[library user]

ping.

[Salvation]

**How can Catholics for Obama rationalize their support for the pro-choice candidate?**

They can't!

1:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2271  (618 bytes )  preview document matches 1 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, URL: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2271.htm

97%

2:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2272  (580 bytes )  preview document matches 2 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A URL: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2272.htm

96%

3:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2322  (290 bytes )  preview document matches 2 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), URL: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2322.htm

96%

4:	CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2274  (554 bytes )  preview document matches gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent URL: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2274.htm

[Salvation]

[muawiyah]

Seems to me there are people who can rationalize anything.

[rottndog]

How can Catholics for Obama rationalize their support for the pro-choice candidate?

Easy....They are CINOs.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Simple.

They're CINOs.

Catholics in Name Only.

[P8riot]

How can Catholics for Obama rationalize their support for the pro-choice candidate?

Because they are just nominal Catholics, and their religion really doesn't mean anything to them anyway.

[T.L.Sink]

A good question but I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to just Obama. A whole array of Catholic politicians who support abortion have been hugely popular among their constituents - Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, etc. What to me is most egregious is those who have supported “late term” abortions which are clearly nothing other than infanticide. The real point is not just how a Catholic but any CHRISTIAN can justify this. I think the probable answer is that liberalism, not Christianity, is their ultimate belief system.

[JasonC]

Simple - it is better to murder innocents by the millions than admit any conservative has ever been right about anything. If you think about it, that maxim has been the defining character of the entire left for oh, about 75 years. And counting.

[NoLibZone]

“I knew Carter was wrong in his views about Roe and soft toward permissive abortion. But even as a priest, I justified working for him because…he was right on so many more of the “Catholic” issues than his opponent seemed to be. The moral calculus looked easy.”

And as a direct result of Catholic Support for Dems, abortion continues.

Carter's gone, abortions not.

[cruise_missile]

[tips up]

Like the Jewish vote being 90+% in favor of Dems, many of whom are not friends of Israel.

Or the feminist vote for a rapist and serial sexual harasser.

Liberalism seems to trump all.

[motoman]

Last September, I effortlessly registered within the Obama campaign website and as a “member” and joined a blog titled “American Catholics for Barack Obama”

By joining, you obtain access to all of the email addresses of the other Obama supporters. Yes, you guessed right - I sent all of them a “groupwide” letter.

After they threatened me and kicked me off their email distribution, I rejoined all of the remaining Catholic blogs for Obama under a different alias and simply posted the same message directly on these blogs. Last I checked, it was still there posted as a blog entry. Below is the original email message that was sent to the members of the 1st blog I joined before getting booted:

To the American Catholics for Barack Obama,

As a devout Catholic Christian, I could not help but
to be immediately drawn to this organization after
stumbling onto this particular group. My immediate
concern for this group of Catholic Christians involves
the ongoing struggle with the holocaust of abortion.

My question to all members of this organization is
simply, how, in good conscience, could any person who
claims to be a Christian, especially of the Catholic
faith, support a candidate running for president of
the United States that is so stridently pro-abortion?

For all who are official members of this organization,
I would like to pose a series of questions:

1. Do you understand the unquestionable, scriptural
evidence against the crime of abortion?

2. Do you study the Word of God?

3. What is the order of your moral priorities? Do you
place God’s Word above that of your political
preferences?

4. Do you accept the Catholic Church’s teaching
regarding abortion and the complete rejection of the
taking of an innocent, human life, formed by God, in
the womb, and known by God before being conceived?

5. Do you believe that a Catholic can be in good
standing in the Church, while holding a
pro-choice/pro-abortion stance?

6. Have you ever viewed the photographic realities of
abortion?

7. Despite what the Church has taught, based strictly
on scripture, do you personally feel that a fetus is
not a human being with a person hood?

8. Are you aware of the fact that in the United States
alone, approximately 3,500 to 4,000 babies are killed
through the act of abortion every day?

9. Are you aware of the fact that the Catholic Church
welcomes anyone who has been involved in a decision to
abort a child with open arms and can offer assistance
for spiritual and emotional healing?

10. Are you aware that no other human tragedy
throughout the history of mankind can compare to the
loss of life through abortion, just in the 20th
century?

If you are truly a devout and committed Catholic
Christian, I simply cannot fathom the possibility of
proactively supporting any candidate, regardless of
party affiliation, who so stridently supports
abortion. Especially a candidate who claims to be a
believer and follower of Jesus Christ.

It is my prayer that each and every one of you, as
Catholic Christians, reconsider your support for any
candidate whose personal belief along with his
particular Church supports the worst offense to
innocent and defenseless human life.

It is my prayer for each and everyone in this
organization to give your Catholic Church an
opportunity to present the facts regarding this
gravest of all matters in our world today. Please open
your hearts and minds to the need for not separating
your personal moral values from that of your political
life. These two aspects of our lives are inseparable.
And we must also all live with the reality that no
political choice will ever be the perfect one.

If the most defenseless and innocent of us is denied
the most basic civil right to life, then all of our
rights and liberties are in serious jeopardy.

For more insight into the issue of abortion from a
Catholic perspective, the following link would be very
helpful:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/

Prayerfully,

A Concerned Roman Catholic Christian

Needless to say, these hypocrites immediately responded like a swarm of flies from hell.

I have archived all of the exchanges. The replies from these people were, to say the least, completely insane. None of them could ever be considered devout or practicing Catholics. They simply hijacked the name of the Catholic Church in an attempt to decieve weak Christians for their votes - yes, another Captain Obvious conclusion here.

[cruise_missile]

Whoops. Wrong one.

[fish hawk]

Because the Bible, The Word of God, is a transitional thing like our Constitution. Yes, God was against murder at one time but things have changed. (heavy SARCASM)

[cpforlife.org]

How can Catholics for Obama rationalize their support for the pro-choice candidate?

ANSWER: Only by lying and completely distorting the truth. Only by ignoring the scientific fact that life and personhood begins at conception.

What does modern science conclude about when human life begins? (Excerpts)

By Dr. John Ankerberg and John Weldon

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0805W3.htm The complete article is available in print friendly PDF format at: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP3W0805.pdf

The scientific authorities on when life begins are biologists. But these are often the last people consulted in seeking an answer to the question. What modern science has concluded is crystal clear: Human life begins at conception. This is a matter of scientific fact, not philosophy, speculation, opinion, conjecture, or theory. Today, the evidence that human life begins at conception is a fact so well documented that no intellectually honest and informed scientist or physician can deny it.

In 1973, the Supreme Court concluded in its Roe v. Wade decision that it did not have to decide the “difficult question” of when life begins. Why? In essence, they said, “It is impossible to say when human life begins.” The Court misled the public then, and others continue to mislead the public today.

Anyone familiar with recent Supreme Court history knows that two years before Roe V. Wade, in October 1971, a group of 220 distinguished physicians, scientists, and professors submitted an amicus curiae brief (advice to a court on some legal matter) to the Supreme Court. They showed the Court how modern science had already established that human life is a continuum and that the unborn child from the moment of conception on is a person and must be considered a person, like its mother. The brief set as its task “to show how clearly and conclusively modern science—embryology, fetology, genetics, perinatology, all of biology—establishes the humanity of the unborn child.” For example,

In its seventh week, [the pre-born child] bears the familiar external features and all the internal organs of the adult.... The brain in configuration is already like the adult brain and sends out impulses that coordinate the function of other organs…. The heart beats sturdily. The stomach produces digestive juices. The liver manufactures blood cells and the kidneys begin to function by extracting uric acid from the child’s blood.... The muscles of the arms and body can already be set in motion. After the eighth week… everything is already present that will be found in the full term baby.

This brief proved beyond any doubt scientifically that human life begins at conception and that “the unborn is a person within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

Thus, even though the Supreme Court had been properly informed as to the scientific evidence, they still chose to argue that the evidence was insufficient to show the pre-born child was fully human. In essence, their decision merely reflected social engineering and opinion, not scientific fact. Even during the growing abortion debate in 1970, the editors of the scientific journal California Medicine noted the “curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.”

In 1981, the United States Congress conducted hearings to answer the question, “When does human life begin?” A group of internationally known scientists appeared before a Senate judiciary subcommittee.

The U.S. Congress was told by Harvard University Medical School’s Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, “In biology and in medicine, it is an accepted fact that the life of any individual organism reproducing by sexual reproduction begins at conception....”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, Jr., of the University of Colorado Medical School, testified that “the beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political or economic goals.”

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School noted: “The standard medical texts have long taught that human life begins at conception.”

He added: “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty... is not a human being. This is human life at every stage albeit incomplete until late adolescence.”

Dr. McCarthy De Mere, who is a practicing physician as well as a law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: “The exact moment of the beginning [of] personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.”

World-famous geneticist Dr. Jerome Lejeune, professor of fundamental genetics at the University of Descarte, Paris, France, declared, “each individual has a very unique beginning, the moment of its conception.”

Dr. Lejeune also emphasized: “The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”

The chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, Professor Hymie Gordon, testified, “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

He further emphasized: “now we can say, unequivocally, that the question of when life begins… is an established scientific fact…. It is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.”

This Senate report concluded:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

In 1981, only a single scientist disagreed with the majority’s conclusion, and he did so on philosophical rather than scientific grounds. In fact, abortion advocates, although invited to do so, failed to produce even one expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any other point than conception.

Again, let us stress that this is not a matter of religion, it is solely a matter of science. Scientists of every religious view and no religious view—agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, atheist, Christian, Hindu, etc.—all agree that life begins at conception. This explains why, for example, the International Code of Medical Ethics asserts: “A doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving human life from the time of conception until death.”

This is also why the Declaration of Geneva holds physicians to the following: “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.” These statements can be found in the World Medical Association Bulletin for April 1949 (vol.1, p. 22) and January 1950 (vol. 2, p. 5). In 1970, the World Medical Association again reaffirmed the Declaration of Geneva.
What difference does it make that human life begins at conception? The difference is this: If human life begins at conception, then abortion is the killing of a human life.

To deny this fact is scientifically impossible.

[fish hawk]

 I hope you don't get tired of seeing this as this 
is the fourth "Abortion" thread that I have posted it on.

PRAYER FOR THE UNBORN

Lord I pray this Sunday morn
for those souls that are not yet born
still a fetus in the womb
souls of love that You would groom

Keep them from man's every whim
whose abortion rates are dismal grim
destroying those that you create
playing God with children's fate

They name it "choice" to soothe their guilt
dissolving that which you have built
to live and love in You abide
is ended in infanticide

Of all the sins that man has wrought
this is the worst one of the lot
Lord, of this evil we repent
for killing of the innocent

Woe to those on judgment day
who stand before You when You say,
"I judge you not, but to these I give,
these souls that you denied to live

Will judge you now at heaven's gate
and hold the power of your fate
so hope their mercy will abound
for in you was not mercy found." 

            poem by Fish Hawk

[eleni121]

Any Catholic Or Orthodox or Protestant Christian who supports the deadly positions of Obama and his ilk is a Christian in name only-——a CINO

[Gay State Conservative]

No real Catholic is voting for Osama.Yes,the "Kennedy Catholics" will but that's about it.Oh,there's one other kind.The ones like my aunt.

My aunt,who passed last winter at the age of 95 was as Catholic as they get.Mass *every* day (until a few years before her death when she became very frail)...rosaries always on hand,etc.But she voted RAT 100%.When I told her what today's RAT Party is all about (in great detail) I suggested to her that voting RAT was a foolish thing to do."Oh,but Gay State Conservative",she replied,"the RATS are the ones who give me Social Security".

At that point I knew it was hopeless.

[Impy]

They don’t need to, they are pro-choice.