Kerry and Communion: The Real Issue (barf)

BusinessWeek Online ^ | May 19, 2004 | Patricia O'Connell

[Dr. Scarpetta]

If these Kennedy-Kerry "Catholics" are all discredited and no longer able to be called Catholics, the scales will fall from some people's eyes . . . NO ONE, including the media, will be able to then PRETEND that you can be a Catholic and support abortion.

Being Catholic and Democrat just don't go together. How any Christian can be pro-choice is amazing but true. Look at all the pro-choice Protestant denominations.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

They can't afford to NOT have Catholic dissidents speaking out! It actually gives them some "Catholic cover" for non-Catholic, fundamentally immoral positions. 20 posted on 05/19/2004 5:19:24 PM PDT by AMDG&BVMH

Nothing seems to give them a bigger charge then to create the illusion that a Catholic can support something woefully evil like abortion. Even non-Catholics can figure out there is something weird about pro-abortion "Catholics."

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Being Catholic and Democrat just don't go together. How any Christian can be pro-choice is amazing but true. Look at all the pro-choice Protestant denominations. 21 posted on 05/19/2004 5:45:27 PM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta

And it's much wider than just the abortion issue. Secular humanist liberals are Statists. They seek to impose the supremacy of a godless state and all of its governmental machinery and bureaucracy above all other institutions and concerns. This is the road to totalitarianism. How anyone who calls themselves a "Christian" could possibly go along with these policies is absurd.

[maryz]

What we actually have here is a politician (and others) who are trying to change the Church - not the other way around.

Absolutely right! That's why, when someone posted a satirical piece yesterday saying that Kerry wanted to start his own pro-abort Catholic Church, numerous people took it seriously. In this modern (or post-modern?) age, satire becomes more and more impossible -- because it's so hard to stay ahead of what's really happening!

[maryz]

Using aborted embryonic cells for medical research is BIG BUSINESS. The pharmaceutical industry and the gnostic Biotech firms would love to be able to charge through the roof for "therapies" using cells from the corpses of aborted human babies.

One can't help suspecting it's darker than that; the "hard-headed businessman" doesn't invest in something until he thinks it has a good chance of success. All the stem-cell therapies that have succeeded to date are adult or placental stem-cells. Embryonic stem-cell experiments have been worse than failures.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"How any Christian can be pro-choice is amazing "

People have an amazing capability for rationalization and denial. That is why: 1. The media likes to publicize pro-abortion Catholics and Christians, so that the avg. pew sitter could think, hey, there are some really important people who are prochoice so it is ok for me, too. 2. The media tries to make prolifers shut up and go away, and calls them extremists, so the avg. pew sitter could think, hey, I don't want to be like those raving extremists . . .

But the most important reason, I think, is to assuage their own consciences, by shutting out the credible pro-life voice so that they can pretend it does not exist at all . . .

[AMDG&BVMH]

"give them a bigger charge "

again, very perceptive. There does seem to be an element of gloating involved! ;)

[redgolum]

I once got into an interesting conversation with two student, one RCC and ELCA. They both argued for stem cell research, since the abortion happened already why not use the stem cells (dead baby parts) for the "greater good".

One student, who had given a talk about stem cells at her ELCA church, said that her dad had diabetes and that stem cells might cure him. I ended the conversation by asking how many dead babies was her dad's life worth?

In the end, that is what this type of research is. Extermination along the lines of what the Nazi doctor's of WWII got hanged for.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

They both argued for stem cell research, since the abortion happened already why not use the stem cells (dead baby parts) for the "greater good".

Not hard to refute. For one thing, it is unethical and unlawful to take parts of someone's body without their consent. If the donor didn't consent, you are grave-robbing from a murdered baby, a crime scene. Utilitarian arguments FOR killing unborn babies for parts are grotesquely absurd. It's hard to imagine God would allow this to proceed without wrathful consequences. Sad that so many Americans, even those calling themselves Christians, see no problem with this monstrous development in tissue harvesting from the aborted.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

One can't help suspecting it's darker than that

Apparently they have lost any sense of the sacredness or dignity of human life. Sad that so many modern Americans, even some calling themselves Christians, have fallen into this madness and collective moral insanity.

How long can such a civilization survive?

[redgolum]

I whole heartedly agree. While neither of the two was a close friend, they were pretty good acquaintances. I know that neither one had thought their positions through to its logical extreme.

What worries me is that there are so many who think like that. I actually heard someone say we should use aborted babies and old people for medical research so they could contribute to the society. Many of the doctors in pre war Germany used similar logic.