War on Christianity
- Thread starter afghan whigs
- Start date
Read an article today on this topic. It's outstanding.
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/02/11/bad-press/
It's all about group think. If we can get everyone to think alike we can control them easier.
Here is a short article that talks to the original thread title.
https://nypost.com/2019/01/28/cardinal-dolan-why-are-cuomo-democrats-alienating-catholics/
I think its hard right now for the Catholic church to take a stand on anything with the scandal ongoing but they need to continue to take stands on certain issues and clean up their act at the same time.
The most recent NY abortion law championed by Cuomo is a tremendous travesty allowing abortions up to the due date. It's amazing with the technology we have now to do blood transfusions on a fetus, to keep a fetus alive and thriving at very early stages etc. And to have NY celebrate that law and change the colors on the Empire State building that will allow more babies to get killed is just awful IMO. I am all for women's rights and protecting the mother. The fact is we have the medical know how and technology to do both now and aborting a baby at full term is simply disgusting and so many celebrated it. Sad where our country is going. You can deliver a baby at 24 weeks and keep that baby alive and live a full life - I've experienced it in my family with my niece.
"According to the New York State Department of Health, 285,127 induced abortions occurred in the state between 2012 and 2014. The average number of live births for the same three years was 237,499."
I'm all for protecting the rights of people who need protections the most. For example, I say protect the Dreamers and give them full citizenship - it's a no brainer to me. Get em on the books paying taxes too. But making abortions legal up to the due date under the guise of protecting the mother is very, very sad and no one is protecting those babies that are living human beings. The statistics above speak for themselves and now the first number quoted will rise. Sometimes it will be to protect the mother and other times protecting the mother will be an excuse to abort and they will be protected.
And the press and NY politicians believe the Catholic church has it wrong in this case because it came out strongly against this law??? This is one example where the church has it right and it's not even close. And frankly I'm not sure why this is even a religious issue - maybe because the church is against it. It's really a humanity issue IMO whether you are religious or not.
https://nypost.com/2019/01/28/cardinal-dolan-why-are-cuomo-democrats-alienating-catholics/
I think its hard right now for the Catholic church to take a stand on anything with the scandal ongoing but they need to continue to take stands on certain issues and clean up their act at the same time.
The most recent NY abortion law championed by Cuomo is a tremendous travesty allowing abortions up to the due date. It's amazing with the technology we have now to do blood transfusions on a fetus, to keep a fetus alive and thriving at very early stages etc. And to have NY celebrate that law and change the colors on the Empire State building that will allow more babies to get killed is just awful IMO. I am all for women's rights and protecting the mother. The fact is we have the medical know how and technology to do both now and aborting a baby at full term is simply disgusting and so many celebrated it. Sad where our country is going. You can deliver a baby at 24 weeks and keep that baby alive and live a full life - I've experienced it in my family with my niece.
"According to the New York State Department of Health, 285,127 induced abortions occurred in the state between 2012 and 2014. The average number of live births for the same three years was 237,499."
I'm all for protecting the rights of people who need protections the most. For example, I say protect the Dreamers and give them full citizenship - it's a no brainer to me. Get em on the books paying taxes too. But making abortions legal up to the due date under the guise of protecting the mother is very, very sad and no one is protecting those babies that are living human beings. The statistics above speak for themselves and now the first number quoted will rise. Sometimes it will be to protect the mother and other times protecting the mother will be an excuse to abort and they will be protected.
And the press and NY politicians believe the Catholic church has it wrong in this case because it came out strongly against this law??? This is one example where the church has it right and it's not even close. And frankly I'm not sure why this is even a religious issue - maybe because the church is against it. It's really a humanity issue IMO whether you are religious or not.
Last edited:
Agreed. I think the first part is reasonable. Apparently NY did not allow abortions for a fetus that was not viable.
I saw a story about someone who had to leave the state to have an abortion for a fetus that would not survive outside the womb. That is fairly dumb.
Though the second part - The life or health of the mother beyond 24 weeks I absolutely agree with you.
If the fetus is threatening the life of the mother, at that gestational age - it can be delivered and survive. There is little reason to allow an abortion then (outside if it will not survive anyway)
That said, I am not sure a single state's law will impact the number of abortions since people could just travel to another state to get one.
True but it still doesn't make it right. I was upset at how much people celebrated this. Do they not understand the real issue or are they that callous? I find it easy to get behind certain issues like the Dreamers because it makes sense and they are here already and most contributing or have the opportunity to contribute. But group think and progressivism is very confusing to me if they are celebrating a law like this getting passed.
It's a little nuanced. The "my body my choice" women's empowerment angle has always been something that I did not agree with and seemed callous. But the number of abortions has been decreasing every year and the rate per 1,000 live births (at 2015 at least) is at it's lowest point since 1973. Maybe the other side of that empowerment angle is having a choice available but the understanding that it's better to not have to make one?
From the data I've seen recently, the smartphone has more to do with teen pregnancies being dramatically down than any other contributing factor. If you don't leave the house or have a place of your own...One of those positive consequences of technology.
Could be true but you see so little of that discussion out there. Anything that goes out there to educate women about not aborting a baby gets criticized immediately and is labeled. There is a shelter in Passaic County (Several Sources) that has multiple locations that supports poor women who want to keep their children that I support. It allows them to watch each other's kids while they go out and get job training and work etc. until they can get on their feet (usually a one to two year stay). I like local charities like that and appreciate their focus to help women in a difficult situation that make the tough choices. These options are out there and provide some balance to the discussion.
Last edited:
The negative stigma of single woman having children is almost non existent now in most places in the US, so that has made it easier on woman who wanted to keep their babies, but in the past had been concerned about the negativity of having a child out of wedlock.
As someone who was taught to respect my elders, and has put it into practice, you're wrong. Just as the media and social media were wrong in interpreting this kid's "smirk." The kid is standing in a crowd, waiting for a bus. Should he walk to Dupont Circle?
The old man approached him and his group (quite possibly because of their poor choice of headwear) and beat a drum in their faces. The kid stood silently, and in interviews seemed like a thoughtful young kid, who offered to meet with Mr. Phillips. Nathan, on the other hand, is a liar guilty of stolen valor, and we've yet to see the video evidence of his claims of the kids' poor behavior.
Replicate a scene where a group of pro-life Catholic kids from Kentucky are harassed by a Black Israelite racist group, and then a crazy old provocateur joins the fray? OK.
1. Deflection.
2. Agree with you. What would be more interesting is the shouting down of the pro-life women who attended the womens' march.
3. No, they were definitely typical wiseass teenagers. But Phillips is a "grown ass man" who lied about serving "in theater," was AWOL more often than not, and has been a professional instigator. Those kids might never have been out of Kentucky prior to that bus trip. Was there ever evidence of "build that wall," and a tomahawk chant?
Kind of like the conversation here on the shutdown itself. Trump's moronic gambit cost our economy $3B according to the CBO and screwed with the lives of those not receiving paycheck to unknown, varying degrees, but the narrative (and blame) offered by some here was on the financial planning of the workers impacted. Having no knowledge of those individuals, their stories, or what types of collateral damage the shutdown created, a rushed judgement was made and the narrative quickly shifts. If there were only some type of recent situation, where a rush to judgement missed the mark, to tie this all together...
I don't think Trump's gamble is going to be that moronic. I believe Pelosi said she would negotiate with Trump when the government is back open. Has she met with him yet? If she doesn't, which I don't think she will, her numbers are going to continue to drop. Don't get me wrong I think shutting down the government is wrong, but to not even meet during this 3 week period will be a dumb move if Pelosi doesn't do it.
If you want novelty, find a story that doesn't involve a rush to judgement.
(edit)....in fact, I was shocked that there was no discussion on the lockdown here AT ALL. If Pence's wife working for a private school that she had worked for in the past gets the topic rolling, OK -- but one has nothing to do with the other.
Trump's current position is that unless they are offering a wall, it is a waste of time to negotiate and he will declare a national emergency if he doesn't get it.
Not sure what incentive Pelosi has to meet at this point.
It's politics. It's about acting like you are making an attempt. Unless you think politicians only do things on principle.
Hypocrisy and deflection by posters is the common thread in two different situations.
Of course it's politics. I just see no incentive for Pelosi to play the game.
Trump was blamed for the shutdown, will be blamed if it happens again. If he doesn't get the wall, his base will turn on him. If he declares a national emergency - I think most reasonable people will see this as an overreach.
Her option to "play" along would be to offer something too big in return that Trump could reject saying she was being unreasonable. Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.
It is really sad that States like NY are celebrating murdering an unborn up until the due date. It is a barbaric practice that is now legal and very, very sad in states like NY.
If you don't understand what abortions really are watch this starting from the 30 second mark (its about 5 mins long). I'm not in love with the source but this was the real testimony of this doctor in 2013.
If you don't understand what abortions really are watch this starting from the 30 second mark (its about 5 mins long). I'm not in love with the source but this was the real testimony of this doctor in 2013.
Last edited:
A wall is immoral but abortion isn’t? Someone needs to step up and be a voice of reason in the Democratic Party. That person will be rewarded with tons of support from moderate democrats who really don’t have a person to look up to
I think we should frame the arguments a little better because describing the NY law as something that allows abortion through the due date is not something that is really happening.
It's not like a woman can decide to have an abortion just because she wants to at 39 weeks. I'm not an expert on the subject and have only been reading into it more because it has been in the news, but it looks to me like if abortions are occurring in the third trimester are extremely rare (less than 0.2% of all abortions) and it is normally because of an abnormality with the fetus making it not viable.
Your argument can be strong enough for abortions occurring around that 20-24 week window without going towards talking about something that really isn't happening.
Unfortunately, they are not likely to be rewarded at all.
I won't vote for a democrat in the primary who endorses repealing the Hyde amendment for example, but the party has shifted left on the issue and not endorsing that could knock them right out of contention.
Frankly it is all barbaric to me. 20-24 weeks is extremely barbaric IMO but to celebrate the fact that now they can do abortions up to the due date is hard for me to grasp. If a doc or patient wants to make it look good for the wrong reasons this law in NY protects them with late term abortions. And people celebrated??? That is my point. It's barbaric even if it happens once and it will occur more now because its a more viable option - don't kid yourself even if it is a lower percentage.
There is a great saying that goes something like this (I'm sure I don't have it exact)- "you are free to choose but you are not free of the consequences of your choice."
Last edited:
It is barbaric to me as well, but conversely, it would also be barbaric to force a woman to carry an nonviable fetus to term when there is a better option available.
That is a hypothetical based on no evidence. You're having an emotional response to a potential problem and I get that, but is it really an actual problem? Is it occurring at other states which allow late term abortions similar to the law NY created. There would be many whistle blowers on this if that were the case.
I'm not sure what you are basing your opinion on other than a guess.
My guess is that your assumption is wrong because if people were blocked from the procedure in NY, they would have gone to another state.
I disagree. If someone can be a bully against the party it will lead to some positive impact. First you will see the silent majority of moderate democrats have a reason to show up to support that person. It will also show that if you can stand up to all these wackos, you won’t back down to Trump in 2020. I don’t think Trump is the greatest but given the choices I will vote for him. Between abortion, socialism, and the new green deal I think the democrats are taking their party towards the vocal minority. Trump won because he appealed to the silent majority.
I have no problem if a fetus is truly nonviable (dead or near death and not going to make it in the womb). But some will have a different definition of nonviable. The new NY law will protect them now. This is at a time when medical science can save many of these babies but the parent decides to abort. That is my problem with all of this.
This. Both parties have shifted over the last decade, but the extreme and rapid shift to the left by the Democratic Party is a major story that hardly anyone discusses. I grew up (before I could vote) tending to like Democratic politicians as I could relate to them. Reasonable, would compromise, would listen to ideas from people of all different perspectives. Those kinds of Democrats are few and far between these days. Now the party is full of politicians who intentionally divide people along racial and economic lines in order to get votes. The interests of the country are secondary. Identity politics and political correctness are scourges on this country.
I definitely see your point of view. For example, I've seen a lot of talk on twitter criticizing Kamala Harris for being a prosecutor at all, and some are attacking her for threatening parents who weren't sending their kids to school with jail time, even though no parents actually went to jail and chronic truancy declined after she did that. A journalist went after Booker because his first ad didn't include anything about climate change.
I am worried that the primary will become a purity test for the most "progressive" candidate and it does seem to be that so far. I want to see disagreement among the candidates and an honest discussion about differences in policy views. I'm disappointed Howard Schultz went with being an independent rather than getting into the pool of democrats and offering up his vision as an alternative within the democratic party.
That said, what did all of that reasonable discussion and willingness to compromise actually do for the democrats other than let republicans win a lot of elections.
Talk radio and TV shows convinced people on the right that offering up Mitt Romney's healthcare plan was a socialist takeover. I would prefer messages that offer honesty and unity from democrats, but unfortunately I think we have seen that is a losing political strategy. Fear and hate works.
I finally read the law in NY that is al the outrage. First, abortion is limited up to 24 weeks. Apparently, after 20 weeks you can tell if the fetus has Down syndrome.
The only exceptions to that limitations would be 1) a risk to the mother’s health
2) the fetus is non viable.
With those limitations, I really do not see the outrage. The republicans have made this out to be that you can abort a healthy baby up u til the time of just giving birth. This is not true.
Those of you who have seen a woman give birth to a dead child and that they knew was going to be dead and the emotional pain that it caused them would feel differently.
No one wants the killing of babies. But that is not the case and is a wholly disingenuous.
The only exceptions to that limitations would be 1) a risk to the mother’s health
2) the fetus is non viable.
With those limitations, I really do not see the outrage. The republicans have made this out to be that you can abort a healthy baby up u til the time of just giving birth. This is not true.
Those of you who have seen a woman give birth to a dead child and that they knew was going to be dead and the emotional pain that it caused them would feel differently.
No one wants the killing of babies. But that is not the case and is a wholly disingenuous.
I see the validity of the argument that there is potential for someone to choose to abort a viable fetus if the mothers life or health is at risk. If a baby can survive outside the womb at any point, it seems insane to allow an abortion to occur. That said, I still see this as a theoretical argument since we are talking about things potentially happening rather than things that are actually happening.
Similar threads
