter" was deliberately inserted in the bible much later when in fact the original word in Greek was "Passover". You can still find the original greek in a Strong's concordance or in Jay Green's excellent Interlinear concordance.

The fertility symbols of Spring (easter eggs, bunnies, chicks) still play an important part in this heathen festival. Worshippers still get up early on "easter sunday" and stand facing the east for their sunrise service. This is ALL pagan. Christ, His disciples and the early church fathers and mothers did NOT observe these heathen practices. Israel was warned time and again to not adopt foreign practices but they did anyway. We're no different.

I could go on and on with strong documentation, but the point is: when Popes kiss the Koran (see earlier picture posted on this forum) and little golden statues of the "christ" are marched down church aisles for people to stop and kiss (televised all over the world on easter day celebrations in catholic churches), then something is dreadfully wrong. We can't turn a blind eye to this and say it isn't so. THIS is why our civilization and world fail. We love tradition more than we love our Creator and fairytales more than the truth.

It's way too late in the day to not recognize these problems.

You seem to be one of those people who must have the very last word to put someone in thier place. I am unable to continue arguing back-it's rather silly to me. There is little point in arguing with someone who is convinced they are correct regardless. I learned that lesson long ago. I'll thank you just as well and you take care.