Sunday, September 28, 2008

Catholic Bigwig at U.T. says Obama is Prolife Candidate

Liberals all must read the same misinfo. Where have we heard it before that the Dems are more "pro-life" because they love poor people more than others do and want to give them more money than Republicans do. Moreover, Dems assert that American poor children don't get adequate healthcare because of REpublicans.

My observation of poor people in the USA has been upclose and personal. I have a friend who raised some children by herself. She was forever going to the ER with them and accumulating duplicate meds for various common ailments and stock piling them on top of the frig and never looking to see if any of them would treat the newest cold virus and symptoms that afflicted her family frequently--but would instead call for new RX's when she already had meds for her symptoms or her kids' symptoms on the fridg. The rest of us run to the med chest and see if anything is still good and applicable to our symptoms. Not her, she ran to the doctor's office or the ER several times a month--chasing every fleeting pain of her own first of all --because it was free--via Medicaid.

The old welfare policy under LBJ was reformed by Republican Congress and reforms signed by Bill Clinton. The old policy encouraged people to make babies out of wedlock, keep the man out of the house, and get more money every month for each baby born out of wedlock. When the law changed (in 92 approx.) the rates of unwed pregnancy and abortion declined.

The Catholic fellow from U.T. claims in the Blade today that 3 times more abortions occur in the minority communitities, so he implies if we gave them more money they would not abort. That may be partially true, but it also increases the rate of promiscuity leading to disease and unwed pregnancies when babies are a source of income. The problem is that they continue to have 300 percent more unwed pregnancies (leading to abortion) than the mainstream. It used to be 800 percent more unwed pregnancy in the black community than in white before Roe vs. Wade. That's not because they're poor--that's because they start sex early and can't afford to do so any more than any other groups can. NO GROUP OF PEOPLE CAN AFFORD PROMISCUITY! It seems to be an intergenerational thing when teens are sexually active early, pregnant and aborting.

Democrats want to throw money at every problem--and not their money but someone else's. Of course their Hollywood spokespersons don't mind high taxes since they make so much excess they'll never miss it like the small business people and average professional folks will. These groups will tighten their belts, stop spending, hiring, investing and expanding business, providing jobs. That's not the sort of "help" we need from the Democrats.

The Catholic leader said Obama was the most "pro-life" of the 2 candidates. Yet, Obama so clearly said he would pass FOCA --Freedom of Choice Act --first thing if the democratic legislatures pass it. That would nullify all the progress made at the state levels regarding parental notification, partial birth abortion ban, and the born alive infant protection act --and the ban on federal funding for research on abortion victims.

One of our forum contributors here said nothing has been accomplished re: abortion in the years of pro-life presidencies and congresses --but that's not true. We have hope in two more pro-life justices on the Supreme Court. We haven't outlawed abortion because we haven't had a majority of God-fearing, pro-life legislators and judges --YET! But we have made some progress by voting pro-life.

IF you're really pro-life, VOTE Pro-Life--and that means GOP. Don't be fooled by these liberals who think pro-life means throwing money around just to encourage people's sense of entitlement and lack of personal responsibility.

Education, extra-marital abstinence, marriage, fidelity, sobriety, avoiding the Lotto and the casino, never starting to smoke --these are the ways to encourage to youth so they can do better than their parents and grandparents and get out of the welfare trap. Of course, conversion and commitment to Christ are the first step on a road that leads to life.




"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

16 comments:

Antipelagian said...

I truly hate abortion...I think it is the greateds blight on America.

I am also not under the delusion that Bush, McCain, or the GOP in general are doing anything to promote life. As noted in times past, most of our Judges are Republican appointed...note also that Roe vs Wade is an unconstitutional ruling since legislation is not pronounced via *any branch other than the Executive*. Even if we got pro-life Judges, they can't even do anything about abortion unless a case comes up in which they can rule on it...but that could be overturned by a pro-death controlled Judiciary in the years to come.

But how pro-life has our Republican president and Republican controlled Congress been? After all, until recently we have been dominated by Republicans for over 12 years.

Well, under Bush (and don't forget: Republican dominated Congress), funding for abortion increased exponentially compared to the Clinton regime. Medicaid coverage for abortion became *mandatory* at the State level as dictated by our Republican Congress and President...if States did not allow it, they would be denied Federal funds for medicaid.

And lest we be deceived again by the GOP...our "Pro-Life" candidate voted in favor of increased funds for Title X which included abortion.


Funding for Title X increased by nearly $30 million in 2004 compared to the Clinton regime...last year, while still Republican controlled, the Congress increased Title X funding by nearly $17 Million more.

It's amazing when Republicans are a majority, we still blame Clinton for Title X spending when we could have controlled Title X spending via the Congress...after all, the President is powerless to do anything without agreement in Congress.

After the Congress became Democrat controlled, "pro-lifers" began calling on Bush to gag Title X funding for abortion...something that cannot happen when Dems control the Congress, but gives Republicans something to rally behind to get an (R) into office.

Barb said...

I just don't see how giving the dems the house, senate, presidency and judiciary is being salt and light, AP.

There were some victories that the pro-aborts hated --and Obama is extreme in his Pro-abortion position--so how is it that you think electing him would be a good thing? Because you fear Palin as president because she's a woman?

Why don't we run you against Marcy and get a real pro-lifer in there? I'll help you!! I'll get on my scooter and go door to door! surely, your church has someone to offer who might win.

It's hard to get real Chrsitians to run for office because they do prioritize family first which is hard for politicians to do --but I don't think it's impossible. I love the enthusiasm that Todd Palin displays for his wife's success. What a guy! I hope they are as Christian as they seem and that God will protect them from harm and temptation.

Antipelagian said...

Barb,

I'm an "Independent"...I'm no longer a Republican because the GOP abandoned biblical principles long ago and I finally realized that. I have not seen a Democrat I would ever vote for though there are Republicans I will...when it comes to the Presidency this election cylce, I'll be voting for Chuck Baldwin (not Obama).

I don't think you'd want me running against Marcy ;) But I really am considering other avenues for fighting abortion at the local level. I'm convinced this is how we defeat baby murder.

We need to bypass National Right to Life altogether...they will only support a pro-life candidate if he is Republican and will actually work *against* pro-life initiatives they haven't chartered...I know for a fact they did this in Michigan.

This sounds like a losing battle...but it just takes *Christians* leaving behind the needless Democrat/Republican dialectic that fuels our country's decline.

If you are willing to support something like that...I will seriously begin working harder on doing this very thing. By support, I do not mean financially...eventually, it would require that...but if successful, the cost would be spread over a large number of supporters.

kateb said...

Barb I am so hesitant to post on here considering the past incidents - but I would like you to know that without regard to these political positions - we are having success in adopting children and supporting young women in the position of unwanted pregnancy.

Again I would say that if we can instill into our young girls the value that God placed upon them, their sexuality and their unborn children - they may make a wholly different set of choices. And this should be our ministry. To value our young women prior to their being preyed upon by animals.

kateb said...

Well that's nice - I suppose with enough money or peer pressure I could get someone to say that I am a hat.

:-)

Antipelagian said...

KateB said:
Again I would say that if we can instill into our young girls the value that God placed upon them, their sexuality and their unborn children - they may make a wholly different set of choices. And this should be our ministry.

Absolutely. We've seen some great ministries spring up for women that are pregnant and scared.

Christians need to take on abortion more than legislatively.

Barb said...

Christians have taken up the cause to support unwed mothers --through the evangelical Crisis pregnancy center --and the Catholics have centers, too --The CPC also produced an excellent sex ed program for the public and private schools --Anthony wayne used it. It focused on values of real love relationships.

Foundation for Life was mostly supported by Catholics; the Right to Life newsletter was folded and mailed from our church for years with involvement by several at our church, plus a lot of Catholic home schoolers.

don't worry about your input here, KateB. Do you sing, by any chance? we're looking for singers for our Christmas production.

steve said...

Barb you are absolutely right about these governmnt neer do wells taking my hard earned dollars in taxes and throwing it away on a bunch of stuff I don't even care about! That's why I'm voting for Obama cause he is going to give me a much larger tax break than Mcain is! Darn rootin tootin neer do wells! Gaaahh, oh geez.

Barb said...

Hey, Steve! Do you know any "ne-er do wells?" Have you ever helped any one who is poor --including a "ne-er do well?"

Just curious. I have a suspicion that all the bleeding heart liberals don't know anyone who is poor. Stossel says they are the poorest givers --democrats.

Antipelagian said...

Barb,
I didn't mean to sound as if Christians only do things legislatively...I was just agreeing with KateB.

I know there are *GREAT* ministries to women in need...there are Christian people really working at it.

There is a gulf between those that are active and those that simply vote as if the gov't will end abortion.

I fall into the camp that has done far too little, and I know there are many more that will keep looking at the fight against abortion being done primarily through a ballot.

Barb said...

the thing is, antipelagian, the people on the front lines of the pro-life war deserve our support --and they believe we should vote for pro-life president to keep from getting that pro-abortion court you think is inevitable. And pro-life legislators for the progress that has been made through law. Some case WILL move forward to a pro-life Supreme Court --and reverse Roe vs. Wade --as more and more people realize the grisley nature of abortion, the humanity of the fetus (as in the kiosk display at the mall) the fact that women have all kinds of choices besides the most evil and permanent one of death to the innocent infant.

the LAW is a teacher --and it has taught half of america that Roe vs. Wade is settled law, inevitable as a right for women.

But is it?

Meanwhile, we can donate to expand the CPC and the Foundation for Life and Heartbeat and all our other charities for needy people in crisis locally and nationally. And we need to think about how we handle unwed pregnant girls from our own congregations.

By the way, did KateB say you had misspelled your name from Pelagius? I'm not seeing that and am curious as to what she meant?

Antipelagian said...

Barb said:
the thing is, antipelagian, the people on the front lines of the pro-life war deserve our support

I agree

and they believe we should vote for pro-life president

I'm voting for a pro-life candidate.

Some case WILL move forward to a pro-life Supreme Court --and reverse Roe vs. Wade

Even if that happens...and it's a big "if"...a reversal of Roe vs Wade will simply shift the emphasis back to the State level. After all, the Supreme Court simply interprets the Constitution, it doesn't ammend the Constitution. What I mean is that a reversal of Roe would simply interpret that States may allow or disallow abortion...since the goal in reversing Roe reverts us back to the State level, we need to fight it at that level now. After all, the Supreme Court has no authority to rule as it did in Roe nor can they enforce it. That's why this is a nearly 40 year old lame duck.

The only alternative to ban abortion nationwide is through a Constitutional ammendment...and that will require changes within the Legislative branch.

Some case WILL move forward to a pro-life Supreme Court --and reverse Roe vs. Wade

This is why our hope in the Supreme Court is a fairytale. How can a court case make it to the Supreme Court if states already allow abortion on demand? What's left to take to the Court?

the LAW is a teacher --and it has taught half of america that Roe vs. Wade is settled law, inevitable as a right for women

Roe has taught us that our secularist Judges believe law is a contracted agreement between individuals with no transcendent source.

Meanwhile, we can donate to expand the CPC and the Foundation for Life and Heartbeat and all our other charities for needy people in crisis locally and nationally. And we need to think about how we handle unwed pregnant girls from our own congregations.

Absolutely.

By the way, did KateB say you had misspelled your name from Pelagius? I'm not seeing that and am curious as to what she meant?


Pelagius was a heretic that St. Augustine opposed. The basice tenets of this British monk are referred to collectively as "Pelagianism"...Pelagius denied man is born in sin and claimed man can reach God by his own inherent freedom (something Catholics, Arminians, and Calvinists would denounce). Augustine's writings against Pelagius are referred to as his "antipelagian" writings...or "anti-pelagian".

As far as I can figure, KateB thinks I ought to add a hyphen.

Barb said...

Mudrake --you are welcome here if you can have manners and not say things you wouldn't say in polite company. Comments about "crotch politics" and my so-called personal sexual interests are not part of this blog.

why don't you read about my mother instead? or my CLC group? You don't like anything I say about social issues of the day, so why read or comment on them here as you do without politeness or even decency.

candyly said...

Barb, on Steve's behalf I would like to say we know A LOT of poor people, INCLUDING US! But I would like to think that anyone we personally know that is financially poor is better for having a friend who cares as much as we do. I don't think priding oneself in knowing poor people does any good. Actions do good. And frankly, just how many people do you KNOW that are poor and do they benefit from your friendship?Just so you know we both volunteer at and donate to the Cherry Street Mission, we take a complete thanksgiving dinner to them every year, I volunteer with Meals on Wheels and Habitat for Humanity and work in a thankless and poor paying job of taking care of elderly people. Not only that but we donate regulary to many other organizations and church. Lastly, both Steve and I are in school and Steve is going into nursing because he cares and has a heart as big as the moon. And I want to clarify what he was talking about with our tax break. Under John McCain we would get an extra $290 in relief, under Obama we would get over $3000. Anyone can figure this out with last years tax return and each campaigns official promise.

Barb said...

Candyly--Good for you guys --helping out those evangelical ministries like Cherry Street.

I wouldn't have asked Steve about his acquaintance with the poor if he wasn't one of those democrats who enjoy implying that the GOP and the Christians don't care as much as the democrats who seem to want big gov't with entitlement programs for all. Entitlement in healthcare via gov't is already hugely abused, expensive, and inefficient.

I understand that the biggest section of the pie of all federal spending is entitlement programs (like S.S., medicare, welfare, medicaid, and many other programs for the needy--subsidized housing, etc.)

I have close friendships with the working poor, the deserving poor and even some indolent poor all my life. (by indolent, I mean some who could work if they would.) We meet needs of the poor thru gov't, thru charities, our church and personal relationship. And my husband tries not to let the clinic send such people he knows to collection if he knows about it.

Gov't has many programs to try to help the needy --including the EITCredit --and there was the tax refund for qualifying tax payers this year. So Obama may promise you 3000, but can the nation afford to deliver? -- I wonder how much you got THIS year from gov't. with GOP in administration in the EITC and the recent gov't checks given to all who qualified? If you have children, that is 1000 a year per child deducted from your final tax bill, which I believe Bush encouraged?
My one friend was telling me that was $5000 off the tax bill for her with 5 kids. She was telling about the free and reduced lunch programs at school and how one family on the free lunch program she knows gets more in foodstamps for 5 than she herself can afford to pay for food in a month for her family of 7 --and she considers herself the "working poor."

Interesting that Stossel's book says the "working poor" are the biggest givers to charity proportionate to their income --and that religion motivates the givers. That apparently includes you by what you said.

I would only tell about our charitable activities to counter the indictment of GOP and evangelicals that I hear so often --that if we don't vote democrat, we don't care about the poor. I do get tired of that distortion.

barb said...

Map of 6637 Mill Ridge Rd Maumee, OH 43537-9659, US