News Politics

Catholics, the ultimate swing voters, lean heavily toward Clinton

Voters wait in line to cast their ballots during early voting at the Franklin County Board of Elections in Columbus, Ohio, on Oct. 28, 2016. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Shannon Stapleton *Editors: This photo may only be republished with RNS-CATHOLIC-VOTE, originally transmitted on Oct. 31, 2016.
Voters wait in line to cast their ballots during early voting at the Franklin County Board of Elections in Columbus, in Columbus, Ohio on October 28, 2016. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Shannon Stapleton *Editors: This photo may only be republished with RNS-CATHOLIC-VOTE, originally transmitted on Oct. 31, 2016.

Voters wait in line to cast their ballots during early voting at the Franklin County Board of Elections in Columbus, Ohio, on Oct. 28, 2016. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Shannon Stapleton *Editors: This photo may only be republished with RNS-CATHOLIC-VOTE, originally transmitted on Oct. 31, 2016.

WASHINGTON (RNS) They are many, shift between parties and typically side with the candidate who ends up winning the White House.

That’s what makes Catholics the ultimate swing voters in the U.S. And this year they are going to throw their weight behind Democrat Hillary Clinton, a panel of political analysts said Monday (Oct. 31).

“The Catholic Vote, 2016.” Photo courtesy of PRRI

“The Catholic Vote, 2016.” Photo courtesy of PRRI

Catholics favor Clinton over Trump 51 to 40 percent, according to a recent survey from the Public Religion Research Institute, which co-sponsored the panel at the National Press Club.

But that’s not the end of the Catholic story this election season. Delve deeper into the poll numbers, and trends emerge that speak to the future of the group’s voting behavior in the U.S., where Catholics represent about 1 in 5 voters.

One reason that the group swings between parties is that “there really is no Catholic vote,” said Stephen F. Schneck, director of the Catholic University of America’s Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies, the panel’s other sponsor. Neither major political party sufficiently embraces Catholic teaching to be an easy fit for Catholic voters, he said.

The Democrats are often a more comfortable home for so-called social justice Catholics, who appreciate Pope Francis’ emphasis on the poor and welcoming the stranger. More traditional Catholics, particularly those who take the church’s opposition to abortion most seriously, more often side with Republicans, who consistently place a firm anti-abortion plank in their platform.

But one divide among Catholics makes itself clear in polls: the Latino/white split.

Catholics overall have gone with the winner in the presidential race consistently, said Robert P. Jones, CEO of PRRI. “But that’s happened because of some interesting push and pull underneath the surface of that water between white and Latino Catholics. … It’s not that Catholics overall are just evenly divided. But it’s these two subgroups that are pushing in opposite directions.”

While white Catholics favor GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton 48 to 41 percent in a recent PRRI poll, the opposite is true of non-white Catholics, the vast majority of whom are Latino. Those non-white Catholics choose Clinton over Trump 78 to 17 percent.

Latino Catholics’ preference for Democrats in recent presidential elections has not been as overwhelming as it appears this year: Panelists noted how Trump has offended Latinos. He has demeaned Latino immigrants and promised to build a wall on the country’s Southern border, and said a respected Latino judge can’t be impartial because he is Latino.

The Latino vote might look less emphatically Democratic this year had the second or third place winners in the GOP presidential primaries — Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are Latinos — won the nomination.

No matter who the parties nominate, the influence of Latino Catholics is bound to grow. Two-thirds of Catholics under the age of 18 are Latino. “That’s the future of the church,” said Schneck. “The Hollywood image of American Catholicism as white ethnics — Irish, Italian, Polish and so on … is less and less an accurate one.”

But don’t write off white Catholics yet. Though diminishing in numbers and in the proportion of Catholics, they concentrate in many critical states in the primaries and general election. In places like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, white Catholics make up about 3 in 10 voters, and about a quarter of the electorate in Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Michigan and Florida, Jones noted.

“This is a very important constituency as we’re looking down the homestretch of the election,” he said.

PRRI’s surveys show that the gender gap between Catholic men and women on Trump is wider than it is among most religious groups, with 58 percent of white Catholic men favoring Trump compared to 38 percent of Catholic women.


READ: Gender gap among Catholics as Election Day approaches


 

 

About the author

Lauren Markoe

Lauren Markoe has been a national reporter for RNS since 2011. Previously she covered government and politics as a daily reporter at the Charlotte Observer and The State (Columbia, S.C.)

156 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • RNS has been hammering this theme regularly. Enough. We get it. The election draws near and the bulk of Catholics will vote for Hillary. ‘Nuff said. Move on folks, nothing to see here.

  • In spite of the incessant efforts by the for-profit US media to cover this up, “social justice Catholics” are beginning to realize that for this pope women’s lives don’t matter, neither does human rights for LGBTQI persons. According to another recent PRRI poll: “Nearly one-third (31.2 %) of Americans report being raised in a Catholic household, but only about one in five (20.9%) Americans identify as Catholic currently.” There is only continued decrease under this pope.

  • Because he makes no distinction that some abortions are necessary to save a woman’s life. He called making this choice “what the Mafia does.” Annually: 47,000 women die from complications of unsafe abortion. 8.5 million women experience complications from unsafe abortion that require medical attention, and three million do not receive the care they need.” The catechism says gays are “objectively disordered.” Ratzinger inserted that when he was a cardinal, so a pope can delete it. The pope has said twice that same-sex marriage is an “anthropological regression” and compared transgender persons to nuclear weapon since both fail to recognize

  • Trump’s remarks in the summer of 2015 painted Mexican immigrants as largely criminal in nature. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.” No one said having a border is demeaning. If you don’t find the above remarks demeaning to Mexican immigrants that’s your problem, not RNS’s.
    The judge you’re talking about is not a member of a radical organization. He was a member of a Latino bar association that happened to share the same name.

  • The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has stated that sometimes abortions are medically necessary to save the mother’s life, both before and after fetal viability (isn’t the Catholic view that abortion is murder from the moment of conception anyway?). Causes can include severe infection, heart failure, and preeclampsia. Whether, post-viability, a delivery or abortion is safer, is dependent on the individual circumstances of each patient.
    My wife and I were lucky. When she developed preeclampsia at 35 weeks, she remained free of any major complications and was able to have a relatively easy (but emergency) C-section and delivered a premature but healthy baby. Other families aren’t so lucky. There are situations where women go into organ failure, high risk of seizure etc. The choices are the mother and the fetus die, or just the fetus. For most Americans, it’s a wrenching but ultimately simple ethical choice.

  • Oh, count me out! I won’t cast my vote for Hillary for various reasons. While I do not so much Favor Trump because of his past liberal past, Hillary has openly stated that she is pro choice and would continue to fund and support abortion. Secondly, she has demeaned catholic faith. Another serious issue is that she doesn’t not uphold traditional marriage which every serious Christian should stand for.
    I am an immigrant but I must say I came to USA legally and brought my family after waiting for several years! I could have done it illegally but I waited for years.
    Hillary doesn’t believe in law and order instead wants open boarders.
    My fellow Catholics who massively want to vote for her could go ahead.

  • Social justice Catholics (and social justice supporters of all faiths and none) are right to support Hillary over the narcissist, tax-avoiding, sexist, misogynist, misfit Trump. — Edd Doerr

  • I have many Catholic friends, and two are “one issue” voters, who favor Trump, due to his “pro life” stance.
    I have to ask these dear friends three questions. How “pro life” is someone who favors the death penalty?
    How “pro life” is someone who would “carpet bomb,” the Middle East in order to kill ISIS supporters?
    Furthermore, Trump was strongly “pro choice,” in August of 2015, that is less than a year and a half ago. Can you trust Trump not to pivot back to that stance?

  • Disciple of Christ (what churzpa!) and the Vatican are wrong. The ob/gyns are right. Women’s rights of conscience and religious liberty should be respected by all governments. Women who oppose abortion are not required to have them. — Edd Doerr

  • Most Catholics are pro-choice. They ignore the Vatican’s pronouncements on abortion, contraception, divorce and remarriage, and the necessity to use parochial schools. They have moved far away from clericalism. — Edd Doerr

  • Please know that PP does more than terminate pregnancies, that is only 3% of what they do, and those are not supported with your tax dollars, due to the Hyde Amendment.
    97% of PP’s work is health care for those who do not have insurance, or have low cost, inadequate insurance. Premiums have become so high, and deductible are so high that many people pay a small fine, and decline to purchase insurance.
    PP needs our support, those who are poorly insured or have no insurance, need PP.

  • Both science and the Bible agree that human personhood is not possible until the brain could begin functioning, some time after 28-32 weeks of gestation. — Edd Doerr

  • When an abortion happens or what the RCC thinks is not the most important thing.

    Government does not belong in the doctor’s office with her patients. Like every law abiding adult citizen in the USA, women have the right to control their own bodies, including their reproduction.

    If laws are going to be made reducing women’s autonomy, similar laws must restrict male autonomy to avoid Bill of Rights violations. For example:
    From puberty to marriage or financial responsibility, all males must be chemically castrated. Any violations resulting in impregnation results in physical castration. Any sexual crime results in physical castration. Any failure to fully support offspring financially, physically, and emotionally results in chemical castration.

    That seems like a fair equivalence to control of female reproduction and government interference in private medical decisions.

  • Of course one can question the motivations of any organization, but calling ACOG “pro-abortion” is not going to fly. They’re pro-choice. OBGYNs are in the business of women’s health. Sometimes that means delivery in an emergency situation, sometimes abortion is the best medical decision. The fact that AAPLOG exists is proof that medical professionals can disagree about the best prognosis. Thank you for your congratulations — my point is that all of these situations are different.

  • A single human “life” may begin at conception, but human “personhood” requires a functioning brain, which is not possible until some time after 28-32 weeks of gestation. This is the position taken by the 165 eminent scientists, including 12 Nobel award biologists of whom DNA co-dscoverer Francis Crick was one, presented to the Supreme Court in the 1980s. I am quite familiar with this because I organized the amicus curiae brief to the Court. “Ensoulment” is a Catholic theological concept not shared even by all Christians or even all Catholics, and not a scientific concept.– Edd Doerr

  • The scientific reason they can’t prove what you’re asking them to prove is that it would be unethical and impossible to set up that kind of study. You’d have to have several women, in the same medical situation, and perform an abortion on one group and not the other. Being as this might lead to death, it would be highly unethical.
    I would hope that any OBGYN, whatever group they’re affiliated with, is presenting women honestly with their options in the given scenario. If that happens, their medical licensing shouldn’t be in question. The fact remains that doctors disagree about these situations and every situation is different. AAPLOG has every right to exist, they do not have veto power over other doctors’ views.

  • With the removal of the Leonine Prayer after Mass there is no doubt that Satan is coming to collect His own.

  • In the cases that AAPLOG doctors have handled, the women have not died. Which is great. That doesn’t prove that abortion isn’t necessary in other situations, all of which are different.

  • Archbishop Fulton Sheen made the perfect distinction between someone who is bad, and someone who is evil. A bad person does bad things — steals, lies, cheats. An evil person seeks to destroy goodness, virtue, honor, decency, morality and truth.

    Like goodness, there is a hierarchy to evil as well. Not all evil is equally malicious, just as all good is not equally sublime.

    By this Saintly Archbishop’s definition Tim Kaine can be defined as evil. Of course, by extension, Hillary Clinton is the same. Mr. Trump has a long way to go to come close to these two. A Catholic who practices their Faith has no other option but to vote to limit evil.

    A Catholic individual has basically three realistic choices in the election. You can refrain from voting committing the sin of omission which due to the gravity of this election would mean objective mortal sin. You could vote Democratic which would obviously be objective mortal sin. You can vote Republican which would leave you with a free conscience.

    “If abortion is not wrong then nothing is wrong.” – Mother Teresa

    “A day without abortion would be enough, and God would give the world peace to the end of days.” – Padre Pio

    Holy Father Pio of Pietrelcina (1887-1968), answer to a question by Prof. Francesco Lotti on abortion.

    “The further a society strays from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” – George Orwell

  • What the scientists said is that personhood is not biologically possible until some time after 28-32 weeks of gestation. The Bible (Gen 1:27 and 2:7) actually puts personhood as beginning at birth, at the first breath.

    The word “soul” has many different mean meanings, some of which I agree with.

    Edd Doerr

  • Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.

    On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?

    — Lesbian activist and writer Camille Paglia

  • Are you saying that you are a pro-life democrat? Someone who calls them self a pro-life democrat has as much credibility as someone who says they are a pro-jewish nazi.

  • The baby killer Killary is what most foolish Catholics who are regularly uninformed voters will vote for. There is a new “Catholic” belief that Abortion is NOT A SIN, that Gay marriage is NOT An Abomination, that, Living by your feelings, instead of doing God’s will IS THE WAY TO GO! Sad, but so many have been so brainwashed by so few for “WHAT BENEFIT?” NONE!

    Hillary Clinton IS THE MOST CORRUPT person to ever be nominated for President of the UNITED STATES! She supports her woman abusing husband, she promotes stealing jobs from Americans (i.e. NAFTA, GATT, TPP) Check with Susan Sarandon, a real leftist of sorts, who will tell you Hillary SHOULD NOT BE ELECTED AT ALL COST! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/3/susan-sarandon-says-hillary-clinton-more-dangerous/

  • “Homosexuality is not normal. On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm. Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous. Homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.” — Lesbian activist and writer Camille Paglia

  • How many women are in danger of losing their lives due to pregnancy? How many women kill their child, due to convenience, and pride. The numbers for the prime question is less than 1000 world wide. The number for the latter is in the hundreds of millions. Your argument for abortions whether safe or unsafe is pointless.

    The issue is that NO ABORTION should be affirmed by any society. It never was by God. The Catholic Faith Rejects anyone who promotes abortion outright as a Mortal sinner who loses the Graces necessary for a person to sustain Good Will.

    Medical procedures for saving lives has up until the Communist Revolution favored all lives. Promoting abortion has in fact been the indirect cause of 47,000 women’s unfortunate suicide which is what PLANNED PARENTHOOD PROMOTES.

    No one has the right to commit suicide before God.
    No one has the right to commit murder of another human being.
    No one has the right to kill a child either before it is born or afterword.
    No one has the right to relabel what is and is NOT human. NO ONE!

    You in particular are a promoter of Murder!

  • It doesn’t worry me because I think you know that I do not consider abortion to be murder. It is not up to you, any church, or AAPLOG what is medically necessary. It’s up to the woman’s doctor at the time.

  • From the conclusion of the scientists’ brief defending Roe v Wade: “The neurobiological data indicate that the fetus lacks the physical capacity for the neurological activities we associate with human thought until sometime after 28 weeks of gestation.” And a person in a coma from which he/she is expected to recover is a person; a body with permanent brain cessation is no longer s legal person.

    I can’t comment on “soul” until I see your definition.

  • Abortion has been done for hundreds of centuries, driving has not! Jesus never speaks of abortion, he speaks about children. Tell me, I do hope that you have adopted several children of the women or girls who did not terminate their pregnancies, but could not, for one reason or another, could not raise them.

  • YOU WROTE: “Government does not belong in the doctor’s office with her patients. Like every law abiding adult citizen in the USA, women have the right to control their own bodies, including their reproduction.”

    ~~~~~~ You are correct, the “Government does NOT belong in the doctor’s office” by forcing anyone to pay for the immoral decisions (the murder of abortion) that immoral people make.

    In 2009, Obama told Congress, “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” Obama said this to appease members of his own party who actually have a conscience and to gather their critical support before passing ObamaCare. Yet today, each health insurance policyholder pays anywhere from 10 cents to $1 a month on ObamaCare abortions, making the BIG Lie even bigger.

    Don’t buy the lie that Obama and his Leftist cronies, like Killery C., are peddling. This isn’t about contraception.
    This is about the complete takeover of our healthcare system. It’s about a tyrannical push by the liberal Democrats to undermine, erode and eventually take our First Amendment right.

    A laughable paradox is when Obama states that he does not want to get the government involved in the abortion issue with the exception that taxpayers should fund it!

    Moreover, contraception medication and devices should also NOT be subsidized by the taxpayer in any form or fashion.
    Involving the U.S. taxpayers and forcing them to violate their religious beliefs is a flagrant violation of the Constitution. But you know that already!

  • YOU CITED: “Annually: 47,000 women die from complications of unsafe abortion. 8.5 million women experience complications from unsafe abortion that require medical attention, and three million do not receive the care they need.”

    ~~~~~ It seems that you do not understand that there are always devastating consequences that you must consider when going against what God has said about murder.

    You cannot expect God to bless immoral decisions. You are on your own when you reject His words.

  • Where a mothers life is at stake we should do what we can with whatever medical blessings God has provided for us to save her life. A mother can have other children if it’s God’s will. If it is determined that the mother is in mortal danger if she becomes pregnant, that should be a warning not to go there.

  • ~~~~~ Firstly, please send the words from the Bible that state “human personhood is not possible until the brain could begin functioning, some time after 28-32 weeks of gestation.”

    “Human Personhood”??? Did you just make that one up or did you get that from other humans with finite brains who supposedly possess some kind of “eminence”?

    What you, or your people of “eminence” are trying to sell here is that mere humans who cannot create “life”, yet have the gall to say WHEN life begins in the human body.

    This ilk’s first priority is to serve themselves and others who have a lot at stake concerning political goals and the millions that are tied to it which influences their careers. They are playing to human mores and selfishness thus receiving the praise of the immoral for helping tranquilize their feelings of shame.

    You and “those eminent” are actually talking about “viability”.

    No human can compose and initiate every internal aspect of an entity that matrixes without any assistance whatsoever and extends itself (GROWS/HAS LIFE) such as a sperm fertilizing an egg to become a zygote (GROWTH/LIFE) which undergoes (GROWTH/LIFE) many cleavages to develop (GROWTH/LIFE) into a ball of cells called a morula until the blastocoele is formed (GROWTH/LIFE) until the early embryo becomes (GROWTH/LIFE) a blastula, which continues on in stages until the death of the finished product. Those (GROWTH/LIFE) cells subsequently die during the (GROWTH/LIFE) progress but are replaced by new (GROWTH/LIFE) cells in an ongoing process.

    I doubt that you and “the eminent” have a handle on what “viability” actually implies and what GROWTH/LIFE really is … and how God sees it.

    You advocate killing that “viability”(GROWTH/LIFE) as it sustains itself at some point in it’s (GROWTH/LIFE). It matters not when, but you would deliberately and brutally stop its progress.

    It is people with a defective moral compass that MAKE life NOT VIABLE by homicidal interference.

    To forbid birth is only quicker murder…. He is a man, who is to be a man; the fruit is always present in the seed.

  • I am grateful for those who have corrected your erroneous science on women’s lives. You are also wrong about the catechism which states: “This inclination is objectively disordered.” LGBTQI persons do not have an “inclination” nor is God’s creation “objectively disordered” nor a “sin against God’s creation.” Again, your’s and the pope’s science is both erroneous and cruel.

  • “Human Personhood”??? Did you just make that one up or did you get that from other humans with finite brains who supposedly possess some kind of “eminence”?

    What you, or your people of “eminence” are trying to sell here is that mere humans who cannot create “life”, yet have the gall to say WHEN life begins in the human body.

    This ilk’s first priority is to serve themselves and others who have a lot at stake concerning political goals and the millions that are tied to it which influences their careers. They are playing to human mores and selfishness thus receiving the praise of the immoral for helping tranquilize their feelings of shame.
    “The further a society strays from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” – George Orwell

    You and “those eminent” are actually talking about “viability”.

    No human can compose and initiate every internal aspect of an entity that matrixes without any assistance whatsoever and extends itself (GROWS/HAS LIFE) such as a sperm fertilizing an egg to become a zygote (GROWTH/LIFE) which undergoes (GROWTH/LIFE) many cleavages to develop (GROWTH/LIFE) into a ball of cells called a morula until the blastocoele is formed (GROWTH/LIFE) until the early embryo becomes (GROWTH/LIFE) a blastula, which continues on in stages until the death of the finished product. Those (GROWTH/LIFE) cells subsequently die during the (GROWTH/LIFE) progress but are replaced by new (GROWTH/LIFE) cells in an ongoing process.

    I doubt that you and “the eminent” have a handle on what “viability” actually implies and what GROWTH/LIFE really is … and how God sees it.

    You advocate killing that “viability”(GROWTH/LIFE) as it sustains itself at some point in it’s (GROWTH/LIFE). It matters not when, but you would deliberately and brutally stop its progress.

    It is people with a defective moral compass that MAKE life NOT VIABLE by homicidal interference.

    To forbid birth is only quicker murder…. He is a man, who is to be a man; the fruit is always present in the seed.

  • RE. “As a side note. I love how you ( edddoerr ) always upvote your own comments. It’s like patting yourself on the back.”

    ~~~~~ Yeah, how swollen-headed and shameful is that??

  • You and I are at a fundamental disagreement: You may believe that “medically necessary” means the women will surely die without the treatment. That’s not how medicine works. Medically necessary can mean everything from mastectomies (a much better example than your itchy arm) to lice checks. Consider vaccination, for example. Will you die without an MMR shot? Maybe. Probably not. You’ll also likely infect others (obviously not so much a consideration in the OBGYN setting). I read an excerpt from an AAPLOG article that said there are only three conditions resulting in maternal mortality >20%. “Even in these three situations there is room for latitude in waiting for fetal viability if the mother chooses to accept that risk.” Well guess what. I don’t accept that risk and neither does my wife.
    Nevertheless, there are many examples. A commenter named Taylor on another RNS article concerning abortion recently discussed how her uterus ruptured at 20 weeks (not late term) due to an improperly healed prior C-section. The fetus was completely healthy but she required an emergency hysterectomy with a feticidal injection beforehand. What should she have done instead?
    Consider also the example of Alyson Draper, an LDS woman whose account was widely shared on Facebook after the third presidential debate. One of the twins she was carrying was dead. The other had spina bifida so severe his brain had developed outside his body. Her life was in danger due to the dead fetus. What should she have done instead?

  • Here is the inevitable s1utshaming and “babies as a penalty” thinking which typifies fetus worship. Concern and consideration for life only exists for those gestation. Once born, the level of care disappears suddenly. Innocent is a word used to show your indifference to women and babies. Once no longer innocent in your eyes try aren’t worth squat to you.

    The government has no duty to the unborn beyond the mother’s will. A fetus only exists because of her. A fetus has no separate life or existence without her.

    The church is simply following it’s centuries tradition of treating human life as its personal chattel property. All lives belong to them and the church can do with them as they wish.

  • “Moreover, contraception medication and devices should also NOT be subsidized by the taxpayer in any form or fashion”

    Because why should the government make laws people are asking for (the contraceptive mandate was overwhelmingly desired and approved by the public) or address a public problem, when you can wag your finger like a self righteous cretin.

  • That is a cute argument for personally not having an abortion. But within it is also an argument against any kinds of laws against it.

    ” The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the
    biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted
    there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society
    and citizenship.”

    Although the speaker finds abortion distasteful, she is not arguing against abortion rights.

  • Late term abortions are invariably done to protect the health of the mother. Having the government intervene into the medical options of patients is an attack on their privacy and on professional medical ethics.

    Trump doesn’t give a flying fig about abortion. Sincerity of his position has never been a trait attributed to him either politically or in the business world. If you are voting for him because you think he is going to lift a finger about abortion rights, then you are a gullible tool. In fact anyone who votes for a candidate for such reasons is.

    In the 43 years since Roe v. Wade and 22 years since Casey v. Planned Parenthood, we have had numerous times when (allegedly anti-abortion) conservatives have been the majority control of all branches of government from the Presidency, to Congress, to the Supreme Court. Not once have any of those figures done anything to attack the legality of abortion. At best you had a bunch of dishonest and onerous restrictions. All of which were shot down by the judiciary. In over two generations the only thing the anti-abortion platform has done was provide a way for poor and working class people to vote for candidates who attack their economic interests.

    “If he doesn’t, then he is no worse than Hillary”

    Other than the literally hundreds of federal cases against him, tax evasion, tacit use of slave labor in his enterprises, defrauding investors and the public, the constant sexual misconduct, adultery, and blatant bigotry.

    You really have no moral center do you?

  • You show zero concern for the women who consider abortion. A general condemnation for having unsafe sex. S1utshaming at its plainest.

    “You see, folks like you like to repeat this story because you think it justifies your position.”

    Because it is true. This is why there is no discussion of women in the abortion question from people like yourself except for the kind of condemnations and talk of “innocent life”. In general people like yourself avoid all discussion or reference to the existence of women in the situation. It is exclusively talk of a fetus. Not the life which keeps a fetus alive and is inseparable from it until birth.

    “The government has the duty to protect life. That duty does not stop
    because a person is a non-citizen or because a person is only here
    because someone brought them here.”

    Bad analogy because you want to avoid the most basic fact about pregnancy. At no point is a fetus comparable to a born being in terms of existence. A fetus only exists on the bodily systems of its mother. No born being has anything comparable to such a situation. So take your analogies to illegal aliens, slavery, or babies and stuff it.

    One has to be born to be protected as a person. One’s personhood as well as their autonomy as a being in question begins at birth. We have birth certificates to mark such times, not conception certificates.

    Your version of “protection” amounts to treating a woman as property of the state while she is pregnant. You cannot “protect” a fetus without attacking its mother. Of course if you don’t bother to acknowledge the existence or concerns of the mother, you avoid the logical and cognitive dissonance of your position.

    “If we are treating people like slaves, then what benefit does the Church have to help people who cannot provide anything back?”

    Followers, political power, ego….

  • I have yet to see anti-abortion advocates who show any concern for the lives and health of pregnant women. In fact they largely avoid discussing them or their concerns. It is usually just pretending their will is of no matter because the speaker is allegedly so much more moral and wise than all women. As if such airs automatically remove all sense of autonomy or personal choice for people.

    “The American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
    They hold the opinion that abortion is never medically necessary.”

    And they do not represent the profession in any official capacity. ACOG is the general medical organization representing the entire profession. Setting guidelines of professional ethics and education in the field. Calling it pro-choice as if it were an advocacy group on the subject is misinformed at best, dishonest at worst. Lying in service of one’s position is fairly common for anti-abortion advocacy.

    “Abortion does not cure severe infection. Treat the infection.
    Abortion does not cure heart failure. Treat the heart failure.
    Asfor preeclampsia, it is very easy to treat and untreatable cases only
    occur in the third trimester. By that time, the baby is viable and can
    be delivered.”

    Your medical degree is from where? Letting laypeople with a specific political goal into the doctor’s offices is dangerous nonsense. Nonsense which has been known to kill patients.

  • “If AAPLOG was putting women’s lives at risk, they would have their medical licenses revoked”

    In most cases the anti-abortion doctors have a great deal political influence. It is why the apparatus of the state is typically used to enforce onerous abortion restrictions rather than attack those who clearly violate doctor/patient privilege and informed consent such as the AAPLOG.

    If one is not informing a patient of all their medically available options in a given situation, they are committing malpractice. This would include medically necessary abortion.

  • How about this, when you show you have any kind of expertise in the medical field and can point to studies accepted in the entire field on the subject, then you have earned a right to speak of what is and isn’t medically necessary. Until then, you are blowing hot air.

    “They cannot produce a peer reviewed recommendation that says abortion was the only choice in treatment.”

    Actually experts in a malpractice case can do that easily. Luckily for the anti-abortion doctors, most people simply seek out a second opinion in such situations. So the doctors involved have gotten lucky so far.

    It also helps that without a general abortion ban law, doctors in E/Rs never feel that they risk prosecution for performing medically necessary abortions. So the number of women who have suffered severe trauma or death like the women in Ireland is non-existent.

  • A child is born, a fetus is not. Only a child can be murdered.

    As for your hypo, having a pregnancy is not the equivalent of another medical condition. Analogy is a terrible method of argument here.

    “Do doctors have moral obligations to not do harm through unnecessary procedures?”

    And yet people like yourself advocate laws which force doctors to perform unnecessary additional ultrasounds, give unsafe dosage of RU-486, or put onerous requirements for licensing for abortion providers. All of which are vehemently opposed by all professional medical organizations. Hypocrite.

  • I have yet to see anti-abortion advocates who have shown a scintilla of concern for women’s lives or health. In fact the position depends on either ignoring such things or pretending it doesn’t really matter compared to one’s own feelings.

    How about this, if its not your body, its none of your concern, ever. Claiming to care about a fetus is not the same as being entitled to do anything about it. There are certain things you have no business intruding upon. One of which is the bodily autonomy of others and the other is personal intimate decisions. You don’t have to like what is chosen, nobody asked you or requires your input here.

  • “Citation needed”
    “”
    See your prior remarks. See the remarks of any anti-abortion advocate when they discuss the mothers (which is rare since they tend to ignore them altogether)

    “Because people who support abortion are not thinking of the fetus.”

    Don’t have to. Unless you can separate it from its mother, it is not your concern. It is always going to be hers and hers alone. Its in her body, only she has a say here.

    “So we are not the largest charitable organization in the world?”

    No, not really. Very little of the Vatican’s investments and donations go towards charity. Most of it is spent on upkeep of the church and lavish treasures of the Vatican. Also there is the money spent on building up political power of the church worldwide. Plenty of charities work at purposes which run counter to actually helping people. Religious charities which proselytize are a prime example. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Warren Buffet contribute billions of dollars to charity without attacking the rights of others or supporting autocratic regimes. The Catholic church has too much blood on its hands to get a pass for its charity work.

    “A fetus is just a one year old a year before their first birthday…[nonsense ensues]”

    You also still don’t refute my statement. I don’t care if you consider it human or not. A fetus does not exist as a separate being until birth (viability). You can’t separate it in any way physically or legally from its mother until then. So whatever you think about a fetus, it is an irrelevancy. A fetus is within a mother and can’t get out until it is time. So until then, it is the mother’s will who keeps it alive and has all the choices concerning a fetus. You do not.

    “If I find a baby in a field and there is no one around to take care of it.”

    A baby is an autonomous being. It is separate from its mother. Any human being can care for it or act on its behalf. That is never true for a fetus. Bad analogy again because you can’t argue out of a simple fact of human biology. A fetus is not the equivalent of a baby. Nobody’s autonomy or rights are affected by caring for a baby.

    “A woman who is pregnant has the same moral obligation. To carry the child until it can be handed off to the proper authorities.”

    You may think so, but there is no legal obligation to do so, unlike a born child. Because “to protect a fetus” means attacking a woman. Obviously you do not consider a woman’s concerns of any value, only your own.

    “A follower who has free will is not a slave.”

    Fear mongering is NOT a tactic used to keep faith groups together?

    Entangling churches with the apparatus of state ensures the free will of followers of a faith?
    Nope.

  • Your assertions as to women’s health are going to be ignored. You are not an expert in the field nor can call upon material which is credible to support your claims here. So take your claims about medical necessity and shove them somewhere painful.

    “Given that there are two million families waiting to adopt a child in
    the United States, that child can be placed in a loving home
    immediately.”

    There are millions more children in foster care and wards of the state who will not be adopted by such families. Women who want to give up their babies for adoption are always free to do that. Forcing women into doing so is disgusting. There is a long history of using anti-abortion laws to feed an adoption industry (especially in Ireland) to coerce women into giving up babies for adoption. The Catholic Church profited heavily from such human trafficking in the past.

    “If one person says, “I want to expand access to abortion” and you
    believe them, then why not vote for the person who says they want the
    opposite? At least with the other person, there is a chance of them
    being sincere.”

    Because at no point do those politicians do anything to affect the legality of abortion. The restrictive measures are typically unconstitutional. I guess you value your position over rule of law.

    “Perhaps the issue here is you see children as an economic interest and not a person.”

    I see children, period. Children are born. Concern for life needs to extend past 9 months of gestation. You do not consider them at all.

  • Liar,

    “my baby was severely developmentally compromised; that she would die at
    birth, if not before, after a very short, excruciatingly painful few
    minutes of life; and that continuing the pregnancy to full term would be
    very dangerous for me.

  • Murder is a legal definition. It is defined by criminal law statutes. Person is also a legal term. It denotes an autonomous being with distinct legal rights and existence.

    “All? Citation needed.”

    Every article concerning medical professional reaction to TRAP laws
    http://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/News-Room/News-Releases/2013/ACOG-and-AMA-File-Amicus-Brief

    https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2015/12/14/11/04/opposition-to-requirements-for-hospital-admitting-privileges-for-abortion-providers

    https://www.guttmacher.org/about/gpr/2013/09/physicians-groups-respond-trap-laws-passed-during-2013-legislative-session

    I can go on from there.

  • You show so much concern that you want to intervene between a doctor and patient and circumvent informed consent. I have yet to see anything which shows you have any qualification to speak on medical matters.

    “If you think what I am saying is false, then refute it. Knowledge is free. Go obtain it.”

    I think you are an outright liar who wants to pretend to have knowledge of the medical profession. As someone who is simply using the professional medical organization position, I can at least rely on their expert opinions. Rather than pretend I have personal knowledge.

  • You are full of it. Fair enough. Why bother to back up your claims when you can try to duck the question.

    “Citation needed.”

    If you want to call me a liar, just do it. But I will tell you this, expert witnesses for malpractice cases concerning informed consent are fairly easy to come by. There is an entire part of the medical profession devoted to expert witness work. It is far more lucrative than private practice for many and doesn’t require as much work.

    “It has already been proven that the woman who died in Ireland would not
    have been saved with an abortion. She died from a blood infection that
    the hospital missed.”

    Actually it was proven that the hospital and the government wanted to avoid doing anything to upset the anti-abortion law. There was no objective investigation of the matter. She died of a blood infection exacerbated by keeping a dying fetus inside her. If the same situation happened in the US where a woman was refused a medically necessary abortion, the hospital would be sued into bankruptcy and the doctors would be stripped of their licenses.

  • I still have yet to see a show of concern for women in your posts.

    “The government does not make anyone have sex.”

    By all means pretend that wasn’t meant as a condemnation of women for having unsafe sex (or sex that produces an unwanted pregnancy). I need a laugh.

    “You accuse me of having no morals, but then dismiss the my moral
    argument in favor of your legal one. It would seem that it is you who
    are lacking morals.”

    Your “moral” argument is immoral. You want to treat women as either your personal chattel property or property of the state. That they are yours to command and that their personal concerns don’t matter, but your opinion does.

    “Oh? So if I leave that baby in the field it will get along just fine without someone looking after it?”

    No, I am saying your analogy is terrible. A baby is not a fetus. Nobody’s autonomy is affected by caring for one. Any human being can care for a baby, only a mother keeps a fetus alive. There is no factually honest argument which changes that truth. It is why your analogy fails. A baby needs another human being to care for it, but it can be a wide variety of people who can do that. Because a baby has its own separate existence. No such situation exists for a fetus. To equate a baby with a fetus is dishonest nonsense.

    “So when a Christian gives a poor person food, they are forcing them into slavery out of fear? How does that work?”

    A hungry person is a desperate person. Very vulnerable to coercion.

  • “Are you an expert in the field? If not, then how can you dismiss my claims as not credible?”

    Because the experts do.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/
    http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Medical_Reasons_for_Abortion

    The only people who take your position have a vested interest in circumventing informed consent in this situation. Plus they have a long history of lying in support of their position. [The fetal parts video scandal, Christian pregnancy crisis centers, exaggerations of dangers of RU-486….]

    “In cases where that is not possible, only then can you adopt.”

    Forcing women into keeping babies to feed an adoption industry doesn’t change any of that.

    “No woman is forced to give their child up. They choose to give their child up.”

    Because we have legal abortion, separation of church and state, and stringent laws concerning adoption. But in the US prior to 1973 and currently in Ireland that was far from true. Adoption mills abounded where abortion was impossible to come by.

    “Philomena author on scandal of Ireland’s 60,000 babies ‘sold’ by nuns to rich American families”http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/philomena-author-scandal-irelands-60000-4260186

    Ireland’s shameful secret of forced adoptions was a story I had to write”
    http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/ireland-s-shameful-secret-of-forced-adoptions-was-a-story-i-had-to-write-1.2251597

    “Illegal adoptions: Exposing the pain of one of Ireland’s hidden scandals”http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/illegal-adoptions-exposing-the-pain-of-one-of-irelands-hidden-scandals-273840.html

    “Morality trumps law and law is not morality.”

    Which is why adultery, polytheism, drinking and swearing are illegal, right? Most moral issues are of no concern to the laws. Only those issues which are of social order significance rise to such control.

    Frankly I find your position deeply immoral. It is short sighted, counterproductive, narcissistic and depends on attacking the rights of people.

  • “We do that already. We don’t allow doctors to do anything they want.
    There are laws that govern what treatments they can prescribe.”

    citation please (something outside of abortion related treatments)

    Its would not be proper in any of those circumstances. The only thing which should be governing what treatments one receives is medical necessity. In all of those laws we have outside interests of laypeople interfering with the rights of patients and the duties of doctors.

    “I said you first. Show me your qualification and then I will show you mine.”

    I am not claiming personal knowledge. All I do is refer to the experts in the field. It is clear you are a liar.

    “But yet here you are misquoting, dismissing evidence, and not refuting. What qualifies you do judge these matters?”

    I have done nothing of the sort. I simply challenge your assertions of personal knowledge to that effect. You have provided no evidence.

  • Fine, you are a liar with delusions of medical knowledge.

    “Please show me how to find this official capacity who is the arbiter of all medical truth.”

    The national/internationally accepted organization formed by the profession gets to do just that. Such organizations exist to ensure proper licensing and education requirements are met in the profession, to provide peer review for research, and to advocate for the ethical standards. The AMA is a good example of such things in a general sense.

  • “I provide evidence for my claims.”

    No you didn’t. You have frequently asked for citation, but not given it yourself. Claims without evidence can be refuted the same way. 🙂

    “Removing a dead fetus is not an abortion. Never was. Never will be.”

    Waiting for a fetus to die before removing is extremely dangerous and exactly what killed the woman in Ireland.

    “Then how do you know so much about it if it was not investigated?”

    Its called the news. 🙂

    “So far you have argued that law, litigation, and political speech equals
    morality. None of these things equate to a moral argument.”

    I have yet to see a moral argument for treating human beings as your personal chattel property, but that is the gist of it.

  • Why would she have to? The narcissism of your position is obvious. That all women must meet your approval to make a personal decision.

    “Dangerous for me” is pretty straightforward. Just because you don’t think it is sufficient doesn’t mean anything to anyone. It was not a baby with birth defects either. It was going to be a baby who would die shortly thereafter birth.

    You are not honestly representing what was said in the article. When have you stopped lying?

  • “Euthanasia is illegal in most of the United States. That is an example of a law which limits the treatment a doctor can provide.”

    I can give you that one. But then again euthanasia is not really a medical procedure either, nor does it even require a doctor to do it.

    “But you are not. You are providing the same experts I already refuted with other experts.”

    You did no such thing. Your experts are not accepted in the field. Nor did you link to anything which supported your claim.

  • ” In your mind just because something is possible, it must be happening”

    And various news articles to that effect don’t really exist unless you believe it to be so. 🙂

    “Cool. So it’s safe now. You have once again contradicted yourself.”

    Not at all. Women aren’t forced into adoption precisely because we have legal abortion and we don’t let clergy to set the tone of our laws, unlike the examples from Ireland I used.

    I think we have said everything to each other which needs to be said. Now we are just revisiting ourselves.

    https://xkcd.com/386/

  • Life, viability and personhood are 3 different things. A fertilized egg is alive, even though unimplanted and 1/2 of them do not survive. Viabliity refers to capability to survive outside the uterus from about 22/23 weeks on, though the chances of survival before 25 weeks are slim. Personhood refers to the possibility of consciousness, possible only after 28-32 weeks of gestation.

    The science, theology and law issues were pulled together at a conference in 1988 sponsored by Americans for Religious Liberty in Washington that brought together Catholic and Protestant theologians and scientists and lawyers. The papers were published in the book Abortion Rights and Fetal ‘Personhood”, edited by myself and Dr James Prescott (Centerline Press, 1989). The science material was based on the book and used in the amicus brief to the SCOTUS which represented the 165 eminent scientists, including the 12 Nobel laureates.

    Wagner’s comment makes little sense and shows no respect for women’s rights of conscience, health or religious liberty, or for science. He seems unable to distinguish an acorn from an oak tree.

    Edd Doerr

  • Science does not define personhood, but it should be obvious that the possibility of consciousness if essential to personhood. Yes, science continues to advance, but it has not in any way weakened the case for abortion rights. A woman has a right to decide for herself whether to produce a person. Most Americans and most Catholics agree. You don’t agree? Then don’t have an abortion.

  • Nope, you don’t make your point. I did make mine about government in the bedroom and doctor’s office. Also, I stated that if government wants to control female reproduction, it needs to control male repro too.

    Therefore, you did not refute my argument that a woman must be treated as a fully autonomous, self-determining human being, just as a male is. Neither gender should have such intimate decisions as becoming a parent controlled by the government. However, if one is, both must be.

    When I see righties lobbying their legislators to pass laws controlling male sexual behavior, I will believe it’s not about controlling women.

  • “How many women kill their child, due to convenience, and pride.”

    How much power do you rightfully have to be involved in such decisions? None whatsoever. It makes no difference why a woman has an abortion. They are not answerable to you for such personal intimate decisions. Women are not your personal property who must do as you say. You don’t have to like or approve of their choices. You are not part of them.

    Nobody needs a church to interject themselves between a doctor and a patient. Nobody wants a church to do so either.

  • Or you both can just show a modicum of respect for the lives of women and the choices they face. But that involves actually acknowledging them as people with rights to control what goes on in their bodies.

  • Your indifference to the lives of pregnant women is duly noted. So why again do you claim to have some moral standing? Oh right, because you say so.

  • ” Immigrants are always welcome to this country who are LEGAL.”

    Trump welcomes those who are not as well. He profits handsomely from a construction workforce which can be paid below market rates without benefits.

  • Common sense, law, public opinion, science, the Bible, theologians, the 57 million women worldwide who terminate pregnancies every year.

  • CatholicVote Launches Ad Campaign Highlighting Anti-Catholicism In WikiLeaks Emails

    Christine Rousselle

    |

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/11/02/catholicvote-launches-ad-campaign-highlighting-anticatholicism-in-wikileaks-emails-n2240363

    Posted: Nov 02, 2016 12:00 PM

    The website CatholicVote
    is pouring $500,000 into a new ad campaign to alert Catholic voters
    about the anti-Catholic comments made by Hilary Clinton staffers in the
    emails released by WikiLeaks. The ads will run in the swing states of
    Pennsylvania, Nevada, Ohio, and Florida.

    The ad features a clip of Fox News’ Megyn Kelly describing the
    content of the emails, followed by a woman saying that although she was
    tired of the election, she couldn’t let the Clinton campaign get away
    with mocking Catholics.

    Although the ad doesn’t specify which candidate people should be voting for, the message that a Clinton presidency would not be friendly to Catholics is made crystal clear.

    In mid October, leaked emails revealed
    that Clinton staffers called the Catholic Church a backwards, medieval
    dictatorship, and called for a “Catholic Spring” uprising to force the
    Church to “modernize.”

    Clinton, nor her running mate, Tim Kaine (who is Catholic), has
    commented on the contents of the emails. In an interview with Catholic
    television network EWTN, Republican nominee Donald Trump said that the comments in the emails were also representative of Hillary Clinton, not just her campaign.

  • Okay, one more time, and open your ears this time:

    “IF a government is going to control a woman’s body and reproduction, THEN it must also do the same to males, possibly as I’ve described.”

    As to the rest, yeah, I’m good with what I’ve said.

  • How is it sexist to control male bodies to the same extent as women? Surely you understand that women are not able to spontaneously impregnate themselves?

  • That’s exactly what I said. Jeez, read again and closely! Pay attention! Here is the quote from my first comment:

    “If laws are going to be made reducing women’s autonomy, similar laws must restrict male autonomy to avoid Bill of Rights violations.”

    Note the very same “if/then” language.

  • Read it. Equivalence. Control one body? Control the other body. Different parts mean different control. Now figure it out by yourself. I’m done walking you through a simple argument step by step. Think. Use your brain. By yourself.

  • I’m not going to lead you along by the hand any longer. Being firmly ensconced in this patriarchal nation leads to a certain amount blindness. Clearer vision is possible, but only if you seek it.

  • So Catholics instead should elect someone who will promote even more radical positions on abortion; who has broken the law to the point of treason on multiple occasions, including setting up a server so she could hide what she was doing; also is under investigation by the FBI; has accomplished nothing for 30 years in politics except riding her husbands coattails; who was broke when leaving the white house and now has a net worth of over $300 million, most likely due to the access and favors she promised to people and governments who “donated” to the Clinton Foundation, etc etc.. Seriously? I KNOW what she will do. With Trump, at least there is a chance. He has personal flaws as we all do. But I believe he loves his country. She is willing to sell it for personal gain. Oh and, Trump broke no laws regarding taxes. If you don’t like that, get the laws changed instead of blaming people for using them to their benefit.

  • While Hillary Clinton is not perfect — no politician is — she is a far better candidate for President than Trump and his “loser” pal Pence. Hillary is for women’s rights of conscience, religious liberty and health. Trump could not care less. If you have followed the campaign you should be able to see that Trump is totally unfit to be President. He has avoided paying taxes, whether legally or not, has stiffed employees and vendors, attacked women, etc, etc.

    “Combine arrogance / with ignorance and — Voila! / Donald “Loser” trump”

    “In a Trump White House / Oval Office would become / Offal Orifice”

    Edd Doerr

  • Pence is no loser if you look at his record. Women’s rights of conscience? What if a woman’s conscience is not properly formed? What is a properly formed conscience based upon anyway? What moral base? HRC has commited crimes 100 times worse than Nixon ever did and he was impeached and left office. She is not fit. Obama himself described HRC as being unfit for president during his 2008 campaign. What do you think of that? What do you think of the sailor, who took a few pictures of the inside of a sub he was on recently (against the law) for his own personal use, who is now going to prison for a year, and she is somehow innocent of compromising classified information among other things, and is fit for the office of president? You’ve got to be kidding me.

  • Hillary is NOT for religious liberty. From her Women in the World speech in APril 2015 she said this, “All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced.
    Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be
    backed up with resources and political will. And deep seated cultural
    codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” Read that again. “…religious beliefs have to be changed”. She wants the gov to be the religion of the people.
    And what about the rights of the women her husband raped and abused? Where was she then? She had them silenced and enabled more abuse to continue by keeping quiet about it.

  • YOU WROTE: “(the contraceptive mandate was overwhelmingly desired and approved by the public)”

    ~~~~~ Just like a liberal to respond this way….. if the Constitution does not agree with their ideologies, they would simply disregard it to satisfy their mores. We are still talking about government subsidy for contraception. Those who choose contraception can pay for it themselves!

    The next step for liberal socialists will be their demands that the government subsidize alcohol and drugs for those would can’t live without them.

  • Just like a liberal to expect the democratic process to go by the will of the majority and be free of violations of the civil liberties if others. The public demanded that insurance companies make contraception coverage mandatory. The insurance companies liked the idea as well. The people are paying for it since the health insurance is part of employment compensation.

    Constitutional arguments had nothing to do with this issue. Hobby Lobby turned on a federal statute. It was so chock full of Carveouts and caveats that even it’s authors had no intention on giving it a precedent value.

    Frankly you have to be either a complete mental defective or fanatic to oppose contraception. There is simply no rational argument against it. This is why such arguments are the sole province of religious belief.

  • YOU WROTE: ” … or fanatic to oppose contraception. There is simply no rational argument against it.”

    ~~~~~~ Do ALL atheists lie and contort what other people have stated in order to make their ilk look like the ONLY people who have the truth?

    Show us in anything that I have written where I OPPOSE CONTRACEPTION. You ignored the truth when I stated that I don’t want taxpayers to pay for your pills or devices…..pay for it yourself !!

    Insurance companies are using the money of those whose religious beliefs condemn contraception.

    The Bible does not condemn contraception, but it certainly condemns the murder of abortion.

    Get your facts straight and quit lying.

  • Your lack of knowledge on the subject is obvious. Taxpayers are paying for the healthcare system which serves a larger of the population than the old system. People lacking insurance are a public health hazard.

    The majority of taxpayers had no problem whatsoever with insurance companies covering contraception. They demanded it as a condition to improving healthcare insurance. Since your rights are not under any attack by such a decision, you are simply dealing with being the minority on an issue where you were voted out.

    Why shouldn’t insurance companies cover contraception? It is a net benefit for the insured and insurers? What do you have against contraceptives?

  • YOU WROTE: “People lacking insurance are a public health hazard.”

    ~~~~~ More of your transparent sophistry!
    We are talking about CONTRACEPTION being paid for by tax payers !!! This does not equate in any way to a “health hazard” !

    YOU WROTE: “It is a net benefit for the insured and insurers? What do you have against contraceptives?

    ~~~~~ It may be a benefit for some but it is against the Constitution to force taxpayers to pay for something that is contrary to their religious beliefs. That also applies to insurance companies. I

    I DO NOT have anything against contraceptives per se. And don’t try and BS us that the murder of abortion is a “contraceptive” !

  • YOU WROTE: “I have yet to see anti-abortion advocates who have shown a scintilla of concern for women’s lives or health.”

    ~~~~~ That is apprently due to your preconceived notions and your unwillingness to accept that this concept is to be taken for granted when it comes to the safety of a woman.

    The standard has ALWAYS been that the life of the mother comes before the life of her child if both are in danger.

    What you are advocating is the moral turpitude of using abortion as a “contraceptive” of sorts.

    YOU WROTE: “People lacking insurance are a public health hazard.”

    ~~~~~ More of your transparent sophistry! We are talking about CONTRACEPTION being paid for by tax pays !!! This does not equate in any way to a “health hazard” !

    YOU WROTE: “It is a net benefit for the insured and insurers? What do you have against contraceptives?

    ~~~~~ It may be a benefit for some but it is against the Constitution to force taxpayers to pay for something that is contrary to their religious beliefs. That also applies to insurance companies.

    I DO NOT have anything against contraceptives per se. And don’t try and BS us that the murder of abortion is a “contraceptive” !

    There is one thing that the pro-abortionist cannot ignore ……93% of abortions are post-conception birth control !!

  • No one that I know has a problem with protecting a mother’s life.

    The focus on this issue should be on what every pro-abortionist chooses to ignore………93% of abortions are post-conception birth control !!

  • “Pro-choice” is only a euphamism, (about 93%) for the death sentence of a human life.

    93% of abortions are post-conception birth control !!

  • YOU WROTE: “That doesn’t prove that abortion isn’t necessary in other situations, all of which are different.”

    This may be true to a degree but your statement is awful vague and generalized concerning what you mean by ” all of which are different.”

    Please bear in mind that 93% of abortions are post-conception birth control.

  • YOU WROTE: “That all women must meet your approval to make a personal decision.”

    ~~~~~~ Their is nothing “personal” involved. God, the creator of life, has made it very clear when mankiind can take a life…. and it is NOT for innocent children for the sake of convenience.

  • YOU WROTE: “A child is born, a fetus is not. Only a child can be murdered.”

    ~~~~~~ To forbid birth is only quicker murder…. He is a man, who is to be a man; the fruit is always present in the seed.

    A fetus is LIFE created by God at conpetion. It’s life can be stopped (murder in the eyes of God).

    Do not speak of “when LIFE exists” if you cannot compose and initiate every internal aspect of an entity that matrixes without any assistance whatsoever and extends itself (GROWS/HAS LIFE) such as a sperm fertilizing an egg to become a zygote (GROWTH/LIFE) which undergoes (GROWTH/LIFE) many cleavages to develop (GROWTH/LIFE) into a ball of cells called a morula until the blastocoele is formed (GROWTH/LIFE) until the early embryo becomes (GROWTH/LIFE) a blastula, which continues on in stages until the death of the finished product. Those (GROWTH/LIFE) cells subsequently die during the (GROWTH/LIFE) progress but are replaced by new (GROWTH/LIFE) cells in an ongoing process.

    I doubt that you have a handle on what “LIFE“ actually implies in this case.

    You advocate killing that (GROWTH/LIFE), as it sustains itself, at some point in it’s (GROWTH/LIFE) process. It matters not when …. you would deliberately and brutally stop its progress. That is killing – that is death.

    It is people with a defective moral compass that stop LIFE and prevent it from a natural birth by homicidal interference.

  • OH, OH….. Spuddie is getting nervous and frustrated by name-calling …. [“You are full of it.!!”] That is the first sign of running out of responses that are significant.

  • YOU WROTE: ” Women who oppose abortion are not required to have them.”

    ~~~~~~ Let’s re-write this statement for better understanding:

    “Women who oppose abortion are not required to have them or would consider having them because they are not morally bankrupt and choose to maintain a clear conscience.”

  • Knowing the will of God is not quantum physics. God’s will can be learned in His Word…. the Bible.

  • There is a lot of talk about “proving” things in this discussion.
    In certain matters such as entelechy it carries no weight.
    When humans experience the realization of the “soul” or “vital function” it cannot be verified in the simple terms of mathematical demonstration or arithmetical proof. Putting it in secular terms, Aristotle in his De anima (On the Soul ) called the entelechy (or first entelechy) of the living organism. Similarly, rational activity is what makes a man to be a man and distinguishes him from a brute animal.

    Instead of flimsy “proof”, emphasis must be placed on gaining first-hand experience of concepts and certain areas, such as union with the Divine, which can only be explored through praxis due to the inability of the finite mind (and its tool, language) to comprehend or express the infinite.
    Wisdom is always taste—in both Latin and Hebrew, the word for wisdom comes from the word for taste—so it’s something to taste, not something to theorize about or “prove“. “Taste and see that God is good,” the psalm says; and that’s wisdom: tasting life. No one can do it for us. It is about tasting and trusting experience, before institution or dogma.

    PSALM 119:102 I have not turned from Your judgments,
    for You Yourself have instructed me.
    103 How sweet Your word is to my taste—
    sweeter than honey in my mouth.
    104 I gain understanding from Your precepts;
    therefore I hate every false way.
    105 Your word is a lamp for my feet
    and a light on my path.

    The existence of God and faith in His son, Jesus Christ, does not need proof. God, through the Holy Spirit, provides His own proof in the heart and soul of the individual where there is never a doubt of who put it there.

  • Well that is certainly an opinion on the subject. But not one remotely related to what was being discussed.

    “Do not speak of “when LIFE exists””

    Actually I don’t even bother addressing such an irrelevant question to the topic. It makes not one bit of difference whether a fetus is alive, human, could read 4 languages or is your next messiah. As long as it exists inside the womb of its mother and can’t come out, your opinion on the matter doesn’t mean a thing to its mother’s life or choices.

    Its very interesting that you only frame the subject in terms of a fetus and completely ignore the existence of the woman whose will keeps it alive. There is nothing remotely related to morality showing such an over concern with a fetus but not its mother, or with that being after it is born. You have no moral compass. Merely a desire to control others.

  • After all its only alive inside their bodies. That is obviously not relevant to you in the discussion. This is why your opinion about them is of no consequence whatsoever. Thank you for demonstrating you consider all women to be your personal property. BTW nobody has to give a flying turd what you think God says when it comes to their rights.

    Of course “innocent” is used in order to pretend a woman’s existence doesn’t matter. But of course it does. Its just inconvenient to treat them like human beings with their own rights, bodies and will which differs from yours.

  • Do not speak of “when LIFE exists: if you cannot compose and initiate every internal aspect of an entity that matrixes without any assistance whatsoever and extends itself (GROWS/HAS LIFE) such as a sperm fertilizing an egg to become a zygote (GROWTH/LIFE) which undergoes (GROWTH/LIFE) many cleavages to develop (GROWTH/LIFE) into a ball of cells called a morula until the blastocoele is formed (GROWTH/LIFE) until the early embryo becomes (GROWTH/LIFE) a blastula, which continues on in stages until the death of the finished product. Those (GROWTH/LIFE) cells subsequently die during the (GROWTH/LIFE) progress but are replaced by new (GROWTH/LIFE) cells in an ongoing process.

    I doubt that you have a handle on what “LIFE“ actually implies in this case.

    You advocate killing that (GROWTH/LIFE), as it sustains itself, at some point in it’s (GROWTH/LIFE). It matters not when …. you would deliberately and brutally stop its progress. That is killing – that is death.

    It is people with a defective moral compass that stop LIFE and prevent it from a natural birth by homicidal interference.

  • You apparently feel so superior to all women that they are incapable of making personal decisions concerning what goes on in their bodies or their lives without your permission. That is not indifference. You are right. That is outright hostility. It is utter contempt for them.

    Whatever you consider their “bad decisions”, it is their decisions. Not yours. Not ever. Nothing gives you the right or authority to interject yourself into such things. God didn’t grant you power over all women. You don’t have to like what decisions are made. You don’t have a say in them.

  • “What you are advocating is the moral turpitude of using abortion as a “contraceptive” of sorts.”

    As if your opinion on the “morality” of others means you have a right to interject in their opinions? No. Never. But it is a good example of s1utshaming so often employed to pretend a woman’s concerns and existence is of no consequences. You have demonstrating my point.

    “More of your transparent sophistry! We are talking about CONTRACEPTION being paid for by tax pays !!! This does not equate in any way to a “health hazard” !”

    Unplanned pregnancy is public health issue? People without health insurance does not pose public health hazards? Of course they do. It is why not only we have the ACA but also why the contraception mandate was such a well regarded part of it. Taxpayers WANTED to pay for it.

    “against the Constitution to force taxpayers to pay for something that is contrary to their religious beliefs.”

    You don’t understand how insurance works. The only people paying for the contraceptives are the employees choosing to use it. Employers have no say in the minimum coverage of health insurance. That is set by state and federal laws. Nor do they have a say in how insurance is used. That is private and protects the employee by law as well. Plus nowadays employers who feel so controlling can opt out and let employees get their own insurance. You really haven’t been keeping up on the subject.

    “93% of abortions are post-conception birth control !!”

    100% of abortions are none of your business unless its your pregnancy.

  • Everyone has respect for the lives of women!

    The woman comes first when her life is threatened by birth. In today’s world , we are blessed exponentially with new medical technology that can save both mother and child.
    On the other hand, we see that 93% of abortions are post-conception birth control for selfish and contemptible reasons. Now let’s focus on THAT !

  • YOU WROTE: “Most Catholics are pro-choice”.

    ~~~~~~ That would make them NON-PRACTICING Catholics, and of what significance are those?

    That is like saying “Most skydivers won’t ride in an airplane.”

  • That would mean two are PRACTICING Catholics and the others are “catholic” in name only (phonies).

  • YOU WROTE: “It makes no difference why a woman has an abortion.”

    ~~~~~~ Thank you for being honest about your morality.

    My response to this kind of ideology is this:

    Mother Teresa’s famous quote, ‘If we tell a mother she can kill her own child, how can we tell others not to kill each other?'”
    [Herein lies the mindset of the value of life.]

    “Many people are very, very concerned with the children in India, with the children in Africa, where quite a number die, maybe of malnutrition of hunger and so on, but millions are dying deliberately by the will of the mother. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today. Because if a mother can kill her own child – what is left for me to kill you and you kill me — there is nothing between. ~ MOTHER TERESA, Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1979

  • I am NOT “indifferent” concerning the lives of pregnant women I believe that we should help everyone who has made bad decisions. That is why we are here.

    I was making the point that there are always devastating consequences that one must consider when going against what God has said about murder or any of His laws. It is NOT a punishment because we bring these bad results upon ourselves.
    That does not mean God will not forgive us.

  • “The woman comes first when she shares my opinion and does what I demand of her”
    FTFY

    You trust and respect women so much that you don’t want them making personal decisions concerning their bodies without your permission (as if such things are required)

  • Pretending your view has anything to do with morality is laughable. It is all about asserting control over the lives of others. Hence your complete avoidance of any consideration of the lives of those already born.

    BTW Mother Theresa was a horrific human being. Her hospice work avoided actual care which would alleviate the suffering of the dying. She supported murderous dictators and had very nasty views about the rights and lives of others.

  • You are being diliberately obtuse !

    MATTHEW 19:18
    Jesus replied, “‘You shall not MURDER, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony …

    The Bible does teach that life begins at conception. Every culture’s view of when human life begins changes as society’s values, moral standards, and knowledge about the process of embryonic development change. Prior to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed abortion on demand, developing embryos were considered unborn persons. Now, even a fetus that could survive on its own outside its mother’s womb could be aborted, under certain medical circumstances. This demonstrates that we do not consider an unborn child to be a true human being.

    Science tells us that human LIFE begins at the time of conception. From the moment fertilization takes place, the child’s genetic makeup is already complete. Its gender has already been determined, along with its height and hair, eye and skin color. The only thing the embryo needs to become a fully-functioning being is the time to grow and develop.

    More importantly, God reveals to us in His Word that not only does LIFE begin at conception, but He knows who we are even before then.

    (Jeremiah 1:5).
    “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations”

    King David said this about God’s role in our conception:
    (Psalm 139:13, 16)
    “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb . . . your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be”

    Society continually seeks to devalue the lives of the unborn, creating its own definitions of humanity based on distorted views of morality. But the undeniable fact is that LIFE begins at creation, and a human is CREATED as soon as he or she is conceived. God is present at our creation; He is, in fact, our Creator. Our value as human beings created in His image is conceived even before we are.

  • NOT the Bible….don’t talk like a fool.

    All of your other referrence come from the minds of mere finite humans and NOT from God.

    Who is right and who is wrong? We will all know when Jesus returns to judge the world by the words He has spoken.

  • Abortion ends (kills) LIFE.

    There are no manufactured or euphemistic words or specious reasoning that can refute the taking of LIFE. You are just whistling in the dark and God knows it.

  • Obviously you are more Democrat than Catholic. Thanks for your honesty. There is very little of that around these days.

  • “Everyone has respect for the lives of women if the do as I say”
    FTFY

    You don’t like the reasons why abortions are done, don’t have one. Don’t like the reasons other people do them, tough
    luck, you have no say on the matter nor deserve one. What goes on in a woman’s body is her choice and hers alone. Never yours.

  • Life began several billion years ago. Personhood begins when the human brain is capable of consciousness, some time after 28-32 weeks of gestation (that’s the science of it), and well over 99% of abortions are done well before 20 weeks. The Bible (Gen 1:27 and 2:7) puts birth, the first breath, and the beginning of personhood. Wagner evidently opposes women’s rights of conscience and religious liberty. And since he can’t get pregnant, who cares what he thinks?

  • Supporting a pro-abortion candidate, especially one as radically pro-abortion as Hillary is, is simply not a morally defensible act for a Catholic.

    “Social justice” does not trump the right to life. In fact, the right to life is the ultimate social justice issue.

    Unborn babies are human beings — that’s a biological and scientific fact. They have their own separate brains, hearts, sets of DNA, blood, limbs, torsos, organs, and everything else. That makes them distinct individual human beings. Fact, not opinion.

    And when we kill human beings, it’s called murder. Catholic teaching is totally aligned with the science on this issue.

    No Catholic has any moral business whatsoever supporting a candidate who supports the killing of unborn babies. Appeals to “social justice” in defending such support are morally lame and baseless.

  • Murder refers to killing persons. Pre-28 week fetuses lack a functioning brain and therefore are not persons. So figures science, and the Bible (Gen 1:27 and 2:7) puts personhood as beginning at birth or first breath. Jesus is never reported as having condemned abortion, and the Vatican’s position differs from that of Aquinas and is based on outdated 17th century notions.

  • >>>Pre-28 week fetuses lack a functioning brain and therefore are not persons.>>>

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Well before that, they already have heartbeats, not to mention their own set of DNA, just to name two characteristics. Pregnant women don’t have two heartbeats. Nor do they have two sets of DNA.

    If there are two heartbeats (the unborn child’s heartbeat can be detected within three weeks of conception), then there are two human beings. Simple logic.

    To say that pre-28 week fetuses aren’t human is simply ridiculous. That’s 7 months of pregnancy. Many babies are born prematurely prior to that, and they survive and grow up into toddlers, then children, then adults.

    To set 28 weeks as the “benchmark” for humanity is absolutely ludicrous. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Human life begins at conception. It can begin nowhere else. That’s science. Pure, unadulterated, undeniable, basic science.

    And your Bible references are weak. The Bible also speaks of God having “knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Ps 139) and that God knew us before forming us in the womb (Jer. 1:5).

    The Church established by God the Son Himself — which was given full authority by Him to propagate moral and doctrinal teaching on earth — has declared abortion to be an intrinsically evil act. No offense, Ed, but I’m going to accept that over your attempts to bend and twist that basic truth with your “progressive” rhetoric.

  • I did not say that pre-28 week fetuses are not human.I said that they are not persons under the law. My position is that of most scientists, may of whom signed a brief to the Supreme Court spelling out this position. The scientists included 12 Nobel laureate biologists, including DNA co-discoverer Francis Crick. As for the “church”, don’t forget that there are many different Christian traditions and many different Christian points of view. Government has n business preferring one tradition over others.

ADVERTISEMENTs