Archbishop Says It's Immoral to Vote for Pro-Choice Candidates

All the more reason to defeat liberal, baby-slaughtering panty-wastes such as yourself. I see by your support of Campaign Finance 'Reform' that the 1st Amendment means little to you...nor the rest of the Constitution apparently.

That's alright, good will triumph in spite of you. Your intellectual dishonesty and bent towards blood-thirst of the innocent will catch up with you...sooner or later.

1. In case you are unaware, Congress cannot ban abortion due to Roe v.Wade.

2. If you check the first link you'll note that pro-life groups appear nowhere in the list of top soft money donors and the second link will show that abortion advocacy PACs have vastly outspent pro-life PACs during this election cycle.

Top Soft Money Donors

PAC Contributions

3. If you make up such a substantial majority of the Republican party why can't you elect pro-abortion Republicans outside of left-wing strongholds?

4. If you're hanging your hat on CFR surviving the Supreme Court you had best be working on plan B.

5. Are you going to keep harping on orphanages? I just did a web search and can't find a single link to an active orphange. Are orphans a serious social issue? If so your Democrat buddies are missing a great issue. Right now they're only using the Republicans want to starve old people routine.

>>>Your intellectual dishonesty and bent towards blood-thirst of the innocent will catch up with you...sooner or later.<<<

Only if people of your Constitution-DISREGARDING clan bomb my residence, like they've already done at shelters, doctors' offices & residences, and other health-related facilities. It's analogous to the spoiled brat who can't get his or her way, so a violent tantrum results. You saw what happened to the Sniper though...

Meanwhile, your "legal analysis" of Campaign Finance Reform is about as persuasive as your clan's attempt to persuade the Supreme Court to ban abortion. As for calling me a panty waste, when you can't win through rational debate (as you can't), then I suppose the ad hominem approach is all that's left. You have every right to feel frustrated. You've embraced a cause that most Republicans don't embrace, failed to get abortion banned by the Republican-controlled House, and now your cause is going further down in flames once campaign finance reform kicks in on Wednesday. Should I alert the bomb squad?

In responding to your points, point-by-point:

1) Congress can't amend the Constitution, with help from the states which you claim embrace your cause? Oh?

2) Pro Life groups have their subtle ways of funneling soft money into candidates' coffers. They just got their wrist slapped, though, as the following article suggests:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20021003-36760510.htm

October 3, 2002

House defeats effort to allow tax-free politics in churches

ASSOCIATED PRESS
The House yesterday rejected a bill that would have let religious
leaders talk freely about politics without endangering their organizations'
tax-exempt status.
The bill, which caused splits in the religious community and inside the
Republican Party, was defeated on a 239-178 vote. The bill's main proponent,
Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., North Carolina Republican, told lawmakers that he
would try again next year.
"Today we took a very important step toward bringing freedom of speech
back to our pulpits," Mr. Jones said. "From the first day of the 108th
Congress, I will continue this fight because I believe this battle can be
won and will be won. Congress must return First Amendment rights to our
houses of worship."
The bill would have given religious leaders the right to talk about
politics and make endorsements, effectively lifting the Internal Revenue
Service's ban on political activity at churches, synagogues and mosques.
The issue divided lawmakers during debate Tuesday night.
Rep. Christopher Shays, Connecticut Republican, said the bill would
"erode the separation of church and state, a bedrock value of our nation"
and probably would enable big donors to funnel money through churches.
Rep. John Lewis, Georgia Democrat, said, "If this legislation is
allowed to pass or stand, you could have a minister coming into a pulpit and
saying, 'Vote for so and so because God told me.'"
The bill was supported by the Christian Coalition, the Family Research
Council and the Association of Christian Schools International, but opposed
by other religious organizations.
"Most Americans do not want their churches turned into smoke-filled
rooms where political deals are cut and partisan politics replaces worship,"
said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the
Separation of Church and State. "When people put their money in the
collection plate, they don't expect it to be used for candidates' campaign
literature and attack ads."
The prohibition on political activity was imposed in 1954 by Congress
on all 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations under an amendment offered by Sen.
Lyndon B. Johnson. Before that, religious leaders were involved freely in
political debate.
Religious groups and the government have locked horns over the years
when it comes to politics and the Constitution's guarantees of both free
speech and freedom of religion. After a decade-long battle, for example, the
IRS concluded in 1999 that the Christian Coalition should not be tax-exempt
because of its distribution of voter guides in churches.

3) How do you define Left-Wing strongholds? Any place that's not the deep South? Are you aware of the average SAT scores in such Southern states? Judging from how their SAT scores are behind those of the rest of the nation, some say it's as if the Bible is the only book that most Southern folks really read, if that.

4) Campaign finance reform was >supposedly< doomed at the Supreme Court level decades ago too, wasn't it?

5) your search for "orphanages" didn't turn out much perhaps because euphemistic terms are used now, to try and shed the Dickens connotations amidst the quest for other people's tax dollars.

Having said that, I admire the style of your latest posting. Unlike the ApeMan, you haven't called me a panty waste, or a Hitler or anything like that. And you've addressed my factual assertions with facts as well. I've learned from our exchange today, for which I thank you.
Incidentally, I think abortion is an abhorrent solution to an abhorrent problem, and I wish it wasn't necessary, ever. I'm just not in favor of putting women in prison for it, at least not prior to the partial birth stage (wherever that technically is..which remains vague). I have lived in a religious nation where abortion's illegal (albeit prevalent). I don't think you want such consequences for our own country. I sincerely don't think you do. And I KNOW folks who were adopted and wish they'd never been born. Lots of childhood suicides are disguised by officials as having been mere accidents, but the ones I'm talking about made it to adulthood. Their suffering endures. If fetuses really have souls, don't they go to Heaven (I ask respectfully & sincerely)?

Should I alert the bomb squad?

Only if you aren't skilled in strapping the bombs on...

I'm sure there's a womb out there somewhere nourishing and protecting an innocent baby that you need to raid, so you'd better get with it.

Just imagine how large the democrat 'rally on a corpse' party would be if it didn't advocate the vile practice of infanticide, the most prejudiced, racially-motivated slaughter of humanity since Hitler went after Jewish folk.

As far as trying to persuade a dyed-in-the-womb supporter of infanticide, it's a waste of time.

A better use of time is working to change the hearts and minds of people that still retain a conscience.

As for the Republican Party, maybe it won't survive as a party supporting innocent life. Right now, it is and the day WILL COME when the rights of all people are honored and every innocent life is sacred.

If not, it's all moot anway, because America will have relegated itself to the ash-heap of other nations that put decadence ahead morality.

The only good that comes from dialoguing on a thread like this with demons like you is that, over time, you make the case against yourself and the ideas you errantly support.

So, with that said, I have battles to win as I fight for the good guys in the wars of principle..and I'm sure there's a pregnant momma out there somewhere who needs an escort to an infanicide clinic, so, again, thanks for playing!

You wrote;

"You may as well find people other than unwillingly pregnant women to bully around."

Maybe women better become more interested and educated in scientific fact that all life begins at conception and that that Homo Sapiens Females are created with a mechanism to bear children.

The question I have to ask you is why would any woman put herself in the position to be "unwillingly pregnant?"

And as a woman, don't give me the c____ about rape. I have met children born of rape and they deserve every chance to live as well.

"Back in my day" -- women had enough sense to avoid as much as possible any person or occasion that would endanger them.

Not today -- "Looking for Mr. Goodbar" is today's motto.

And you think I am a bully? I say: Pick on someone your own size.

The ultimate bullying and violence is done 1.5 million times a year -- ending the beginning lives of tiny little American children at their own mothers' request [unless it is forced] and at the hands of a perverted [sometimes]medical professional hired to be a paid "Hit man."

>>>The ultimate bullying and violence is done 1.5 million times a year -- ending the beginning lives of tiny little American children at their own mothers' request [unless it is forced] and at the hands of a perverted [sometimes]medical professional hired to be a paid "Hit man."<<<

And in countries where abortion's illegal, you should see the thugs that women are forced to turn to.

>>>The question I have to ask you is why would any woman put herself in the position to be "unwillingly pregnant?"<<<

Just because a woman has sex doesn't mean she wants to become pregnant.
Do you refrain 100% of the time from consuming previously living entities, or do you succumb to culinary cravings?

I vote Catholic.

Vote Pro-Life!

The South does not a nation make. We lost the popular vote in 2000 and the economy's much worse now.

Being from Georgia, you'll allow me to savor the irony of this statement, won't you? Shall I assume you reside somewhere "up North?"

Well and truly said, Lady! Every individual human life, including the scam hypocrite using the 'hypocrisy' twist to assault truth and life, began at conception. That is a scientific fact that even the disrupter is unable to refute. At some point after conception, the beginning of a new individual life, a pregnancy occurs and life support for an already existing, growing individual human begins. Abortion of ANY kind kills an individual human being, already alive but terminated. THAT is serial killing as practiced in this nation. THAT is what we must continue to strive against.

Agitprops like 'end the hypocrisy' are hypocrites from the start, coming to FR as closet serial killer champions, masquerading as reasonable debaters. There is nothing, repeat NOTHING, reasonable about murdering an alive, growing, able to learn, individual human being sequestered in a woman's womb. To try and make something reasonable out of such murderous assault is absurd on the face of it. Now, should this nation be doing a whole lot more to support and aid any woman with a child to whom she is giving life support? Absolutely, and to move in that direction cannot be accomplished by supporting and championing the murder of innocent individual human beings. Thus the disrupter in question is in fact a gross hypocrite.

If she doesn't want a baby, then she shouldn't be having sex. It is a fairly simple concept. Or perhaps you are implying that we can't control our animal instincts. I am offended.

after campaign finance reform kicks in

You sure seem to hang a lot on that attempt to repeal the First Amendment through legislative fiat called by the misleading name "Campaign Finance Reform".

If the Supreme Court has an ounce of testosterone left, it's DOA.

On the other hand, I'm rather enjoying your proof, here, of something that I've said for a long time. Freedom of speech and the "freedom" to abort cannot coexist. The abortionists will stop at nothing to silence their opponents ... including the rape of the American republic and the murder of the liberties of the American people.

>>>Or perhaps you are implying that we can't control our animal instincts. I am offended.<<<

What, more intolerance? Who would have ever expected such a thing from the far right? Seriously though, do you eat the same thing every day? No, because you seek pleasure in life. Do you forego consuming formerly living entities for your culinary pleasure? Again no, although in this case there's a bit of an inconsistency with the pro-life activism. Thus, you rationalize by suggesting that only humans have a soul, or a right to live free from massacres. Now I, too, am offended. Turnabout's fair play, isn't it?

>>>If the Supreme Court has an ounce of testosterone left, it's DOA.<<<

I agree, assuming you're talking about attempts to thwart the long overdue CFR which countries like our neighboring #2 trading partner of Mexico implemented over half a decade BEFORE us, shamefully enough.

There is something wrong with this picture. If your stats are right, the dims have been successful in convincing a majority of people that killing pre-born children is moral and Constitutional.

I hope you are not suggesting that because there is a majority, that makes it right. There is no greater canard than the argument, which logically amounts to nonsense on stilts. Right and wrong are not established by a majority. Don't confuse politics with moral absolutes.

There is no Constitutional, moral, or scientific bases to support killing preborn children. No number of supporters can change that.

>>>There is no Constitutional, moral, or scientific bases to support killing preborn children. No number of supporters can change that.<<<

And yet you, yourself, condone and even sponsor the killing of actually born (and definitely feeling) living creatures that aren't of our species, merely for your own culinary pleasures.

Very good! hehe, I like the turnaround you employed.

Dare I say it again?... Every individual human life, including the scam hypocrite using the 'hypocrisy' twist to assault truth and life, began at conception. That is a scientific fact that even the disrupter is unable to refute. At some point after conception, the beginning of a new individual life, a pregnancy occurs and life support for an already existing, growing individual human begins. Abortion of ANY kind kills an individual human being, already alive but terminated. THAT is serial killing as practiced in this nation. THAT is what we must continue to strive against.

Agitprops like 'end the hypocrisy' are hypocrites from the start, coming to FR as closet serial killer champions, masquerading as reasonable debaters. There is nothing, repeat NOTHING, reasonable about murdering an alive, growing, able to learn, individual human being sequestered in a woman's womb. To try and make something reasonable out of such murderous assault is absurd on the face of it. Now, should this nation be doing a whole lot more to support and aid any woman with a child to whom she is giving life support? Absolutely, and to move in that direction cannot be accomplished by supporting and championing the murder of innocent individual human beings. Thus the disrupter in question is in fact a gross hypocrite.

That was circular reasoning, in abundance.

Yawn...

Your entire argument is so weak it is absurd. Do you understand the concept of the food chain? Apparently not. Explain to me how YOU are not the hypocrite by stating that animals have more of a right to life than the innocent unborn human beings? When are you going to begin defending your fellow man? By your rationalization we should just allow the animals to be at the top of the ladder. They already understand how nature works. They won't care whether we want to be eaten or not, AND they don't abort their babies.

I would also appreciate it if you would explain to me why you and I are allowed to seek pleasures in life, but the unborn do not have that option.

If animals don't abort their young, I'm surprised YOU don't think they're higher than we are. I'm simply asking why you think it's ok to kill them for your own culinary pleasures.
And as for fetuses, and eggs and sperm, and the nutrients that go into creating them...if any of them truly have legitimate life then they presumably have souls, right? What's keeping them from going straight to Heaven, then? YOU. Perhaps you want them born so they can contribute money to the church, first? Pass the collection plates around now, please, so Jim and Tammy Fae can keep the air conditioning going for their dogs. At least THEY respected living animals though. But unlike most right-to-lifers, they had all the money they wanted and could afford to spend time and energy caring about living creatures, instead of fundraising and indulgence-purchasing while inflaming passions with pictures of jelly that they claimed was a wasted life. Well the grape seeds killed to make actual jelly is just as potentially viable as a fetus...it's already fertilized in fact, and requires less sacrifice to sprout into a beautiful bush. But I don't see you protesting in front of Welch's. Ah, I see, there's not nearly as much money to make doing that, or guilt to deflect while playing "holier than thou" to others. Oh well.