Opinion

Tim Kaine’s Jesuit spirituality just might appeal to ‘nones’

U.S. Democratic vice presidential candidate Senator Tim Kaine becomes emotional while talking about the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings at campaign rally with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in Miami, Florida, on July 23, 2016. Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Brian Snyder

(RNS) Tim Kaine, who describes himself as “boring,” may not be the running mate choice for Hillary Clinton that Democrats on the far left wanted. But his Jesuit spirituality may make him an ideal candidate for one crucial progressive Democratic constituency: the ‘nones.’

‘Nones’ are people who tell pollsters they have no institutional religious affiliation. Since they emerged in the election of Barack Obama as an important voting bloc, politicos have been struggling to figure out how to mobilize them. They comprise some 20 percent of registered voters and more than 25 percent of registered voters who favor Democrats. The Pew Research Center recently reported that nearly 70 percent of nones support Hillary Clinton.

That’s good news for Democrats. That is, if nones get to the polls on voting day, which is by no means a sure thing for a population more opposed to Trump than for Clinton. Keeping nones plugged into the election is strategically important for the Clinton campaign.

Here’s the rub: most nones don’t think religious views of political candidates matter. They’re far less likely than the religiously affiliated to think organized religions can “contribute to solving social problems,” according to Pew. Given this, candidates seeking to mobilize them based on their non-religious status face challenges that those courting evangelicals and other religiously affiliated voters don’t.

Still, while nones are not, by definition, engaged by institutional religion, the majority do believe in God or a higher power, sometimes pray, and otherwise find the spiritual throughout their lives. Strikingly few of them are atheists or hard agnostics. And a majority believe religion can “strengthen community bonds” and “play an important role in helping the poor and needy.”

So, does Tim Kaine’s Jesuit Catholic background offer anything that might appeal to spiritual nones?

Between the last election season and this one, I talked with more than 100 nones across America about their spiritual lives and surveyed several hundred more. My research shows that the Jesuit values that shape Tim Kaine’s politics correspond in many ways to the spirituality of nones.

Nones tend to take relationships with family, friends, and, for many, pets or other animals as the starting point for experiencing the spiritual. Their spirituality unfolds in appreciation of the sacred within the ordinary. Care for others, rather than any strict moral code, grounds their ethics.

For their part, Jesuits are challenged to be “men and women for others,” which means striving for greater achievement not for oneself, but in order to do more (magis, in Jesuit terminology) with your life so that the lives of others are improved. Greatness, that is, comes not from personal accomplishment per se but in helping ordinary people through the hardships and tragedies of life. We see Kaine’s embrace of magis in his representation of victims of housing discrimination as well as his equanimity, despite his personal religious convictions, in voting for women’s reproductive choice. This relational, service-oriented Jesuit spirituality is likely to be appealing to nones.

Nones who shared their stories with me were cosmopolitan. They embraced diversity, and preferred even fleeting spiritual connections over long-held religious traditions or doctrine. They were open to sharing spiritual experiences with others even when they did not share religious beliefs.

The Jesuit concept of cura personalis—“care for the whole person”—makes religious commitment a matter of valuing the distinctiveness of each, individual person and of diversity among people. This has marked Jesuit spirituality itself as a cosmopolitan spirituality that sees difference as a gift from God, not as a blemish on some imagined cultural or religious uniformity. This value is reflected in Kaine’s work as a Jesuit volunteer in Honduras and in his work on civil rights issues as a lawyer, a governor, and a senator.

It’s almost certain that Kaine would never mispronounce a book in the Bible, but bumbled biblical citations don’t matter to Jesuits — as they surely don’t to nones. What does matter to nones is cultivating diverse relationships of mutual respect and genuine caring, and appreciating and preserving the beauty and wonder of the world. Jesuits tend to express this ethical, activist spirituality in the ideas of “finding God in all things” and being “contemplatives in action.”

We’re unlikely to hear these Jesuit phrases in the campaign, but they are the spiritual backstory of Kaine’s politics and much of what he offers to a Clinton candidacy dogged by ethical questions. In choosing Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton has shifted the religious narrative of the election away from the false equation of “religion” and “Christianity” with radical, conservative, evangelicalism. She’s found a way to speak spirituality to nones and also to lift up the moderate-to-progressive Christian faith of millions of religiously affiliated American voters.

(Elizabeth Drescher is adjunct associate professor of religious studies and pastoral ministry at Santa Clara University and the author of Choosing Our Religion: The Spiritual Lives of America’s Nones. Follow her on Twitter at @edrescherphd)

 

About the author

Elizabeth Drescher

213 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • He starts out as a hypocrite with very little self respect. He claims Hillary should answer for her email scandal on NBC, yet takes the position of VP. The left has become so blatantly corrupt and crass to what they cause.

  • Is this an inconvenient time to bring up the fact that Kaine enthusiastically supports murdering children in the womb?

  • Kaine is a practicing Catholic who nonetheless supports women’s rights of conscience and religious freedom on abortion. He has been a successful mayor, governor and senator. He is vastly preferable to Pence, Trump’s veep choice, who is a bitter opponent of religious liberty, freedom of conscience and public education, a strong supporter of forced taxpayers to pay for religious institutions.

    In every way the Hilllary/Kaine ticket is better for America than the awful Trump/Pence ticket.

    Edd Doerr

  • I like Tim Kaine. He respects and trusts women to make their own decisions about their own bodies, including abortions. He’s highly capable and humble. In my opinion, it’s not just that Clinton/Kaine are a better option than trump and his minion. Clinton/Kaine is a highly skilled, capable, smart and decent pair. They will be outstanding in the White House.

    GO C/K!

  • If Kaine was at the top of the ticket instead of UNable, I would feel better about voting for the democrats. Kaine seems to know where to draw the line between separation of church and state, his personal beliefs have no business in our laws.

  • One of the slanders that anti-choice and so called Christian repeat ad nauseum is that pro-choice people “enthusiastically support murdering children in the womb.” No one does. I support abortion rights, but I don’t like abortion, and would prefer to see it both safe and rare– AND LEGAL.

    But I can tell you what I really don’t like. People who poison the well o.df discourse and who demonize their political opponents by using phrases like “enthusiastically supports murdering children in the womb.”

    That was actually what put me in the pro-choice camp 50 years ago. Listening to garbage like that.

  • 66% of american believe in a strict separation of church and state. as we get more culturally and religiously diverse it becomes more and more important every year.
    demo believe in separation, repubs want a christian theocracy (their platform lays that out).

  • Why would you like it to be rare, anyway? You can talk pretty all you want about choice, but we both know what that choice leads to. I’m sorry to hear that you are in the pro-choice camp. You’ve made a serious mistake.

  • Religious freedom includes the individual’s right to follow his or her own conscience and not to have moral decisions made for them by government. People disagree on the personhood of fetuses, so each woman’s religious freedom entails her right to follow her own conscience on the matter. — Edd Doerr

  • I would like it to be rare because I don’t think it’s the best course of action. I also don’t consider it murder. But I also don’t believe that I have the right to make decisions over other people’s lives. And until the antiabortion camp supports birth control, family planning, sex education, supporting mothers who might choose abortion to term and then provididing adoption services, all with the same commitments of time, energy, and money that they currently devote to scamming the faithful, errrrr, fighting for pro-life laws, I will continue on my path.

  • “Religious freedom includes the individual’s right to follow his or her own conscience and not to have moral decisions made for them by government”
    Or having someone else’s purely theological concerns forced on them through civil law.

  • As hypocritical as Pence taking the VP spot even though he previously tweeted that Trump was un-American?

  • Yep, just like that! Except they happened in opposite order, as he claimed she should answer for the emails after being picked.

  • It’s not the best course of action because it kills a human, right? Dilute the argument all you want with birth control, family planning, etc., but at its heart there’s still that niggling detail that an abortion kills a human. It’s unacceptable, completely reprehensible.

  • A unborn baby is not part of a woman’s body. Time for someone to take a remedial anatomy and physiology class, I think.

  • Matt seems not to grasp that worldwide there are 56 million abortions per year, due to the lack of universal access to contraception, which is impeded by the same religious factions that oppose freedom of conscience on abortion. Human overpopulation is fueling climate change, which threatens the lives of everyone. Opposition to abortion rights and contraception is the REAL “culture of death.”

  • Scratch just beneath the surface and find the good liberal’s dark heart. Regarding the unborn as human beings with rights is equated with fetus worship to you, Ben?

  • Please don’t change the subject, Edd! We weren’t talking about contraception and global warming, we were talking about the personhood of unborn human beings. If that unborn child really is a human life, which she surely is, then her murder can’t be justified just because she might burn some fossil fuels in her lifetime. There’s an inconvenient truth if I ever saw one.

  • I did not change the subject; I enlarged it. A fetus is human and it alive, but is not a person until at least is has a functioning brain, not possible until some time after 28-32 weeks. Believe as you please, but asking government to impose your opinion on all women goes too far.

  • 2/3 of the world sees your religion as a mistake. I think I’ll go with the majority on this one.

  • When someone tells me about a good liberal”s dark heart, I already know it is not worth spending my time responding.

    Have a nice evening.

  • Possession of a functioning brain is an arbitrary distinction. You are also incorrect. The fetal brain begins forming a mere two weeks after conception. 28 weeks? Get real.

    Besides, by your definition anyone who supports abortion after 32 weeks is complicit with murder. Are you willing to go there? If so, you’ve just disavowed Planned Parenthood.

  • The majority doesn’t create truth, and has a rather poor record of even correctly discerning it. Make no mistake, you and I will be called to make an account for every word and deed. Repent and reform your life now, Ben, while there is still time.

  • The 28-32 week stuff is based on the brief that 165 biologists filed with the Supreme Court. That included 12 Nobel laureates, including Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA.

    Very few abortions are performed after 28-32 weeks, and only for very serious medical reasons. If it were your wife, you would surely approve.

    I have no problem with PP.

  • Unless you can take possession of it from a woman, it is a meaningless distinction. You are SOL.

  • Well it is pretty obvious you consider a fetus a person, but a woman is not. Women must defer to your opinion in all things as they have no rights or considerations as human beings.

    if you can’t discuss the woman attached to the fetus first, all you are doing is attacking her. But in a spineless indirect fashion.

    I will make this perfectly clear to you, your talk about a fetus, with ABSOLUTELY NO CONSIDERATION OF ITS MOTHER essentially means you have no regard for her existence.

    NOBODY has to even bother to discuss the life of a fetus until they discuss the woman first. Her will keeps it alive, her will is the only thing that matters here.

    Your opinion isn’t worth squat here. You have no special rights or privileges to force women to accept your view of things. Especially what goes in inside their own bodies. If you want control over the fetus, you have to take it from her first. Until then, your input is unnecessary, unwanted and useless.

  • If fetus worshipers like yourself gave a damn about human beings after they are born, there would be no need to talk about abortion. All births would be planned and wanted.

    But you don’t. So who cares?

  • So what do you have to say about the mothers in the situation?

    Do you even care what they go through to get to the decision to have an abortion? Of course not. Otherwise, you would address them. You would not focus entirely of a fetus.

    Implied in all of your nattering is a complete contempt for the lives of women. S1utshaming in the most vile fashion.

  • My life is just fine. It’s not for you to judge it.

    Feel free to believe you will be called to account. I dont.

    I tried the Christian story. Been there. done that. but decided the t-shirt was made of poor quality fabric. And from what I have seen of far too many so called Christians, as they convince themselves that their thirst for power, or money, or dominion over the lives of others, are in fact holiness and righteousness, I see not much there that could ever interest me.

    See to your own sins and your own life, sinner boy.

  • No I am not, Spuddie. A human being spends the first nine months of their life in the womb of their mother while they grow. This does not make them make them the woman’s body. How ridiculous! This is basic biology. I have a question for you: Why do pro aborts disregard science?

  • But this is absurd, Edd. You drew the line at functioning brain. What do you think the brain does at 27 weeks, just sit there not functioning? How do you think the fetal heart beats before 28 weeks, magic? Use your own functioning brain, sir! Drawing a line at some arbitrary distinction like “functioning brain” is magical thinking. If a 27 week old is not a person, then what is it? Babies are viable outside the womb before 28 weeks. Are these born infants not human to you? What’s changed, other than location?

  • And so I shall. You and I are in the same boat, Ben, and I accuse you of nothing of which I would not accuse myself. I am sorry you’ve had bad experiences with Christians, truly. I wish I was better, too. I know I still hurt as many as I help. I will leave you in peace and offer a prayer for you, as well. Christ go with you.

  • Your anger is unwarranted, Spuddie, but unsurprising. It is meant to impress me so that I will overlook the deficiency of your argument. But I am not impressed. Of course I regard a mother as a person, as I do the child. Some rights simply don’t exist, though, regardless of who the person is. Such as the right to take an innocent life. In your own words, you disregard the rights of the unborn child by placing her entirely at the mercy of her mother. You say that the mother’s will is the only thing that matters here. You imply that control of the unborn child belongs to the mother. Control. What about her child, what about that person? You would gladly trample her rights.

  • Nothing in any of my comments even approaches what you accuse me of. You are creating a straw man. The horrible consequences of an abortion is precisely what we would spare a woman. For a mother to murder her own child is perhaps the most unnatural and horrifying of acts. What mother should have to go through that?

  • I’m voting for Clinton/Kaine but..
    it sickens me to hear him talk about his pet sky fairy. Public officials (of all people) should never discuss their religion unless they want to hear from people like me who will challenge them on it.

    Kaine, where is your god? Where is the fairy?

  • Where are you discussing the woman attached to a fetus? Nowhere. My point remains.

    If you are unwilling to talk about the woman here, you are denying her existence or her considerations in the situation.

    “The horrible consequences of an abortion is precisely what we would spare a woman.”

    You are not asking what she wants to do. Since women are the only people who make decisions to have abortions. You are making assumptions and acting without consideration of her.

    You have an opinion on abortion, but it doesn’t mean you have a right or privilege to interject in a woman’s decisions here. It’s her business, not yours. Nobody needs your approval here. You avoid discussing the woman because you have no regard for her. Your argument makes that clear.

  • Eff you. You come off with this angry attitude and get all annoyed when it is returned in kind? Give me a break.

    Your patronizing attitude is obvious in how you think you have a right to make decisions for all women without bothering to consider them. If you talk about a fetus without discussing the mother, you are being both dishonest and callous. She is not only attached, but her will keeps it alive. If you can’t discuss her considerations first, you are attacking her in your deliberate omission.

    “Some rights simply don’t exist”

    So you don’t consider a woman a person with her own rights to decide about what goes on in her body or how she lives her life. You must decide for her. Because you think you know better of such things than she does.

    “You imply that control of the unborn child belongs to the mother”

    Not implied, it’s outright stated and a biological fact. Unless you can take possession of it, you can’t do a thing about it.

    As for the fetus, it has no rights greater than the one whose existence it cannot survive without. No born being had any similar form of existence. (So don’t bother me with bad analogies between a fetus and born child) Until it can come out of a womb, it is only the mother’s will which can be considered. A fetus has no rights because you can’t give it any without attacking it’s mother. Something you already made clear you want to do.

  • Until it comes out of a womb you talk to the mother first. It’s in her body. It abides by her rule until then. It’s pretty clear you are validating what I say about fetus worshipers. They consider a fetus a person, but a woman is not.

  • Abides by her rule. Spoken like a true tyrant, Spuddie. Why do you hate unborn children so much?

  • When does this argument cease to apply for you? When does the mother’s autonomous will cease to be the supreme rule in whether a child lives or dies? It seems that a child would be well advised to be born prematurely on your watch as perhaps then you would at least grant them some due consideration as a person.

  • I am happily married. Acknowledging and loving a woman has never been a problem for me. You have set up a straw man argument in which any person who opposes killing children in the womb must also be rabidly misogynistic. It simply isn’t true. In fact, did you know that most pro-lifers are women? How to explain? I stand in solidarity with them.

  • I don’t know how else to respond to such a bigoted label. Do you call MLK Jr. a “black worshipper”? Why are you letting hate so completely obscure your reason. Your arguments are irrational and filled with bile.

  • Richard Dawkins gave Aragon a doggy treat and said “Good boy” when he posted this. Sky fairy, indeed.

  • Not going to tell you.

    But I will say that it takes a great deal of cajones to claim a woman has no rights, will of her own or existence once she gets pregnant.

  • You are commenting on tone to avoid discussing content. Tone trolling.

    If we are going to use appropriate language than refer to the unborn as a fetus. A child/baby/infant is born. A fetus is not.

    Fetus worshiper is the most appropriate epithet for someone who is so overly concerned with life at gestation and so indifferent to life after birth. It is as an irrational position buoyed entirely by religious fervor rather than sane argument. Calling it pro life is just not appropriate. 🙂

  • But you obviously think her concerns mean nothing if she is pregnant. You don’t think she has any right to control what goes on in her body. Not a strawman position, your words. Your stated position.

  • “When does this argument cease to apply for you”

    When you realize that your input in a woman’s decision concerning her pregnancy is not required nor asked for.

    If you want a bright line rule, it’s easy. When it is no longer a fetus.when it is either born or can live outside the womb. How hard is that? Clear, distinct and does not require attacking the rights of people in existence.

    The problem lies entirely with you and your inability to appreciate the difference between born and unborn states of being. It’s a pretty distinct and unambiguous difference. Your willful ignoring of the differences makes you dishonest.

    Your argument rests entirely on the fiction that you can consider a fetus separate from its mother. But until you can physically separate them, it is an irrelevancy. The fetus can’t exist without the mother. The reverse is not true. Therefore the mother’s will is of first and foremost consideration. The fetus will always be secondary. Until birth, we only need consider one person. The born one.

  • You act as if you are part of the process. Nobody requires your high and mighty opinion as to what goes on in their bodies. You act as if all women must defer to your opinions on the subject. Quite tyrannical indeed.

  • There is no “abortion holocaust,” just women exercising their rights of conscience and religious freedom in deciding what to do about problem pregnancies.

  • About 6 million Jews and others were murdered in the Holocaust. In America over 40 million babies have been murdered. That qualifies as holocaust.

  • A heartbeat does not make something a person. You need to educate yourself about the biology of human development. BTW, 90% of abortions are performed by 13 weeks, 99% by 20 weeks, the few after 27 weeks are only for the most serious medical reasons like saving a woman’s life. Let’s face it, you just want all women forced to follow your religious view. You have no respect for women’s rights of conscience and religious liberty. I am thankful that the majority of Americans do not share your obscurantist, clericalist view.

  • The overwhelming majority of Jews, who certainly understand what the real Holocaust was, support women’s right to choose.

  • So what. Its still an abortion holocaust. To think there are millions of murderers are still free is mind-numbing.

    BTW- I’m for choice also. No one should have the right to murder their babies.

  • Lots of faulty thinking here. The unborn child has its own body. That means that its not the mothers.

    The fetus does have rights. Many states consider it a double homicide when a pregnant woman is murdered.

  • There is no “abortion holocaust.” That’s just a propaganda term invented to cover the misogynist clericalist Religious Right war on women’s rights of conscience and religious liberty. One third of all US women will have had an abortion in their lifetimes. And worldwide there are 56 million abortions per year. If the Religious Right (whose interest in “children” ceases at their birth) really care about reducing the abortion rate they will support universal access to contraception and sexuality education and full equal rights for all women, as GOP President Ford’s 1975 National Security Study Memorandum 200 report advocated. — Edd Doerr

  • “The unborn child has its own body”

    Which is inseparable from its mother until birth or viability. So the point is an irrelevancy for all practical purposes. Unless you can physically separate a fetus from its mother, only the mother’s choices matter here. Not consideration of a fetus or your opinions as to how she should live and act.

    “The fetus does have rights. Many states consider it a double homicide when a pregnant woman is murder”

    Those rights are entirely linked to the mother. Even in homicide the two are inseparable. An act against a pregnant woman which kills only the fetus is not classified as homicide. It is considered an attack on the mother. Usually classified as an “abortional act”. Plus the whole concept of a woman controlling what goes on in her body, with her consent eludes you. Your pov depends on disregarding any consideration of her existence as anything but fetus ripening machine.

  • Your mistake is focusing on who chooses, rather than what’s being chosen. Every abortionist’s goal is to destroy a living human being living in her/his mother’s womb. Regardless of why a woman “chooses” it, abortion is inherently evil.

    There is no defense of the act itself.

    Tim Kaine is as misguided as he can possibly be, and he adds receiving Communion while in grave sin, to the caustic mix.

    He doesn’t need our praise, he needs our prayers. Desperately.

  • @Spuddie — Um…I’m assuming Matt is a man. Each preborn human being has a father. A man. Even if a sperm donation is part of the equation, that sperm was produced by … a man. So, Matt’s perfectly right in speaking up for the one human being in this pregnancy equation who has no voice, no choice.

    And it is possible, Mr./Ms. Potatohead, to value BOTH mother and child. Their relationship is not inherently nor biologically adversarial, nor parasitic, but symbiotic.

  • @edddoerr – Kaine is a fallen-away Catholic in grievous error due to his gravely sinful position on the slaughter of God’s preborn children. He is not practicing his faith faithfully. His sin is public, and the misguided who encourage him in his sin are also guilty of grave sin.

    There is no “free choice.” All choices have consequences.

    Consciences can be malformed. And choices can be wrong.

  • @edddoerr – Two hunters can disagree over whether or not the rustling they hear in the bushes up ahead is a 12-point buck, or their lost hunting buddy.

    Shouldn’t they err on the side of caution – and the life of their friend?

    Besides, this is a wimpy argument. The science of human fetal development, the advent of ultrasound, and every human being whose common sense has not been invaded by political correctness, shouts out to us and proves beyond the shadow of ANY doubt, that our preborn human daughters and sons are living human beings!!!

  • Believe as you please, but note that others also have that right. Kaine is more of a Vatican II Catholic, not a Pius IX one.

  • “Judge not lest ye be judged.” Kaine personally does not approve of abortion, but he is an American who values our heritage of religious freedom does not want government to interfere with women’s rights of conscience. Who are you to dictate matters of religious conscience and belef to others?

  • I will choose this moment to bring our conversation to an end. I appreciate your taking the time to speak with me, Spuddie.

  • Pre-28 week fetuses are living and human but they do not qualify as persons, if you follow science and the Bible ( Gen 1:27 ans 2:7). You can follow your conscience, but don’t try to tamper with those of other women.

  • Unless it is gestating in his body like a sea horse, my point remains. The father bears NONE of the physical risks or burdens of carrying a fetus to term. So their input in such matters doesn’t rise to anything other than a vociferous opinion, which has no weight to the issue.

    More importantly if fathers were more reliable or could be trusted in such situations, then the issue of abortion doesn’t generally come up.

  • No mistake here. You’re talking about your perception and your religion. You are welcome to that and free, in America, to live according to it. You don’t get to force your perceptions and beliefs on anyone else. That’s also an American freedom.

  • So, let’s say its a choice between the mother and the baby as to who gets to live.
    Which one will you pick?

  • “No one should have the right to murder their babies.”

    Luckily nobody is seeking such a right. Babies are born. But as I stated earlier Republicans have no trouble denying children access to healthcare, food, and education. They are trying to kill children with indifference and hostility.

  • On Spiritual/Existential Beliefs

    Some people believe personhood begins at birth.
    Some people believe personhood begins at 26 weeks.
    Some people believe personhood begins at 20 weeks.
    Some people believe personhood begins when fetal movement can be seen.
    Some people believe personhood begins when a fetal heartbeat can be heard.
    Some people believe personhood begins when a zygote attaches to a uterus.
    Some people believe personhood begins when an ovum is fertilized.
    Some people believe personhood begins when an ovum exists.

    Everyone has their own beliefs.
    Everyone cherishes their own beliefs.
    Everyone has a right to their own beliefs.
    Everyone cherishes their right to their own beliefs.

    One’s beliefs are not more valid than another’s.
    One’s beliefs are not more important than another’s.
    One’s beliefs do not trump another’s.
    One’s beliefs do not govern another’s.

    What matters is one’s right to hold oneself to one’s beliefs.
    What matters are others’ rights to hold themselves to their beliefs.

    This may or may not be wisdom.
    But this is America.

  • @Spuddie – Not so. Babies have mothers AND fathers. And fathers have no legal say over what happens to their children in utero, even if they are married to their mothers, and are good providers, not abusive, and want to care for their families. This is unconscionable. Again, promotion of adversarial relationships!

    And shaking your finger, saying “If fathers were more reliable, etc., etc.” defends your position on aborting their children? If fathers’ reliability is a valuable commodity, why is it valued? To help their children! So, these children must possess inherent value themselves…so their lives must be worth protecting, if fathers are held to such high standards of reliability and responsibility.

    You’re talking out of about three sides of your mouth.

    It is the most twisted logic that requires the deaths of innocent human beings still in their mothers’ wombs, as the penalty for their parents’ misjudgments and unreliable behavior.

    How can you possibly, logically, justify your position?

  • @edddoerr – Vatican II did not promote nor defend abortion. Some of its adherents definitely translated some of its articles to fit their own Catholic teaching views, but abortion was never compromised upon.

    There is an immeasurable difference between studying Church teachings in order to make certain I am following in Christ’s footsteps, and trying to find loopholes and self-interpreting Scripture and the teachings of the Magisterium in order to fit them to our own dubious decisions. It might work for a while, but there will come the day that each of us will stand alone in front of our Maker, and give an accounting.

    We cannot lie to God and have it stick. Our Creator Knows us.

    Timothy Michael Kaine is a Catholic in grave sin, grossly misdirected by his own faulty lights, and leading others into sin as well.

  • @Ben in Oakland – Describe the circumstances that would make such a choice necessary.

    It is exceedingly rare to non-existent, the situation that demands the life of one over the other. Mother and child are not natural adversaries.

    Each can not only survive nearly all scenarios, but thrive.

  • @Her Leftness – Though I am a lifelong practicing Catholic, my pro-life stance is not solely based upon the Church’s wise teachings.

    The pro-life position is handily defended by secularists as well. Many non-religious persons value every human being as unrepeatable creations, and on that basis alone defend their lives from wanton destruction.

    If a human being exists, whether in or ex utero, they have a right to continue to exist – to grow, be born, be cared for, to learn, and live. There is no medical or societal condition that demands the blood of our children as the only solution.

  • @edddoerr – Kaine is a fallen-away Catholic who desperately needs us to pray for him and the state of his soul. He has abandoned his faith by cherry-picking the rules he decides to follow and tossing those he doesn’t. He cannot be considered to be anything other than a hypocrite who has left his faith in order to further his political career. It is a question as to how long ago he dumped that faith into the trash…the fact that he continues to receive Communion reveals the danger he is in, as he full well knows that to receive Communion while thumbing his nose at the bedrock tenets of his faith is grave sin.

  • You rely entirely on assumptions, emotional appeals and wishful thinking. At no point do member any of the physical burden of pregnancy. You are demanding a right for men they are not entitled to precisely because of this lack of burden.

    The whole abortion question comes up for 2 reasons generally:
    1. The woman doesn’t want to bear the child. In that case the father is SOL. Her burden, her choice.

    2. The mother feels unable to support the child. Generally because the father is either useless or nowhere to be seen. In that case the father is not even part of the picture or his input is not useful.

    The rest of your rant is simply your disregard for women because they make decisions without your personal input. How very narcissistic. Your use of the words “innocent life” denotes how conditional your regard for life is. A fetus gets consideration, but the woman doesn’t.

    What you miss here is that nobody has to answer to you or justify their behavior to you. Especially on personal decisions concerning what goes on in their bodies. You don’t have to like or approve of their decisions for there to be a right to make them. Also underlying your position is this hostility to the idea that women make decisions for themselves. S1utshaming is implied in your argument.

  • And in the womb. You don’t find pregnant women referring to the babies as a fetus. Always as a baby. Unless of course they are demented and intend to murder their babies.

  • @spuddie – The only implications are being made by you.

    There is no “right” to kill an innocent, defenseless human being. There is every right of every pregnant woman facing unintended pregnancy to receive whatever support she wants and needs so that abortion no longer feels to her like her only, or even best, choice.

    The shaming that is done is by pro-aborts who do not allow women to regret their abortion decisions, calling them brainwashed religious zealots, offering no support of their conflict, leaving them alone with the aftermath. The sheer numbers of women who regret their abortions is ignored, distorted, lied about by pro-aborts, because it doesn’t suit their argument. Regretful women bring the true face of abortion and its destructive force before the public.

    Your accusations are baseless because you do not personally know me or my work with pregnant women.

    The truth still stands. Abortion kills preborn human beings, wounds their mothers and fathers, grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles, siblings, and deadens the human conscience to the cries of the wounded.

  • You’ll have to take that up with the legislators who provide an exception for abortion when the life of the mother is in danger.

  • A woman has a right to control what goes on in her body. Calling abortion “killing an innocent human being” doesn’t change that. She very much has a right to do what she wants to with what is attached to her body. Don’t like it, tough luck. Unless you can take possession of a fetus, the woman always has the last say here. . That is the nature of human relroduction. A person is one who is born. Prior to birth, they have no interests which are inseparable from the mothers. So your constant conflation between fetus and born child ix just dishonest nonsense.

    Your have a complete unwillingness to even discuss the woman’s concern. Your asinine initial premise that a father can force a woman to bear their child merely reinforced that indifference.

    If you can’t discuss abortion without referring to the woman’s concerns, you are both wasting time and seeking to attack women. Your main problem is the mistaken belief that having an opinion on a decision is the same as having a say in a decision. Like anyone is required to get your go ahead first.. .

  • You don’t find pregnant women who want to keep their babies consider abortion either. Your opinion doesn’t change the simple biological fact that a fetus is inseparable from its mother. A fetus needs it’s mother to exist. The reverse is not true. Biology is a cruel mistress for your arguments.

    Ones which are premises on the notion that a fetus had rights but a woman does not.

    “Unless of course they are demented and intend to murder their babies.”

    Well that is your opinion.one which nobody has to care about. Not your body, not your business. Your take on the matter is immaterial.

  • “Judge not lest ye be judged.” Kaine is an active Catholic, whether you like it or not. Pence is the admitted “fallen away’ Catholic.

  • @edddoerr – There’s a difference between judging and condemning another person. While we are not permitted to condemn others, we are asked to evaluate one another’s behavior, and if it is sinful, point out their error and encourage them to turn away from sin.

    Pence doesn’t have to be a Catholic to be pro-life, which he is. Kaine professes to be a Catholic in good standing with the Church, yet is on the opposite side of Church teachings on fundamental issues such as homosexuality and abortion. Kaine appears to have abandoned his faith in order to obtain worldly power and wealth, and is encouraged by others who have taken the same fall, including his Bishop and pastor.

    Timothy Michael Kaine is indeed an active Catholic – actively and publicly sinning.

  • @edddoerr – Catholic teaching, before and after Vatican II, doesn’t emphasize the “importance of individual conscience” – it acknowledges that each of us have a conscience. What is emphasized is the importance of having a correctly formed conscience, one that can differentiate between right and wrong, not simply based on one’s opinion at the time.

    Can people strive to form their consciences and still be in error? Yes. However, the Church has very clear teachings on the inherent sinfulness of abortion and contraception, and all one need do to learn why the Chcurch teaches as she does, is to read the Catechism, and study the Papal Encyclicals, especially Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae (July 25 1968), and Pope St. John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae (March 25 1995).

  • @Ben in Oakland – And you’ll have to debate former abortionists who admit that there is actually no life-threatening scenario whose only recourse is to abort a child, including pre-eclampsia, placenta previa, hypertension, or any other number of serious pregnancy-related maternal conditions. It is always better to stabilize the mother first, then deliver the child, often by inducing labor. If a woman has a pre-existing condition that would complicate pregnancy, she can see a high-risk OB/Gyn who can follow her pregnancy closely and provide care that ensures both maternal and fetal health and life.

    Watch former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino’s testimony before a house subcommittee on May 23 of 2013:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8szDctI9lXM

  • @Her Leftness – It’s not a religion, but a conviction based on viewable scientific, biological DNA evidence of the humanity of preborn offspring of human parents. Nor are these my observations alone, but verifiable fact. Millions of people acknowledge the scientific truth of human prenatal development, and the natural right of preborn human beings to receive legal protection, medical care, birth, and parental care until they reach adulthood.

  • @edddoerr – Of course you have no problem with PP. You’re already born. You survived their search-and-kill missions.

  • @Ben in Oakland – If you base your evaluation of Christianity on imperfect Christians, yes – you’re disappointed.

    Don’t follow the followers – follow the leader – follow Jesus Christ.

  • @edddoerr:disqus – If you follow Scripture, you’ll be familiar with Jeremiah 1:4,5:

    4 The word of Yahweh came to me, saying:
    5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you came to birth I consecrated you; I appointed you as prophet to the nations.”

    Science is easy to find, too. Check out Endowment for Human Development’s website, and study the prenatal development timeline. They have pre-natal movies and everything. Take a look.

  • @Spuddie – A preborn human being is separate from her/his mother, and the unique DNA s/he contains in every cell (excepting the gametes) proves it. As of 2015, 38 states have fetal homicide laws.

    Again, you’re viewing the mother/child relationship as adversarial. It is not, either biologically or socially. It is instead the closest relationship that exists within our human family – closer than husband and wife, father and child, closer than siblings.

    Finally, stop seeing dehumanization that does not exist, in the pro-life stance, and find it glaringly present in the pro-abortion argument.

  • I think it’s a fairly unusual theist who believes God is a magical being up in the sky. God as the primordial cause and guidance of Creation is rather more on the mark. Certainly my understanding of what most religious people believe has shifted since and during my transition from the atheism in which I was raised, so your misunderstanding isn’t to be vilified.

  • “magical being”
    I was a Christian for 49 years – I know the definition of God is supposed to be vague. But that is exactly the problem. It is not a strength of the theist’s argument to keep moving the goal posts in describing god – they simply keep changing the description of god until it no longer has any parameters at all.
    But they also want to keep all the claims intact. Especially, “God’s will” and “God’s plan” and “God’s eternal nature”
    One cannot connect all these disparate claims without showing evidence. These claims deserve no respect.

  • It’s not about proving claims and counterclaims – life needn’t be a debate. It’s about opening up to seeing what theists (such as myself) actually believe so you can respect it. Otherwise you’ve just adopted another kind of fundamentalism. Also, recognising immense diversity under the huge catch-alls of ‘atheism’ and ‘theism’.

  • A fetus is not a person in any legal sense nor is physically inseparable from its mother in any practical sense. You are not a person in a legal sense until you are born. A fetus is inseparable from its mother until birth. Therefore it has no separate existence worth considering outside of the mother’s will.

    Whatever you think about it as a distinct being is utterly irrelevant to the issue. It makes no difference whether a fetus is a human being, can speak 3 languages in vitro or is your next messiah. As long as it lives within a womb, it does not exist without the woman’s will that it exists. She is the only one who matters here because she is the only one with 100% of the physical burdens involved.

    “It is instead the closest relationship that exists within our human family – closer than husband and wife, father and child, closer than siblings.”

    Or also in your case, rapist and victim as well. You are so hung up on stereotypes and a kind of male entitlement nonsense that you never consider the one person who bears all of the burdens of pregnancy. Her life, her considerations.

    I am viewing the attitude of you/ any mother as adversarial. You are demanding a right to control what goes on in the bodies of others for your own personal reasons. You are annoyed that you have no rightful say in the matter. That is both your ego talking and a sign of your utter and complete disregard for women. The decision to bring a pregnancy to term is entirely the woman’s. Its in her body, it is always her choice. Your opinion on the matter doesn’t need to be taken into regard. Your approval is never required.

    The only person doing the dehumanizing here is the one who is considering women as being without any personal interests worth considering. You don’t address her, you ignore her existence and you think anything that she is considering about her pregnancy to be of no value. A woman is not a human being to you.

    You don’t have a pro-life stance at all. You are simply engaging in irrational fetus worship. If you were pro-life you would consider the lives of people who are born. But you don’t.

  • Millions of people acknowledge the scientific truth of adult humans’ natural right to receive legal protection and medical care of their choosing.

    You’ve steered entirely clear of my original contention that ano adult woman deserves the same right as any other free adult human being to control her own body and manage her own medical decisions.

    Adult human beings who are not allowed to make their own health care decisions are most commonly known as slaves or mental incompetents.

  • “Life needn’t be a debate..”
    Tell that to the innocent people who are burned to death over this nonsense!

    It is not my job to define your invisible objects. Either keep it to yourself or expect LOUD debate in the public forum.
    Religion brings nothing but misery and agony to the world – like cigarettes and bad drugs. You have every right to have it if you want – but keep it away from me or you will get argument.

    “bring to me those enemies of mine and KILL THEM in front of me” – JESUS (Luke 19:27)
    It is needless pain and garbage. Okay?

  • @Her Leftness – Um, the right to legal protection and medical care aren’t so much scientific truths as rights protected under current law. A pregnant woman’s body isn’t “out of control” but healthy and functioning properly. There is virtually no medical reason for a pregnant woman to kill her preborn daughter or son. Alternatives exist, especially today, that allow both mother and child to not only survive high-risk pregnancies, but actually thrive and lead healthy lives.

    By the way, not wanting to be pregnant, and preborn children with disabilities, do not endanger a woman’s life or health. Even women with mental disorders requiring medication, and pre-existing physical conditions such as diabetes and other complications need not submit themselves or their children to abortions. A good high-risk obstetrician will follow her patients carefully, and the vast majority of outcomes will be positive.

    Do some research on this, HL. If you are honest, you will find these scenarios exist, and both mothers and babies do well.

  • @Her Leftness – Abortion forces death on innocent, defenseless, voiceless preborn human girls and boys. This isn’t a “belief” – it’s a fact, and it happens at the rate of 1.5 million babies annually. The vast majority of these deaths are not medical emergencies or fetal disabilities, but elective.

  • @Aragon the Atheist – So don’t listen to him talk about his pet sky fairy. What do you care? You seem to cherry-pick anyway. Just ignore his “faith.”

    And you don’t defend, then, a politician’s right to have a religious faith by which s/he is guided in her/his decision-making?

    Perhaps you should think about why you have decided to vote the CK ticket…what about this duo appeals to you?

  • Of course any American politician has the right to believe and to talk about their favorite pet theories – IT IS SUPPORTED BY THE CONSTITUTION which I already support!
    But it is extremely unwise to discuss unfounded claims in public unless one is ready to be accountable for these foolish theories.

    The Iraq War is the price we all pay for having Christian crusaders in our own Government:

    “Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter. The Nation that keeps faith.”
    – Donald Rumsfeld

    Bush’s Briefing Papers

    “This is a Crusade”…”Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East”
    – President G.W. Bush

    Referring to the foolish book of Revelation 20:8
    2003

    “We have no king but Jesus.”
    – John Ashcroft

    Atty General of the United States
    who blessed violent torture techniques at Guantanamo Bay Cuba 2003.

    Society pays a huge price for allowing public officials to preach this brainless superstitious garbage.

  • You’ve steered entirely clear of my original contention that an adult woman deserves the same right as any other free adult human being to control her own body and manage her own medical decisions.

  • Jesus is explaining the massacres he will command at the Parousia when he returns. His objective is to instill fear into the hearts of his disciples using a Nobleman as a stand-in for himself.

  • @Her Leftness – Repeating your previous response gives the impression you don’t have solid backup for your comment.

    The body of a pregnant woman is not “out of control” due to her being pregnant. Pregnancy is a natural state, and a healthy one. Women with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, can nevertheless have healthy pregnancies and healthy babies with appropriate medical care from high-risk OB/Gyns.

    Likewise, abortion is not a mere medical decision, but one of life or death, and not without risk to pregnant women. The vast majority of abortions are committed for social reasons, not health concerns of any kind, including mental health.

    The fact that women in unintended pregnancy most often choose life for their babies, with the majority also choosing to parent them themselves, shows that when give viable, life-affirming options, most women don’t see abortion as their only or even best choice.

    Pregnant women deserve to learn about ALL their options, and ALL the help they need when in unintended pregnancies. They need to feel that their real-life problems are important to people who care about them, AND their babies AND their lives, AND what happens to them.

    They DON’T need to be pressured into their decision. They need support, and all the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding their future and the future of their daughters and sons.

    Pro-life advocates don’t have an ulterior profit motive, as do abortion centers. We actually give of our own resources to help women get housing, a new job, medical care, legal help, and meet everyday needs like rent, groceries, clothing, babysitting – whatever each woman needs so that she doesn’t have to sacrifice her child’s life in order to have the basic necessities. We help professional women with lateral promotions, college women to earn their degrees and find employment.

    We help, because we care about women AND their children.

  • You’ve steered entirely clear of my original contention that an adult woman deserves the same right as any other free adult human being to control her own body and manage her own medical decisions.

    This is a completely valid and pertinent argument reflecting directly on what it means to be a free American.

    BTW, what are your plans to control male reproduction?

    (PS. Your feelings about my arguments do not validate it or invalidate them.)

  • @Her Leftness – I have no desire nor plan to control anyone, unless they are hurting another human being, or killing them. I would put my own life in danger to save my fellow man or woman.

    Kind of protective of your argument, I see…validation worries. Yet no acknowledgement of the pro-life actions taken by people who actually care about women in crisis pregnancies, and offer them positive options, which most of them accept, grateful that their choices aren’t limited to the narrowminded, monetarily expensive, physically harmful, potentially maternally deadly, “solution” of death.

  • You’re not the one making the laws. My argument is not with what you, as individual, do or don’t do.

    However, do you, as an individual, use a politician’s position on abortion as one of the criteria for your vote? Do you communicate with your elected representatives about it? Do you urge them to consider the vital role males play in pregnancies? Or do you feel they are simply uninvolved, uninterested bystanders?

  • Nobody elected Kaine (or any other politician) to be ‘World’s Best Catholic’. They’re elected to represent their constituents and to defend people’s Constitutional rights…those people include women, who, just like all men and even the dead, don’t deserve to have their rights to their own bodies ceded to third parties against their will.

    The Vatican has its own country where it can make the rules. The USA, however, is not a theocracy, thank dog!

  • Pro-life advocates don’t have an ulterior profit motive, as do abortion centers.

    Sure they do. Most of them are simply an arm of (or at least in the hip pocket of) adoption agencies that make big, big bucks convincing unhappily pregnant women to hand over saleable infants for the legalized human-trafficking known in the country as infant adoption. Mind you, none of that money goes to the woman who actually does all the work and undergoes all the bodily harm of the pregnancy.

  • @Her Leftness – I would ask the same of you.

    Yes, I consider a candidate’s position on abortion as a make-or-break issue when I vote, and communicate the same to them. I ask if they are in favor of father’s rights regarding their preborn children. If any of their answers are supportive of abortion in any way, they do not receive my vote.

  • Do you ask them to consider the male’s role in creating the pregnancy? I’m especially talking about the ones who impregnate many women and play no role in the raising of those children. I’m talking about males who don’t want any right, nor do they want any responsibilities. I’m talking about Minnesota Vikings football star Adrian Peterson who beat one 4 year old son bloody with a belt and admitted he doesn’t know how many children he has.

    Do you talk with your legislators about the male culture of sexual conquest with no thought of the results?

    In other words, prolifemama, do you pay any attention at all to irresponsible, even sometimes criminal impregnators, or are you all about controlling the woman’s reproductive choices?

  • @edddoerr:disqus – We are required to evaluate one another’s behavior as sinful or sinless, and gently reproach one another in love. This is not what Christ meant by not “judging.” Judging, as in condemnation of another because of their sins, is indeed God’s realm alone.

    Tim Kaine’s abandonment of Catholic teaching on a grave matter, such as abortion, is indicative of his fallen-away Catholic status, and must be acknowledged by him and by others, as sinful. In effect, by persisting in this path, Kaine is excommunicating himself.

  • Most women confronted with a problem pregnancy would surely tell you to “butt out” and mind your own business.

    Tim Kaine has made it clear that he personally follows church teaching, but declines to impose church policy on others. Who the heck are you to tell him is “excommunicating” himself. You sound like a pre-Vatican II person.

    ED

  • OK it all just got creepier…. Did Bernie Sanders step aside at the
    Popes request to make way for Tim Kaine after Hillary gets elected and
    then removed from office? The deeper you dig, the dirtier it gets.

  • @ED – The women in unintended pregnancy with whom I work, come to us for help. We give them hope by letting them know that an abortion won’t stop their husband/boyfriend’s abuse, generate income for rent, food, utilities…they’ll only be un-pregnant, and could put themselves at risk for any number of complications from a so-called “safe, legal” abortion. Most of these women truly do not want to abort their babies, they only want their seemingly insurmountable problems to become manageable. We give them the support and practical assistance they need, allowing them to keep their babies, their dignity, and hope for the future, for their families.

    For anyone who embraces Christianity and strives to live it, to compromise core precepts of the faith, such as the sacredness of innocent life, while claiming all the while claiming to be a Catholic in good standing who obeys the Ten Commandments — this not only gives scandal to the faithful, but puts the claimant’s immortal soul in grave danger.

    Kaine has apparently abandoned some of the more “inconvenient” tenets of the Catholic faith (i.e., those not in line with Clinton’s prerequisites for her V.P.) in order to advance his own political prospects.

    So in fact, Timothy Kaine has excommunicated – willingly separated – himself from the Catholic faith he once professed to believe and to live by wholeheartedly, regardless of whatever attempts he makes to convince himself that he has not done so.

  • You may be right in a few cases, but the overwhelming majority of women do not regret their decision to end a problem pregnancy. Further, most Catholic and other Christian women support every woman’s right to follow her own conscience on reproductive health decisions.

    Your penchant for excommunication is rather excessive, and would “condemn” millions of Catholic women worldwide. And aren’t you concerned that the Vatican’s ban on contraception actually increases the abortion and poverty rates?

    And this: If God, by your definition, is so concerned about the “unborn”, why does he permit about half of all pregnancies to abort spontaneously? Are you suggesting that God is irresponsible?

    ED

  • @ED – Your stats, please, that most women don’t regret their abortions. I doubt you’d believe the stories of the women themselves, you’d rather discredit them and their experiences to protect your radical pro-abort agenda.

    Whether or not someone freely chooses to do or not to do something does not alter the right or wrong of that decision.

    Persons who knowingly flout, ignore, or deliberately break with Church law are separating themselves from the Church, not the other way around.

    The Vatican doesn’t have a “ban” on contraception; it upholds God’s teachings on sinful prevention of pregnancy as well as deliberately ending the lives of preborn human beings. We have our God-given free will to commit sin or to live according to God’s plan for our lives. Each free act has a consequence, which we bring upon ourselves.

    God holds all life in His hands. If you are concerned about the babies whose deaths He allows, why not ask Him yourself? I am content that all things are in His care, and that we will know the answers to all our questions when we meet Him face to face.

  • The stats on women’s approval of abortion are so abundant that I need not do your homework for you.

    The Church is more than just the Vatican. It is all Catholics together. And there is a Vatican ban on contraception, Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, issued in defiance of the counsel of the overwhelming majority of his own advisers.

    Your take on Catholicism is medieval and pre-Vatican II. You need to grow up and think for yourself.

  • @ED — “The stats on women’s approval of abortion, etc., etc.” — what a copout. Provide this “abundant” info, if it’s so prevalent. Have you seen the research that indicates that for many women, the regret can take as long as 10 years to surface? In many cases this is due to outside pressure forcing these wounded women to bury their regret and pretend to feel what their friends expect them to feel – “relieved” – “happy” – “empowered”.

    For their stories, check out the Silent No More Awareness (silentnomoreawareness.org) Campaign, founded by Georgette Forney and Janet Morana. I dare you to call these women (and men!) liars, to read their stories and proclaim them fabricated.

    Pope Paul VI’s Encyclical on Human Life (Humanae Vitae) is his gift to the world, not only for Catholics but for all humankind. All Pope Paul predicted has come true. The use of contraceptives has resulted in infidelity, a runaway divorce rate, abortion, broken homes, suicide — all the things its detractors deny could ever be connected with “freeing” women and men from the responsibility of childbearing and child-rearing.

  • As a person who was violently raped and sodomized by a New York Fordham Jesuit I want to puke at the thought of this creep getting anywhere near my lawmakers. Even though they want to make me puke. If he was in Honduras at that time he was
    1. raping kids
    2. working for the CIA
    The Jesuits are scum. Do some reading and in five minutes you’ll find that even the rest of the priests throughout the world hate the Jesuits and warn against putting them in power. Fact is Dumbass number 1 our Pope was put in illegally. Jesuits are not suppose to be in that position.
    Neal Gumpel
    Victim of Father Roy Drake (serial pedophile)

  • Tim Kaine is not a real Catholic. He may have been Jesuit educated and as a teen served a few weeks in Honduras but that does not make you a Catholic in good standing especially because of his stand on abortion. NO CATHOLIC CAN IN CONSCIENCE RECEIVE THE EUCHARIST IN MORTAL SIN. The act itself is mortal sin and mortal sin completely separates yourself from Christ. Kaine followed several leftie Jesuits in Honduras one of which was excommunicated from the church. Liberation theology was pressed by the Jesuits back in the 1970’s and ’80’s. but was condemned by 3 popes including Francis as not Christian on any level. One only has to look at the recent history of Venezuela to see the results of Liberation Theology.

  • It’s always interesting to watch a Christianist such as yourself attack another Christian. It’s sort of Sunni/Shiite without the guns.

  • but he is not a real Catholic or Christian. They do not kill their children, support the murder of their grandchildren and are not corrupted by pagan beliefs that have no basis in science or fact. Tell me Her Leftness, what defines you as a human being? Your birth or your death?

  • No honey you got the analogy incorrect. It is Christianity vs. paganism. And, btw, you lefties are already pushing infanticide which Obama did as an Illinois state senator before he landed in the federal senate. Look it up! It is already being practiced in Europe. See the Groningen Protocol. See Peter Singer of Princeton University who advocates for the euthanasia of infants up to 2 years of age. And if you ask your NOW sisters (and I have heard them say it) when they are being honest they will tell you that YES they know that the pre born is a living human being BUT they still want to abort it. The word fetus is just Latin for “little one”. I suspect you know little history of South or Central America and act mostly out of ignorance of truth. If you knew any history of Islam you would be embarrassed by your Sunni/Shiite comment above. Abortion is based on a total lie about the status of the child living within the womb. Do you know that they ( the mother and child) do not even share the same blood type? Tim Kaine is just lying to himself about his Catholicism and no one once seeing the Planned Parenthood tapes (all 12 of them) will ever be able to stand in the Real Presence and deny what abortion really is. BTW, I know 487 women who once they had a sonogram refused abortion and had their baby. Abortion is a sick act that is accepted by so many because of the lies told them by people like you and groups like Planned Parenthood. It is a genocide perpetrated on the poor for political gain.

  • I bet you are so left that you don’t even support the Constitution of the United States or that all of us are created equal with inalienable rights. Your the type to take our freedom from us based on some warped political agenda because you see no being greater than yourself. And in fact see babies and the aged as not equal to you on any level. Honey, whole populations have been destroyed by people like you…Che, Castro, Pol Pot, Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao come to mind. They all thought that they were more equal than certain groups. As for law, slavery was law once too…..Ooooops, abortion is slavery to those 40 Million aborted children not given their fundamental right to life.

  • You do realize that Margaret Sanger was anti black and her fundamental reason for abortion was to limit the black population? Why do you think PP locates itself in cities of major black populations? Philadelphia, Houston, Baltimore, NYC, Detroit, LA, etc….. Slavery was once law too.

  • and they survive in hospitals all the time with that magic word CARE!!! You deceive yourself with the use of the word fetus. Look it up. It is Latin for “little one” not “one who is not human or alive”.

  • If that is so then why are the lefties advocating for infanticide. Even Obama pushed it as an Illinois state senator before he graced us in the Federal senate. Look it up!
    Infanticide is practiced in Europe through the Groningen Protocol and advocated on campus by so called philosophers like Peter Singer of Princeton University. He thinks it’s acceptable to euthanize children through 2 years old. Besides I have heard abortion advocates admit that they know it is a human living life and still want to abort. None of this is new. It has been going on for thousands of years. It’s called paganism.

  • And this is your personal concern/the concern of our laws, how?

    Right. It isn’t.

    You mistake having an opinion on how people live their lives with having a say in such things.

    Thank you for acknowledging the fetus worship position is all about controlling women’s sexual conduct. We don’t want to get the impression that you are any way concerned with the actual well being of other people.

    Responsibility among religious folk is much like adherence to Old Testament prohibitions. Its meant to be followed by others but never applies to the Christian invoking it.

  • Somehow the vagaries of human reproduction elude you. Until a fetus can be separated from its mother, none of your concerns matter here. A fetus lives at the will of its mother and no other human being. Only she has any say in the matter. You do not. Unless its your pregnancy.

  • Infants are born. Therefore their deaths are infanticide. Abortion isn’t. Nobody is calling for infanticide. You are simply dishonestly conflating the born with the unborn. There are material differences which render your argument dishonest.

    “Besides I have heard abortion advocates.. (followed by nonsense)”

    Because you miss the point. Whether a fetus is human is not at issue when it comes to abortion rights. Fetus worshipers have been arguing irrelevancies from the get-go. What matters is that a fetus has no autonomy and lives inside its mother until birth/viability. The inability to distinguish the material physical differences between born and unborn undermine any expectation that you are making reasonable arguments.

    Just on a side note:

    “It’s called paganism.”

    Paganism is illegal? Nope. Consult the First Amendment.

  • I’m interested in women being treated as full autonomous adults, responsible for their own lives, including making their own decisions about their own health care. Just like males do.

  • Do you realize that is complete fiction bandied about by fetus worshipers? Of course not. the anti-abortion crowd never worries about the lies they tell in service of their beliefs. It is also why they set up unlicensed clinics to dissuade women from abortion by lying to them.

    If you have a legitimate point to make, you would not be so quick to make junk up to support your position.

  • Abortion is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Personal autonomy of adults to control what goes on inside their bodies. Something not subject to your opinion or the government’s control. You are a very hysterical and dishonest person.

    Autocrats declare the bodies of their citizens their own property. Much like you think you have a right and duty to control the lives of others. So take your reference to Castro and Pol Pot and stick it somewhere painful.

  • Yea, well, so much for the other person involved. And I suppose based on your logic when someone murders another, it’s ok, just walk away. It seems to me that recognizing evil is a relative thing. The fetus worship thing is about recognizing the baby that is created by the act and taking some responsibility before and after the act. And your comment on Christians makes no sense whatsoever. It is a gross non sequitur. Could it be that you have no knowledge of actual Christianity whatsoever? That me answer that…..the New replaces the Old, the New is the fulfillment of the Old. You expound on a subject you are unqualified to tout because you are ignorant of the facts. You do not progress us forward, you in fact, leap backwards through the centuries before Christ’s revelation of truth.

  • Sure this is my concern too. Last time I looked I am a voting citizen of this country with freedom of speech.

  • There is only one person involved. The mother. People are born. People can be murdered.

    Unless you can separate a fetus from its mother, you are just making attacks on her. Which based on previous posts you have no problem with. Your early bit of s1utshaming demonstrated early on that you believe they must obey your narcissistic will.

  • Oh you are so wrong. Obama called for infanticide when he was a state senator in Illinois before he became a federal senator. Look it up. In Europe they practice the Groningen Protocol, basically infanticide on demand. And your university professors teach it i.e. Peter Singer who touts infanticide through at least 2 years of age. And even organizations like NOW have admitted that they know that the pre born are living human beings but still condone their murder. And if there are material differences then why do hospitals go to such great lengths for their premature patients? Those premature patients do not have viability outside the womb and yet they live because of care. Your material physical differences are nonsense. My arguments are entirely reasonable. It is you who is blinded by illogic and non sequiturs. Quite frankly you would fail a Logic course in any university and you miss on the science of DNA and sonograms. You deny what is evident and because of it you participate in a genocide. Hitler justified himself, so too, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Mao, Che. And, no, paganism is not illegal but it is just so old and so uneducated and so unenlightened and so base and so deplorable in its abject selfishness.

  • You are full of it. If you had something real, from a source which isn’t a bunch of RWNJ, you would have a link to the story. But you don’t. I don’t believe you nor need to.

    ” they know that the pre born are living human beings”

    Which has always missed the point. Until they are born, they are not people. They have no autonomous existence. They only live at the will of the mother. Not you or anyone else.. Therefore any attempt to “defend” a fetus means attacking its mother. Something you may not have a problem with, but those who consider women something other than incubators meant to obey your will, do.

    ” And if there are material differences then why do hospitals go to such great lengths for their premature patients?”

    Because their mothers want them born. You have a problem with the notion of consent. Most notably, that women can be capable of making decisions without your input.

    “….Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Mao, Che….” invoked by the person who wants to exert total control over the bodily functions and decisions of others. How ironic. A person who does not value the freedom of people decrying those who didn’t value it either. As for selfishness, well that is one of our rights as free people. To make one’s decisions without having to consult self-righteous dishonest narcissists like you. You mistake having an opinion on the decisions of others with having a say. Its not your body, its never going to be your business. Don’t like that, tough noogies.

  • So, in conclusion, “I want” supersedes “I”. So the living human being has no rights to its own person and life. And so people like you justify genocide. And like all steeped in genocide you lie to get your way. Planned Parenthood lies to the mother and tells them its just a clump of cells denying the evidence of science and truth. I personally know hundreds of mothers who once they saw a sonogram of their living baby, eschewed the abortion they were considering and continued the life of their child. The lie of abortion was exposed. It is your opinion that is self righteous and narcissistic by definition. Selfishness is narcissism. As far as consent, there is no consent given by the baby. Since its whole progression is towards living, its protocol is towards living, the baby does not willingly consent to its demise. My protection is always given to that living baby. And it’s you who participate in genocide and justification of murder. But isn’t that exactly what murder is – your intent over my consent. My intent is to persuade the evil of the act. Do you know Rachael’s Vineyard? An organization that picks up the pieces for women who have had an abortion when they realize the truth of their abortions. They come to the Vineyard for healing their souls. As far as Pol Pot, etc. your the ones killing not me.

  • How can trust be formed if the facts are obscured? If Planned Parenthood is lying about the statue of the pre born child then trust is based on a lie. That is why so many women land in Rachael’s Vineyard when they realize that they have been lied to. Of course, there are always the ones who rely on the lie to form their conscience for convenience.

  • No link = story is BS.

    Your concern for living beings does not extend to born people. Especially women who are pregnant. You only care about those in gestation. Everyone else must bend to your will. They don’t matter to you. So there is no need to take you seriously when discussing the value of life. You don’t really care about it. It’s just about controlling others for you.

    So take your selective care for human life, your dishonest screeds, your hysterics, and blow them out your sphincter.

    Your high and mighty nonsense never entitled you to control the personal and intimate decisions of others. You think it’s selfishness, so what? Your approval is not necessary here. You don’t like women choosing abortion, tough luck. It’s none of your business.

    Your intent is to aggrandize yourself at the expense of actual people.

  • I don’t know what you’re talking about with statues of fetuses.

    Women ought to have the same rights as male adults to control their own bodies and make their own medical decisions. Women need to be treated as fully autonomous adult Americans, without old (mostly) white men telling them what they Must Do, limiting their medical decisions and ordering their doctors to lie to them.

  • The “old mostly white men” fallacy does not compute and is just another lie told by lefties to forward their invalid and immoral positions. Total bologna. The pre born need to be treated as fully human beings in need of protection from the criminals who would kill them regardless of color or sex.

  • The point is that I heard it said on TV when the new president of NOW was being interviewed on local Washington DCT TV back in the early 1980’s . My mouth dropped at her admission. And, guess what, she was canned by NOW the following week and replaced by Eleanor Smeal. Good Heavens, They (NOW) couldn’t let the cat out of the bag and admit that they knew that the unborn child was living and fully human, now could they? No they would have to perpetrate the lie in order to further their agenda. That I suppose is the most egregious of all, the lies that they tell.

  • My point about Pol Pot and the left is they act in unison to deny freedom and life. You so called freedom denies freedom to the baby. So too all demigods.

  • Your point was ridiculous. Until a fetus is freed from its womb and born, it has no existence beyond the mothers will. So take your analogy and shove it. You want to control the bodies of women like a dictator. You don’t like the fact that people make decisions without your approval. Very narcissistic and autocratic indeed.

  • Get back to me when you have a link to an actual story from a credible source. Until then you are just one of many dishonest fetus worshipers.

  • Really? That’s all you got from my comment? If you want to keep arguing, address my chief contention – that women are adults with the same right to make their own medical decisions and control their own bodies.

  • Your point is limited by your philosophic ignorance. I want women to understand the life within them and that that life is real and human. It is not a “clump of cells”. And more importantly if Tim Kaine believes this, he is no more Roman Catholic than a snail. His Jesuit training is so lacking that his formation is a sham. The Jesuits teach “a man for others” however he limits this philosophy and excludes a segment of the population. The real autocrats are Planned Parenthood who lie to their patients and the public. I know 500+ women who once the had a sonogram, refused abortion. The real narcissists are the ones who put themselves before the needs of others. Truth cannot be changed no matter how loud you shout your slogans.

  • Now you are just flinging poo and strawmanning. My concern is not, not ever has been what to classify a fetus. It has always been where it resides and how it survives. As long is survives entirely on the mothers bodily systems to exist, it us always her choice as to whether to keep it or not. A fetus’s existence is so much different from a baby that is born and living outside its mother that equating the two is dishonest and silly by nature.

    Don’t bother with accusations of lying in service of abortion rights. Fetus worshipers do nothing but lie. They make phony studies, use dishonest pretexts for abortion restrictions and set up phony crisis centers to cajole women towards adoption agencies (if they are white)

    BTW the sonogram thing is nothing more than abusing medical practice for your agenda. Every medical professional organization found it to be unethical and unnecessary.

    Like all zealots, your position is not well thought out, requires abhorrent actions to further it and relies more on screeds than discussion.

  • “OOPS! THAT PAGE CAN’T BE FOUND.”

    Oh well.

    “They (NOW) couldn’t let the cat out of the bag and admit that they knew that the unborn child was living and fully human, now could they? No they would have to perpetrate the lie in order to further their agenda.”

    Except that such things were ALWAYS an irrelevancy to abortion rights. The “whole life begins…” argument has been a logical dead end brought up by hysterics like you to avoid the real issue. Where a fetus resides. As long as it survives inside its mother, it is her choice to bear it.

  • Cavalli just loves to hurl insults, like Trump. And he loves to put down the majority of Catholics who disagree with him.

  • Ha! Don’t flatter yourself.

    For someone who left the Church decades ago, it is you who still seem quite obsessed with it. I doubt you pay the same attention to whoever succeeded Bishop Spong or even your own Unitarians.

  • Remember the adage: Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
    Your right to consider abortion a viable (hmmm…irony) option for a pregnant woman is perfectly fine, as long as that belief doesn’t translate into an action that destroys a daughter or a son.

  • A ‘right’ to abortion is not explicitly written into our Constitution. Roe v. Wade is very poorly written law, balanced flimsily upon emanations (vapors) of the penumbra (shadow) of a so-called implied right to privacy, which also wobbles upon shaky ground. There is no unlimited right to privacy either implicit or explicit in the U.S. Constitution.

    By virtue of their human DNA (and PLEASE do not insert here “Yeah, but what about a wart? IT has human DNA too!” Acknowledge scientific fact, and move on), preborn human beings’ bodily autonomy must be respected and preserved. A human being is a human being, and deserves the same lawful protection at all stages of her/his life, and this regardless of gender, physical or mental disability, race, creed, color, or place of residence – their mothers’ wombs.

  • Its a common criticism for those who look to the form of the decision, but not the substance. Your opinion of the decision does not change its validity or legal weight. The fact that it was challenged again in 1995 in Casey v. Planned Parenthood and abortion rights still remained demonstrated how weak the anti-abortion arguments are. The important element of the decision rests on the notion that freedom to make decisions concerning one’s body (autonomy) is fundamental to all rights and freedoms.

    It makes no difference whether you think a fetus is human, it is not a person until it is born. Personhood is a legal existence. We issue birth certificates to denote the beginning of your legal existence, not conception certificates.

    Since a fetus’s existence is entirely dependent on the bodily systems of another human being attached physically, it cannot be considered separate from its mother in any logical or conceptual sense. As such, it will always be the mother who has the final say in the existence of the fetus. A fetus does not deserve rights greater than the singular and unique life which maintains its existence. Since a fetus cannot be separated from its mother physically, it cannot be separated from her legally. It has no autonomous existence until birth (or viability). So whatever rights it has are those imputed by the mother whose rights are naturally greater. Any human being can care for the existence of a born person, but only the mother keeps a fetus alive. There is no applicable analogy to this situation. Those who make so do it by willfully distorting or omitting material facts.

    Evidently a fetus is a human being to you, but its mother is not. Claiming a woman loses the right to make decisions concerning her own body and what goes on inside is to claim she is chattel property of the state. Something to be used at your discretion without regard for the actual person.

  • She’s not attacking Kaine, simply acknowledging the truth of his non-Christian behavior, and that he’s fallen away from following his faith.

    Now that Trump’s won, perhaps Tim Kaine can sit back, think on his sinfulness, go to his parish priest, ask HIM to think on his own sinfulness, and the two of them can make good, general confessions (a confession of every sin you can recall committing) to a priest in good standing with Catholic tradition, receive absolution, carry out their penances, and be good examples of Catholic men to all of us, for the rest of their days.

  • Personhood is indeed a legal status. It was not conferred upon black people in the U.S. until after the Civil War, and then incrementally. The slavery argument was ignored for nearly 200 years, and not because its legal arguments were weak, but because they were ignored. The strong (whites) made the laws, and the weak (uneducated slaves) obeyed them, while receiving no real protection under them.

    The argument in favor of granting personhood to preborn human beings is not weak. It is ignored, and the majority of misguided pro-abort lawmakers (for reasons of ignorance, fear of losing voter support, etc.) continue to uphold Roe and Doe. But science shows without doubt that the preborn child is a living human being, often with her/his own blood type, and half of the time, male. These facts are not dependent upon ‘belief’ for reliability, only acknowledgment of biological fact.

    The preborn child is dependent upon her/his mother for sustenance until 22-24 weeks’ gestation, but after that many are viable and survive ex utero.

    Both mother and child are indeed human beings. Why do you insist on making it a mother/child fight? Their relationship has never been adversarial; in fact, it is the closest human relationship that exists, closer than husband and wife, closer than siblings, closer even than father and child. And both mother and child can survive virtually every medical emergency that occurs during pregnancy. If baby must be removed, as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, where s/he is implanted in a fallopian tube rather than her/his mother’s womb, s/he can be removed intact, without being poisoned or cut apart or squashed to death, and die in her mother’s or father’s or the nurse or doctor’s hand, and mother will survive.

    Claiming that the mother has rights over her child because she is the stronger of the two, is the same as granting rights to a slave-owner while denying them to the slave, because s/he is weaker, non-educated, and property.

    Abortion is our modern-day slavery issue.

  • Bad analogy is a sign that facts have become inconvenient to your arguments. I am just ignoring your reference to slavery out of hand as irrational hyperbole. Slaves were born. A fetus isn’t. There is no equivalent among born human beings between the physical attachment of a fetus to its mother. No analogy is possible here without playing fast and loose with basic facts.

    “The preborn child is dependent upon her/his mother for sustenance until
    22-24 weeks’ gestation, but after that many are viable and survive ex
    utero.”

    And when you can remove them from their mothers, then you can confer personhood upon them. While their existence is entirely dependent on the mother’s biological systems, it is her choice as to whether to keep a pregnancy. BTW “late term abortions” are invariably performed by women who initially tried to keep their pregnancies but can’t due to medical conditions.

    “Why do you insist on making it a mother/fetus fight?” FTFY

    Because that is precisely what it is. You are insisting on the phony claim that a fetus has greater rights than the life which sustains its existence. That is not even remotely plausible. Hence your nonsense terminology like “preborn child” to pretend the distinction between born and unborn is not of paramount importance to the issue. The unwillingness of fetus worshipers to be honest with the terms they use points to the factual gaps in their arguments. A fetus is attached to its mother. The mother is a born person with automomy and rights not answerable to you as to what goes on in her body. You essentially want to claim all pregnant women are your chattel property and must answer to you for their personal decisions. Slavery analogy indeed!

    Plus any consideration of the mother is ignored in your agenda. Usually in favor of pretending her existence is immaterial or s1utshaming with the nonsense notion that she is answerable to you for her personal choices.

  • The slavery analogy is quite apt to anyone who is looking with both eyes open, rather than holding hands over ears as well as eyes.

    Not greater rights – equal rights. And the rights of both mother and child can be respected in virtually all unexpected/unwanted pregnancy situations, and neither mother nor baby need die.

    You must be wearing those special glasses that allow the wearer to “read things into” a comment that actually appear nowhere.

  • The worst part of a bad analogy are the ham-handed efforts to show why it is appropriate. Such discussions are always a waste of time.

    Equal rights sounds good for beings who are not attached and inside other people. Until you can separate a fetus from its mother, like say birth, you are just piling horse manure and pretending its gold. As long as its inside her and can’t come out, considering it a separate being with its own personhood is a ridiculous fiction.

    Your input on a mother’s choices concerning a pregnancy are not required. A woman is not your chattel property as a slave whose personal decisions are dependent on your whims. Although there may be alternatives to abortion, it does not mean such actions must be taken or abortion must be banned. You mistake having an opinion with having a say.

  • So, would you have been against non-slave owners having a say about the fate and condition of slaves, even if you were yourself a non-owner?

    Personhood is not wishful thinking, as you and I agree, but a legal status bearing with it specific rights. I am strongly in favor of granting legal personhood status to preborn human beings, for the simple obvious fact that they are living human beings. Granting this status would not encroach upon any other human being’s status; it would ensure that preborn humans would receive equal care and protection of their rights, the fundamental one being their right to live.

    I would have been in favor of granting personhood to slaves as well, despite the strongly-worded argument against slaves having such status, because I believe that each human being has inherent worth (i.e., worth that is not contingent upon others’ valuing him or her), regardless of gender, race, creed, place of residence (womb, for example), age, disability, or any other potentially disqualifying factor.

    Though the preborn/slave comparison irks you, it is a valid one. There were, it turned out, many viable alternatives to own human beings to do one’s dirty, hard work for one. Abortion also has such alternatives that allow both mother and baby to live, while having their basic needs met, expenses paid, education, housing, medical care – all the things that make life worth living.

    Are you so shortsighted that you cannot imagine a world in which unintentionally pregnant women avoid the risks of legal abortion, give birth, keep and parent or make an adoption plan for their child, all the while continuing their college studies, holding down a job, etc.?

    The problem with devaluing one segment of our population (usually the weakest, least able to defend themselves) is that sooner or later, all of us will be vulnerable.

  • You may be against abortion, but you are certainly for animal cruelty in beating a dead horse of an analogy. You appear to be incapable of dealing with the most basic facts of the matter.

    Your responses have a huge factual hole in them which makes your aspirations silly. That being the physical attachment of a fetus to the internal organs of its mother. Everything else flows from recognizing that rather immutable fact. The one so inconvenient to you that you employ nonsense language to gloss over it or pretend it is irrelevant.

    “preborn child” is not a thing. It is a child when its born. Phony language is necessary when one has a position so divorced from reality as yours.

    “Are you so shortsighted that you cannot imagine a world in which
    unintentionally pregnant women avoid the risks of legal abortion, give
    birth, keep and parent or make an adoption plan for their child, all the
    while continuing their college studies, holding down a job, etc.?”

    Are you so short sighted to imagine that women have the right and choice to decide such fates for themselves without ever having to consult you or anyone else? Their interests, bodies and rights are of no interest to you.

    Fetus worship makes people take on ridiculous positions. You are simply demonstrating narcissism and arrogance in the notion that women are incapable of making choices concerning their bodies. That you naturally know best. /sarcasm

  • I’m imagining you reporting me to the local authorities for animal cruelty with your hypothetical accusation…who would be questioning whose mental status then?

    But, referring to that cruelly treated yet imaginary equus, it appears you yourself are incapable of forming a fresh, detailed rebuttal, as you merely re-accuse me of things I’ve already denied, while ascribing mean-religious-girl motives to my responses.

    If unintentionally pregnant women and their circumstances, their children, their futures “are of no interest” to us pro-lifers, then why do we provide so many help centers (not the legal adoption folks – they’re in another paragraph) where Moms can receive all kinds of freebies – groceries, clothing for babies/kids/mamas, pre- and postnatal medical care through docs who take on so many patients for free per year and receive a tax return credit, arrange free sitters, job-sharing, house-sharing, continuing ed, legal assistance – all these things, and all free to our clientele? We exist purely on the generosity of donors.

    Women aren’t incapable of making decisions, but when under the unimaginable stress of boyfriend threats of abandonment, parental threats to kick them out of their homes, schools’ threats to force them to quit, these women truly appreciate real, practical assistance with their very real situations.

    We pro-lifers provide that help because we DO care, deeply, about them, about their families, and their futures.

    Once they have options to choose from, these women make choices quite easily, and without the pressure of having to choose between their own needs, and their children’s lives.

  • Catholics who attend Mass regularly and receive the sacraments (i.e. practicing Catholics) are far more likely to be pro-life than Catholics who do not practice their faith.

    Catholics for Choice commissioned a poll, which they released last October, predicting that a solid majority of Catholics were for Hillary. Trump ended up winning the Catholic vote by 7 points. Either something went wrong that sent enough Catholics to Trump in the last 30 days or so, or the poll’s methodology was flawed. Pollsters can always get the result they want by how they frame the question.

    A majority of Catholics did vote for W. in 2004 (over a Catholic) and Obama in 2008 and 2012, but then shifted to the opposing party in the subsequent mid-term election. The same could happen again in 2018. However, an election “settles” things until the next election. We have a congressional one every two years and a presidential every four.

  • What people flog online is their business. Some prefer to flog the dolphin online. You prefer to flog a dead horse. If I don’t see it, it is best left unknown. 🙂

  • I don’t agree that’s what I’ve been doing; more like clarifying my position, as it’s distorted in the responses I’ve gotten, particularly from you, Spuddie.

    However, better an imagined dead horse being beaten, than a living human child being aborted.

  • Of course you don’t. Your position is built on grand pronouncements of nonsense and self righteousness.

    Narcissism factors heavily along with blithely ignoring the physical reality of human reproduction.

    So of course your opinion on such matters is going to be far more inflated.

ADVERTISEMENTs