Hillary, Democrats and their hatred of Catholics

[Votto]

Wikileaks first dumped emails showing Clintons staffers discussing the "backwards" Catholic Church. This should come as no surprise of course. In another email Podesta describes setting up fake Catholic groups to try and change the religious beliefs of Catholics. The Democrat party and Christian beliefs are directly opposing of course so you can see the logic and necessity.
But the important part, faith wise, is their complaint that the Bishops refused to bend. Despite fooling "98%" of Catholics not one Bishop would bow and backtrack on church teachings to help the Democrats in their game of fooling people. And Hillarys staffers were PISSED about it.
But here is the interesting thing to me. Going all the way back to St Ignatius he said

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.

This is from the late 1st early 2nd centuries of Christianity. Over and over you see early Christian saints saying the same thing...stick with your Bishops. Have the Democrats found the truth of this matter inadvertently? That no matter how many laymen and even priests they may fool the Bishops continue teaching Christianity?

The Podesta email with complaints about the Bishops can be found here. The email calling Catholics backwards, retrograde and unable to understand democracy is found here.

A statement from Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops which condemns the Democrats efforts to "interfere in the internal life of the church" can be found here.

There is an easy explanation for that.... they see it as a rival religion.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to argue against it. They are modern American liberals.

Please feel free to post as your own, in parts or in entirety. Socialism is based on deceit and has always defied examination. They don't want their beliefs exposed.

So do you want to be controlled by the government or the elitist?

No. You do.

I do what. I want to be controlled by the government, who has lots of people in it, not the elitist. I believe in paying taxes, equality in healthcare, education and well everything, if that makes me a Democrat so be it. I also believe in global warming and the ACA, I want a stronger EPA that is allowed to enforce rules, and I want a real strong IRS , and I guess I am as far as saying our natural resources in the US should be owned by all , not a few rich billionaires.

Yeah, you do want to be controlled by the government. The fact that you don't see that these so-called elitist control both sides of the aisle is a dead give away. You just don't know that you want to be controlled.

They not only demand abortion be legal, they demand you pay for it.

Collectivism only works if everyone is forced to submit.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is an easy explanation for that.... they see it as a rival religion.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to argue against it. They are modern American liberals.

Please feel free to post as your own, in parts or in entirety. Socialism is based on deceit and has always defied examination. They don't want their beliefs exposed.

So do you want to be controlled by the government or the elitist?

No. You do.

I do what. I want to be controlled by the government, who has lots of people in it, not the elitist. I believe in paying taxes, equality in healthcare, education and well everything, if that makes me a Democrat so be it. I also believe in global warming and the ACA, I want a stronger EPA that is allowed to enforce rules, and I want a real strong IRS , and I guess I am as far as saying our natural resources in the US should be owned by all , not a few rich billionaires.

Dear Penelope Do people who believe in being under the Catholic church policies
have a right to impose their beliefs on everyone else in the country? Or give them a choice?
Do people in the Democratic party and believe in that approach to govt
have a right to impose those beliefs on everyone else in the country? Or give them a choice?

If you believe in supporting ACA why isn't that a free choice?
If we tell Catholics to go fund and practice right to life in church or in private groups through donations, not through govt, why aren't Democrats told to go fund and practice right to health care in party organizations by choice, not through govt.

Do you get the point?
Why treat political beliefs you agree with differently from those you disagree with.
Isn't that discrimination by creed?

I'm a prochoice Democrat, but I don't believe in excluding the right to life which is an equal belief to my own.
I believe in defending them equally and ending abortion by prevention, so both sides get their way without compromise.

Why not allow right to health care the same freedom of choice as right to life?
Why establish one through govt, under penalty of law for not complying, but not allow right to life to be mandated for all?

Shouldn't we treat right to health care as a free choice to believe in the same as right to life for unborn?

Why the discrimination, pushing one belief through govt despite the beliefs of others,
but when this is done to our beliefs, we contest and demand it to be removed from govt?

Why?

You believe in the right to life but are a prochoice democrat?

How so?

Dear Votto
1. If you look at how all prolifers work by education, helping mothers and prevention, all that can be done by prochoice, without making it illegal by banning abortion. So I'm saying to support prolife efforts by free choice, to prevent abortion 100%, and then we can have both prolife and prochoice.

2. This is like how people can be against the death penalty but still keep it a legal choice on the books. You can still prevent capital punishment 100% by preventing capital murder WITHOUT banning executions as a choice.

Most capital murders I have seen can be prevented because they are premeditated (and because most criminal illness can be diagnosed in advance before someone actually kills, so a process of medical diagnosis can be developed to prevent dangerous illnesses from going unchecked that risk damage or death, as with cancer or AIDS or other diseases).

The killings that can't be helped tend to be accidental or unforeseen, or with some other
elements that make it not a capital offense.
Capital punishment can still be avoided without banning it completely as a choice.

(I think it should be kept as a choice to use as leverage, and more people would plead and work with authorities if full cooperation was necessary for due process in order to qualify for life in prison. So it would help to prevent the death penalty if it were kept as a choice to require people to confess to all their crimes to avoid that path.)

So you can be 100% against the death penalty (and 100% murder causing the death penalty) and still be FOR the choice of keeping it legal on the books.
You can be FOR keeping it legal but totally be AGAINST it ever being used,
and use the legal choice to actually help PREVENT it from being used.

Same with abortion, it can be prevented 100% without banning it.

In fact, it helps not to ban it because threatening to do that divides groups and wastes money campaigning in conflict
when those resources and advertising dollars could go into promoting solutions to prevent abortion in the first place.

I find cooperation between prolife and prochoice groups is the key to preventing abuse that
leads to abortion. So why not take the path of both prolife and prochoice and work toward that common goal.
All the money should go toward stopping rape, incest, sexual abuse, relationship abuse, and anything else
that contributes to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

See also www.nurturingnetwork.org and www.choices4life.org

3. PS Votto I also agree funding should be separated and nobody should be forced
to pay for either abortions or death penalty if that's against their beliefs.

If we separate health care tracks by party, I believe this will start us on the right track to solving all these problems.

The prochoice track can pay for abortions but not the death penalty, and reform prisons to pay for health care for all instead of wasting billions making people mentally sicker.

The prolife track won't have abortion, recreational drugs, or mandates but charity and spiritual healing to reduce costs of crime abuse and addictions, so much that people can afford to cover with voluntary donations, running hospital care through churches instead of govt.

 

[guno]

Look at Bill's flippant attitude about religion
Sez he is a southern baptist and believes in death bed repentance so everything will be all right.
Hillary has radical views on abortion.
These 2 are tortured by their beliefs and their balm of gilead is to get the church to change.

mormons aren't considered christian by prots or cathy lickers

 

[Votto]

So do you want to be controlled by the government or the elitist?

No. You do.

I do what. I want to be controlled by the government, who has lots of people in it, not the elitist. I believe in paying taxes, equality in healthcare, education and well everything, if that makes me a Democrat so be it. I also believe in global warming and the ACA, I want a stronger EPA that is allowed to enforce rules, and I want a real strong IRS , and I guess I am as far as saying our natural resources in the US should be owned by all , not a few rich billionaires.

Dear Penelope Do people who believe in being under the Catholic church policies
have a right to impose their beliefs on everyone else in the country? Or give them a choice?
Do people in the Democratic party and believe in that approach to govt
have a right to impose those beliefs on everyone else in the country? Or give them a choice?

If you believe in supporting ACA why isn't that a free choice?
If we tell Catholics to go fund and practice right to life in church or in private groups through donations, not through govt,
why aren't Democrats told to go fund and practice right to health care in party organizations by choice, not through govt.

Do you get the point?
Why treat political beliefs you agree with differently from those you disagree with.
Isn't that discrimination by creed?

I'm a prochoice Democrat, but I don't believe in excluding the right to life which is an equal belief to my own.
I believe in defending them equally and ending abortion by prevention, so both sides get their way without compromise.

Why not allow right to health care the same freedom of choice as right to life?
Why establish one through govt, under penalty of law for not complying, but not allow right to life to be mandated for all?

Shouldn't we treat right to health care as a free choice to believe in the same as right to life for unborn?

Why the discrimination, pushing one belief through govt despite the beliefs of others,
but when this is done to our beliefs, we contest and demand it to be removed from govt?

Why?

You believe in the right to life but are a prochoice democrat?

How so?

Dear Votto
1. If you look at how all prolifers work by education, helping mothers and prevention, all that can be done by prochoice, without making it illegal by banning abortion. So I'm saying to support prolife efforts by free choice, to prevent abortion 100%, and then we can have both prolife and prochoice.

2. This is like how people can be against the death penalty but still keep it a legal choice on the books.
You can still prevent capital punishment 100% by preventing murder.
Most capital murders I have seen can be prevented because they are premeditated.
The killings that can't be helped tend to be accidental or unforeseen, or with some other
elements that make it not a capital offense.
Capital punishment can still be avoided without banning it completely as a choice.
I think it should be kept as a choice to use as leverage, and more people would plead and work with authorities
if full cooperation was necessary for due process in order to qualify for life in prison. So it would help to prevent
the death penalty if it were kept as a choice to require people to confess to all their crimes to avoid that path.

As with abortion, it can be prevented 100% without banning it.
In fact, it helps not to ban it because threatening to do that divides groups and wastes money campaigning in conflict
when those resources and advertising dollars could go into promoting solutions to prevent abortion in the first place.

I find cooperation between prolife and prochoice groups is the key to preventing abuse that
leads to abortion. So why not take the path of both prolife and prochoice and work toward that common goal.
All the money should go toward stopping rape, incest, sexual abuse, relationship abuse, and anything else
that contributes to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

See also www.nurturingnetwork.org and www.choices4life.org

Bull

You have people out there like Dr. Gosnell running around. In the 1970's he was investigated and shown to have violated many health regulations. But instead of doing anything about it, they simply chose not to investigate him anymore because abortion is such a hot political football that any restrictions on it will be faced with fierce opposition. He then continued to abuse both women and fully term infants and killing many along the way before being brought to justice some 30 to 40 years later.

 

[emilynghiem]

Look at Bill's flippant attitude about religion
Sez he is a southern baptist and believes in death bed repentance so everything will be all right.
Hillary has radical views on abortion.
These 2 are tortured by their beliefs and their balm of gilead is to get the church to change.

mormons aren't considered christian by prots or cathy lickers

Dear guno
There are two folds of the same flock according to Jesus in the Bible.
The secular gentiles under natural laws which includes you as a nontheist and me as a Constitutionalist and Buddhist
The believers under scriptural laws which includes Christians Muslims and Jews who believe and receive God truth reconciled in Christ, and I am part of this group too, as I believe in Christ Jesus both as Restorative Justice under the natural law branch and as Salvation through spiritual healing and grace under the scriptural law and authority.

The Mormons the JW and some Muslims are NOT Christian but are part of the secular gentiles under natural laws. This branch is STILL governed by Jesus but under the concept of JUSTICE. So if you and I both believe in Equal Justice Under Law as the law of the land, that is the secular name of Jesus, as universal justice that is so perfect it is fair to and includes all people who agree when they see this perfect Justice. We aren't there yet, but we all want to see Justice if we can.

So anyone who receives and believes in Equal Justice and seeks truth and justice
may be under the Natural law branch as a secular gentile and not a believer under the Christian/Jewish/Muslim
authority and lineage through the Bible and Abraham etc.

That doesn't mean we aren't "neighbors in Christ"
by Conscience there is one truth one universal spirit of Justice that unites all humanity as one in Peace.
this is the meaning of the Holy Trinity in secular terms
Love of Truth
Love of Justice
Love of Peace for Humanity

So guno as a fellow human being, I assume we all want truth justice and peace for all humanity.
We don't have faith in the same ways of getting there, we fight our own battles,
but we don't want suffering and injustice
we want to see justice for all, we want to know the truth and don't want to be lied to or forced
to compromise where it's oppressive and wrong.

I don't know any human being who didn't want their rights to free will and justice to be respected and protected.

So we are all part of one branch or another. We speak different languages for the laws, from Catholic to Muslim, Atheist to social scientist, Constitutionalist or Christian or Wicca.

Yet in Christ or by conscience we are one tree of humanity.
Do we agree to receive the gift of forgiving one another so we can
realize perfect harmony among all the branches of the family tree?

The more we forgive the more understanding we receive.
So that's why Christians teach forgiveness as a gift
(and so does my Atheist friend who teaches this in prison outreach).

The message in Christianity is CHARITY which is universal.
Forgiveness is the greatest act of charity at all.
And that's what determines how Christian we are
is how charitable we are to one another.

The Muslim the Jew the Atheist, we can all be charitable
as Christian neighbors, when we all agree to receive one another and unite in this spirit.
That doesn't mean we drop who we are as members of different groups.

That's what it means when the Bible says in Christ
all will be made one, the Jews and Gentiles the bond and free,
and all will be made perfect or "whole" and all will be made new.

When we renew our faith that's the Christian spirit,
whether we are called as Jew or Gentile.

 

[ding]

Look at Bill's flippant attitude about religion
Sez he is a southern baptist and believes in death bed repentance so everything will be all right.
Hillary has radical views on abortion.
These 2 are tortured by their beliefs and their balm of gilead is to get the church to change.

mormons aren't considered christian by prots or cathy lickers

Well, I'm a "cathy licker" and I consider Mormons to be Christians. Are you an atheist per chance? If so, why would you care?

 

[emilynghiem]

No. You do.

I do what. I want to be controlled by the government, who has lots of people in it, not the elitist. I believe in paying taxes, equality in healthcare, education and well everything, if that makes me a Democrat so be it. I also believe in global warming and the ACA, I want a stronger EPA that is allowed to enforce rules, and I want a real strong IRS , and I guess I am as far as saying our natural resources in the US should be owned by all , not a few rich billionaires.

Dear Penelope Do people who believe in being under the Catholic church policies
have a right to impose their beliefs on everyone else in the country? Or give them a choice?
Do people in the Democratic party and believe in that approach to govt
have a right to impose those beliefs on everyone else in the country? Or give them a choice?

If you believe in supporting ACA why isn't that a free choice?
If we tell Catholics to go fund and practice right to life in church or in private groups through donations, not through govt,
why aren't Democrats told to go fund and practice right to health care in party organizations by choice, not through govt.

Do you get the point?
Why treat political beliefs you agree with differently from those you disagree with.
Isn't that discrimination by creed?

I'm a prochoice Democrat, but I don't believe in excluding the right to life which is an equal belief to my own.
I believe in defending them equally and ending abortion by prevention, so both sides get their way without compromise.

Why not allow right to health care the same freedom of choice as right to life?
Why establish one through govt, under penalty of law for not complying, but not allow right to life to be mandated for all?

Shouldn't we treat right to health care as a free choice to believe in the same as right to life for unborn?

Why the discrimination, pushing one belief through govt despite the beliefs of others,
but when this is done to our beliefs, we contest and demand it to be removed from govt?

Why?

You believe in the right to life but are a prochoice democrat?

How so?

Dear Votto
1. If you look at how all prolifers work by education, helping mothers and prevention, all that can be done by prochoice, without making it illegal by banning abortion. So I'm saying to support prolife efforts by free choice, to prevent abortion 100%, and then we can have both prolife and prochoice.

2. This is like how people can be against the death penalty but still keep it a legal choice on the books.
You can still prevent capital punishment 100% by preventing murder.
Most capital murders I have seen can be prevented because they are premeditated.
The killings that can't be helped tend to be accidental or unforeseen, or with some other
elements that make it not a capital offense.
Capital punishment can still be avoided without banning it completely as a choice.
I think it should be kept as a choice to use as leverage, and more people would plead and work with authorities
if full cooperation was necessary for due process in order to qualify for life in prison. So it would help to prevent
the death penalty if it were kept as a choice to require people to confess to all their crimes to avoid that path.

As with abortion, it can be prevented 100% without banning it.
In fact, it helps not to ban it because threatening to do that divides groups and wastes money campaigning in conflict
when those resources and advertising dollars could go into promoting solutions to prevent abortion in the first place.

I find cooperation between prolife and prochoice groups is the key to preventing abuse that
leads to abortion. So why not take the path of both prolife and prochoice and work toward that common goal.
All the money should go toward stopping rape, incest, sexual abuse, relationship abuse, and anything else
that contributes to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

See also www.nurturingnetwork.org and www.choices4life.org

Bull

You have people out there like Dr. Gosnell running around. In the 1970's he was investigated and shown to have violated many health regulations. But instead of doing anything about it, they simply chose not to investigate him anymore because abortion is such a hot political football that any restrictions on it will be faced with fierce opposition. He then continued to abuse both women and fully term infants and killing many along the way before being brought to justice some 30 to 40 years later.

Dear Votto So quit the division. When we agree to help each other, these abuses will get caught faster.

What do you think of this proposal:
Since banning abortion at the point after pregnancy targets the women more than the men,
what about banning sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy or unwanted children or abortion?

What if statutory rape were expanded to include complaints of relationship abuse and fraud.
So if a complaint is reported of relationship abuse or conflict over a pregnancy that isn't wanted,
both the men and women are subject to counseling to address and resolve that complaint.
And if it is found that one person coerced the other fraudulently, then that is addressed
as a violation of "health and safety codes" because such abuse is harmful to mental and emotional
health by causing distress to both people in the relationship. So both partners would
be required to get relationship counseling until the issue is resolved as reported by a professional counselor
they both agree on.

Since this is personal, it is the choice of the community to write up their own policy,
as how some universities have consent forms required before students engage in sexual relations.

Why can't communities agree on policies on abuse, and work on prevention and see if that reduces
the rates of incest rape sexual abuse relationship abuse unwanted pregnancies teen pregnancies and abortion?

 

[ding]

I do what. I want to be controlled by the government, who has lots of people in it, not the elitist. I believe in paying taxes, equality in healthcare, education and well everything, if that makes me a Democrat so be it. I also believe in global warming and the ACA, I want a stronger EPA that is allowed to enforce rules, and I want a real strong IRS , and I guess I am as far as saying our natural resources in the US should be owned by all , not a few rich billionaires.

Dear Penelope Do people who believe in being under the Catholic church policies
have a right to impose their beliefs on everyone else in the country? Or give them a choice?
Do people in the Democratic party and believe in that approach to govt
have a right to impose those beliefs on everyone else in the country? Or give them a choice?

If you believe in supporting ACA why isn't that a free choice?
If we tell Catholics to go fund and practice right to life in church or in private groups through donations, not through govt,
why aren't Democrats told to go fund and practice right to health care in party organizations by choice, not through govt.

Do you get the point?
Why treat political beliefs you agree with differently from those you disagree with.
Isn't that discrimination by creed?

I'm a prochoice Democrat, but I don't believe in excluding the right to life which is an equal belief to my own.
I believe in defending them equally and ending abortion by prevention, so both sides get their way without compromise.

Why not allow right to health care the same freedom of choice as right to life?
Why establish one through govt, under penalty of law for not complying, but not allow right to life to be mandated for all?

Shouldn't we treat right to health care as a free choice to believe in the same as right to life for unborn?

Why the discrimination, pushing one belief through govt despite the beliefs of others,
but when this is done to our beliefs, we contest and demand it to be removed from govt?

Why?

You believe in the right to life but are a prochoice democrat?

How so?

Dear Votto
1. If you look at how all prolifers work by education, helping mothers and prevention, all that can be done by prochoice, without making it illegal by banning abortion. So I'm saying to support prolife efforts by free choice, to prevent abortion 100%, and then we can have both prolife and prochoice.

2. This is like how people can be against the death penalty but still keep it a legal choice on the books.
You can still prevent capital punishment 100% by preventing murder.
Most capital murders I have seen can be prevented because they are premeditated.
The killings that can't be helped tend to be accidental or unforeseen, or with some other
elements that make it not a capital offense.
Capital punishment can still be avoided without banning it completely as a choice.
I think it should be kept as a choice to use as leverage, and more people would plead and work with authorities
if full cooperation was necessary for due process in order to qualify for life in prison. So it would help to prevent
the death penalty if it were kept as a choice to require people to confess to all their crimes to avoid that path.

As with abortion, it can be prevented 100% without banning it.
In fact, it helps not to ban it because threatening to do that divides groups and wastes money campaigning in conflict
when those resources and advertising dollars could go into promoting solutions to prevent abortion in the first place.

I find cooperation between prolife and prochoice groups is the key to preventing abuse that
leads to abortion. So why not take the path of both prolife and prochoice and work toward that common goal.
All the money should go toward stopping rape, incest, sexual abuse, relationship abuse, and anything else
that contributes to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

See also www.nurturingnetwork.org and www.choices4life.org

Bull

You have people out there like Dr. Gosnell running around. In the 1970's he was investigated and shown to have violated many health regulations. But instead of doing anything about it, they simply chose not to investigate him anymore because abortion is such a hot political football that any restrictions on it will be faced with fierce opposition. He then continued to abuse both women and fully term infants and killing many along the way before being brought to justice some 30 to 40 years later.

Dear Votto So quit the division. When we agree to help each other, these abuses will get caught faster.

What do you think of this proposal:
Since banning abortion at the point after pregnancy targets the women more than the men,
what about banning sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy or unwanted children or abortion?

What if statutory rape were expanded to include complaints of relationship abuse and fraud.
So if a complaint is reported of relationship abuse or conflict over a pregnancy that isn't wanted,
both the men and women are subject to counseling to address and resolve that complaint.
And if it is found that one person coerced the other fraudulently, then that is addressed
as a violation of "health and safety codes" because such abuse is harmful to mental and emotional
health by causing distress to both people in the relationship. So both partners would
be required to get relationship counseling until the issue is resolved as reported by a professional counselor
they both agree on.

Since this is personal, it is the choice of the community to write up their own policy,
as how some universities have consent forms required before students engage in sexual relations.

Why can't communities agree on policies on abuse, and work on prevention and see if that reduces
the rates of incest rape sexual abuse relationship abuse unwanted pregnancies teen pregnancies and abortion?

Or we could just start the discussion with human life does begin at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life and see where that leads us, right? It seems to me that those are two things that should be self evident.

 

[emilynghiem]

Look at Bill's flippant attitude about religion
Sez he is a southern baptist and believes in death bed repentance so everything will be all right.
Hillary has radical views on abortion.
These 2 are tortured by their beliefs and their balm of gilead is to get the church to change.

mormons aren't considered christian by prots or cathy lickers

Well, I'm a "cathy licker" and I consider Mormons to be Christians. Are you an atheist per chance? If so, why would you care?

Dear ding and guno
1. I've met Atheists who live by the spirit of Christ and I would consider Christian
and others who reject and some who are open either way.
2. I've met some Catholics who are not Christian fully, others who are so much that they
do the same spiritual healing in the name of Christ that the priests do, but do this on their own.
3. I've met Mormons JW and Muslims I consider Christian and others more secular Gentile
4. I've met Constitutionalists who are Christian in spirit with how they apply and enforce it
(that's how I express my Christian faith is in Constitutional terms and practices)
and others who aren't

The key difference is faith in Restorative Justice
If you believe in forgiveness and correction as a spiritual process,
that is the same process as establishing Jesus or Justice in relations to bring Peace on earth.

The people who don't have this faith, that is what determines how "Christian" we are.
People who can forgive more, are more "charitable" toward others.
Those who don't can't or refuse to ask help with forgiveness
tend to reject, blame and judge others.

So yes a lot of Christians and Catholics will do that, just like anyone else.
I don't know a lot of people who can truly forgive everything equally.

Only God can do that through Jesus.
The rest of us take turns forgiving one thing and judging rejecting another.
We are all biased and none of us is perfectly inclusive by ourselves.
that's why we need to work as a team to include all people because we can't all
get along without relying on others to go where we won't go.

 

[Penelope]

Dear Penelope Do people who believe in being under the Catholic church policies
have a right to impose their beliefs on everyone else in the country? Or give them a choice?
Do people in the Democratic party and believe in that approach to govt
have a right to impose those beliefs on everyone else in the country? Or give them a choice?

If you believe in supporting ACA why isn't that a free choice?
If we tell Catholics to go fund and practice right to life in church or in private groups through donations, not through govt,
why aren't Democrats told to go fund and practice right to health care in party organizations by choice, not through govt.

Do you get the point?
Why treat political beliefs you agree with differently from those you disagree with.
Isn't that discrimination by creed?

I'm a prochoice Democrat, but I don't believe in excluding the right to life which is an equal belief to my own.
I believe in defending them equally and ending abortion by prevention, so both sides get their way without compromise.

Why not allow right to health care the same freedom of choice as right to life?
Why establish one through govt, under penalty of law for not complying, but not allow right to life to be mandated for all?

Shouldn't we treat right to health care as a free choice to believe in the same as right to life for unborn?

Why the discrimination, pushing one belief through govt despite the beliefs of others,
but when this is done to our beliefs, we contest and demand it to be removed from govt?

Why?

You believe in the right to life but are a prochoice democrat?

How so?

Dear Votto
1. If you look at how all prolifers work by education, helping mothers and prevention, all that can be done by prochoice, without making it illegal by banning abortion. So I'm saying to support prolife efforts by free choice, to prevent abortion 100%, and then we can have both prolife and prochoice.

2. This is like how people can be against the death penalty but still keep it a legal choice on the books.
You can still prevent capital punishment 100% by preventing murder.
Most capital murders I have seen can be prevented because they are premeditated.
The killings that can't be helped tend to be accidental or unforeseen, or with some other
elements that make it not a capital offense.
Capital punishment can still be avoided without banning it completely as a choice.
I think it should be kept as a choice to use as leverage, and more people would plead and work with authorities
if full cooperation was necessary for due process in order to qualify for life in prison. So it would help to prevent
the death penalty if it were kept as a choice to require people to confess to all their crimes to avoid that path.

As with abortion, it can be prevented 100% without banning it.
In fact, it helps not to ban it because threatening to do that divides groups and wastes money campaigning in conflict
when those resources and advertising dollars could go into promoting solutions to prevent abortion in the first place.

I find cooperation between prolife and prochoice groups is the key to preventing abuse that
leads to abortion. So why not take the path of both prolife and prochoice and work toward that common goal.
All the money should go toward stopping rape, incest, sexual abuse, relationship abuse, and anything else
that contributes to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

See also www.nurturingnetwork.org and www.choices4life.org

Bull

You have people out there like Dr. Gosnell running around. In the 1970's he was investigated and shown to have violated many health regulations. But instead of doing anything about it, they simply chose not to investigate him anymore because abortion is such a hot political football that any restrictions on it will be faced with fierce opposition. He then continued to abuse both women and fully term infants and killing many along the way before being brought to justice some 30 to 40 years later.

Dear Votto So quit the division. When we agree to help each other, these abuses will get caught faster.

What do you think of this proposal:
Since banning abortion at the point after pregnancy targets the women more than the men,
what about banning sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy or unwanted children or abortion?

What if statutory rape were expanded to include complaints of relationship abuse and fraud.
So if a complaint is reported of relationship abuse or conflict over a pregnancy that isn't wanted,
both the men and women are subject to counseling to address and resolve that complaint.
And if it is found that one person coerced the other fraudulently, then that is addressed
as a violation of "health and safety codes" because such abuse is harmful to mental and emotional
health by causing distress to both people in the relationship. So both partners would
be required to get relationship counseling until the issue is resolved as reported by a professional counselor
they both agree on.

Since this is personal, it is the choice of the community to write up their own policy,
as how some universities have consent forms required before students engage in sexual relations.

Why can't communities agree on policies on abuse, and work on prevention and see if that reduces
the rates of incest rape sexual abuse relationship abuse unwanted pregnancies teen pregnancies and abortion?

Or we could just start the discussion with human life does begin at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life and see where that leads us, right?

Hey I'm pro life and pro choice, called the private part of me verses the public part, because I do realize freedom is a good thing, you seem the type that would like to dictate your views upon others. Sorry thought you were talking to me, anyway here is my opinion for what its worth.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Penelope Do people who believe in being under the Catholic church policies
have a right to impose their beliefs on everyone else in the country? Or give them a choice?
Do people in the Democratic party and believe in that approach to govt
have a right to impose those beliefs on everyone else in the country? Or give them a choice?

If you believe in supporting ACA why isn't that a free choice?
If we tell Catholics to go fund and practice right to life in church or in private groups through donations, not through govt,
why aren't Democrats told to go fund and practice right to health care in party organizations by choice, not through govt.

Do you get the point?
Why treat political beliefs you agree with differently from those you disagree with.
Isn't that discrimination by creed?

I'm a prochoice Democrat, but I don't believe in excluding the right to life which is an equal belief to my own.
I believe in defending them equally and ending abortion by prevention, so both sides get their way without compromise.

Why not allow right to health care the same freedom of choice as right to life?
Why establish one through govt, under penalty of law for not complying, but not allow right to life to be mandated for all?

Shouldn't we treat right to health care as a free choice to believe in the same as right to life for unborn?

Why the discrimination, pushing one belief through govt despite the beliefs of others,
but when this is done to our beliefs, we contest and demand it to be removed from govt?

Why?

You believe in the right to life but are a prochoice democrat?

How so?

Dear Votto
1. If you look at how all prolifers work by education, helping mothers and prevention, all that can be done by prochoice, without making it illegal by banning abortion. So I'm saying to support prolife efforts by free choice, to prevent abortion 100%, and then we can have both prolife and prochoice.

2. This is like how people can be against the death penalty but still keep it a legal choice on the books.
You can still prevent capital punishment 100% by preventing murder.
Most capital murders I have seen can be prevented because they are premeditated.
The killings that can't be helped tend to be accidental or unforeseen, or with some other
elements that make it not a capital offense.
Capital punishment can still be avoided without banning it completely as a choice.
I think it should be kept as a choice to use as leverage, and more people would plead and work with authorities
if full cooperation was necessary for due process in order to qualify for life in prison. So it would help to prevent
the death penalty if it were kept as a choice to require people to confess to all their crimes to avoid that path.

As with abortion, it can be prevented 100% without banning it.
In fact, it helps not to ban it because threatening to do that divides groups and wastes money campaigning in conflict
when those resources and advertising dollars could go into promoting solutions to prevent abortion in the first place.

I find cooperation between prolife and prochoice groups is the key to preventing abuse that
leads to abortion. So why not take the path of both prolife and prochoice and work toward that common goal.
All the money should go toward stopping rape, incest, sexual abuse, relationship abuse, and anything else
that contributes to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

See also www.nurturingnetwork.org and www.choices4life.org

Bull

You have people out there like Dr. Gosnell running around. In the 1970's he was investigated and shown to have violated many health regulations. But instead of doing anything about it, they simply chose not to investigate him anymore because abortion is such a hot political football that any restrictions on it will be faced with fierce opposition. He then continued to abuse both women and fully term infants and killing many along the way before being brought to justice some 30 to 40 years later.

Dear Votto So quit the division. When we agree to help each other, these abuses will get caught faster.

What do you think of this proposal:
Since banning abortion at the point after pregnancy targets the women more than the men,
what about banning sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy or unwanted children or abortion?

What if statutory rape were expanded to include complaints of relationship abuse and fraud.
So if a complaint is reported of relationship abuse or conflict over a pregnancy that isn't wanted,
both the men and women are subject to counseling to address and resolve that complaint.
And if it is found that one person coerced the other fraudulently, then that is addressed
as a violation of "health and safety codes" because such abuse is harmful to mental and emotional
health by causing distress to both people in the relationship. So both partners would
be required to get relationship counseling until the issue is resolved as reported by a professional counselor
they both agree on.

Since this is personal, it is the choice of the community to write up their own policy,
as how some universities have consent forms required before students engage in sexual relations.

Why can't communities agree on policies on abuse, and work on prevention and see if that reduces
the rates of incest rape sexual abuse relationship abuse unwanted pregnancies teen pregnancies and abortion?

Or we could just start the discussion with human life does begin at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life and see where that leads us, right? It seems to me that those are two things that should be self evident.

Dear ding it's still faith based even if we agree.
We're still asking the question when does the soul or human identity of a person
enter into the body. We don't get to see the part in the process when that actually happens.
It's on a spiritual level. So it's faith based.

What we can do is either AGREE on it, and then AGREE to pass laws respecting this by consensus.
Or I think it's easier to AGREE to respect both the prolife and prochoice beliefs equally
and make sure laws don't violate one or the other.

We can also agree to separate the funding and policies until we can wipe out abortion
by prevention.

Whatever we do, we need to agree or it's not fair to both sets of beliefs.
So by that alone, that should be enough to protect both prolife beliefs equally as prochoice.

 

[Penelope]

Look at Bill's flippant attitude about religion
Sez he is a southern baptist and believes in death bed repentance so everything will be all right.
Hillary has radical views on abortion.
These 2 are tortured by their beliefs and their balm of gilead is to get the church to change.

mormons aren't considered christian by prots or cathy lickers

What is a cathy licker?

 

[emilynghiem]

You believe in the right to life but are a prochoice democrat?

How so?

Dear Votto
1. If you look at how all prolifers work by education, helping mothers and prevention, all that can be done by prochoice, without making it illegal by banning abortion. So I'm saying to support prolife efforts by free choice, to prevent abortion 100%, and then we can have both prolife and prochoice.

2. This is like how people can be against the death penalty but still keep it a legal choice on the books.
You can still prevent capital punishment 100% by preventing murder.
Most capital murders I have seen can be prevented because they are premeditated.
The killings that can't be helped tend to be accidental or unforeseen, or with some other
elements that make it not a capital offense.
Capital punishment can still be avoided without banning it completely as a choice.
I think it should be kept as a choice to use as leverage, and more people would plead and work with authorities
if full cooperation was necessary for due process in order to qualify for life in prison. So it would help to prevent
the death penalty if it were kept as a choice to require people to confess to all their crimes to avoid that path.

As with abortion, it can be prevented 100% without banning it.
In fact, it helps not to ban it because threatening to do that divides groups and wastes money campaigning in conflict
when those resources and advertising dollars could go into promoting solutions to prevent abortion in the first place.

I find cooperation between prolife and prochoice groups is the key to preventing abuse that
leads to abortion. So why not take the path of both prolife and prochoice and work toward that common goal.
All the money should go toward stopping rape, incest, sexual abuse, relationship abuse, and anything else
that contributes to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

See also www.nurturingnetwork.org and www.choices4life.org

Bull

You have people out there like Dr. Gosnell running around. In the 1970's he was investigated and shown to have violated many health regulations. But instead of doing anything about it, they simply chose not to investigate him anymore because abortion is such a hot political football that any restrictions on it will be faced with fierce opposition. He then continued to abuse both women and fully term infants and killing many along the way before being brought to justice some 30 to 40 years later.

Dear Votto So quit the division. When we agree to help each other, these abuses will get caught faster.

What do you think of this proposal:
Since banning abortion at the point after pregnancy targets the women more than the men,
what about banning sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy or unwanted children or abortion?

What if statutory rape were expanded to include complaints of relationship abuse and fraud.
So if a complaint is reported of relationship abuse or conflict over a pregnancy that isn't wanted,
both the men and women are subject to counseling to address and resolve that complaint.
And if it is found that one person coerced the other fraudulently, then that is addressed
as a violation of "health and safety codes" because such abuse is harmful to mental and emotional
health by causing distress to both people in the relationship. So both partners would
be required to get relationship counseling until the issue is resolved as reported by a professional counselor
they both agree on.

Since this is personal, it is the choice of the community to write up their own policy,
as how some universities have consent forms required before students engage in sexual relations.

Why can't communities agree on policies on abuse, and work on prevention and see if that reduces
the rates of incest rape sexual abuse relationship abuse unwanted pregnancies teen pregnancies and abortion?

Or we could just start the discussion with human life does begin at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life and see where that leads us, right?

Hey I'm pro life and pro choice, called the private part of me verses the public part, because I do realize freedom is a good thing, you seem the type that would like to dictate your views upon others.

Dear Penelope and ding
And what do you call it when Democrats push right to health care mandates on people
who believe in free market choices.

If prochoice refuse regulations on the right to choose abortion
why can't free market believers refuse regulations on the right to choose how to pay and provide for health care.

Is the harm or fear of having free choice to pay for insurance or health care other ways
SO BAD
that is deserves a penalty more than the harm or fear of giving people free choice of abortion?

Is that even fair?

Do you get the point, that prochoice advocates have forced people to pay for insurance or register for federal programs who don't believe in that.

Where's the free choice there? why is that so harmful it has to be regulated and forced
but not the choice of abortion that has to remain up to the individual and not penalized by govt
as not buying insurance is?

 

[emilynghiem]

Look at Bill's flippant attitude about religion
Sez he is a southern baptist and believes in death bed repentance so everything will be all right.
Hillary has radical views on abortion.
These 2 are tortured by their beliefs and their balm of gilead is to get the church to change.

mormons aren't considered christian by prots or cathy lickers

What is a cathy licker?

I think it is a funny nickname for Catholic.
And JW is my reference to Jehovah's Witnesses who
many Christians have conflicts with because they
teach Jesus more as a natural law figure and teacher than
as a spiritual embodiment of God's justice we are supposed to receive in full.
So more of them take the secular Gentile approach and put their own
tribe first before all humanity in God's greater kingdom, not fully Christian
as on the Believers side that fully receive spiritual healing and responsibility for all.

 

[ding]

You believe in the right to life but are a prochoice democrat?

How so?

Dear Votto
1. If you look at how all prolifers work by education, helping mothers and prevention, all that can be done by prochoice, without making it illegal by banning abortion. So I'm saying to support prolife efforts by free choice, to prevent abortion 100%, and then we can have both prolife and prochoice.

2. This is like how people can be against the death penalty but still keep it a legal choice on the books.
You can still prevent capital punishment 100% by preventing murder.
Most capital murders I have seen can be prevented because they are premeditated.
The killings that can't be helped tend to be accidental or unforeseen, or with some other
elements that make it not a capital offense.
Capital punishment can still be avoided without banning it completely as a choice.
I think it should be kept as a choice to use as leverage, and more people would plead and work with authorities
if full cooperation was necessary for due process in order to qualify for life in prison. So it would help to prevent
the death penalty if it were kept as a choice to require people to confess to all their crimes to avoid that path.

As with abortion, it can be prevented 100% without banning it.
In fact, it helps not to ban it because threatening to do that divides groups and wastes money campaigning in conflict
when those resources and advertising dollars could go into promoting solutions to prevent abortion in the first place.

I find cooperation between prolife and prochoice groups is the key to preventing abuse that
leads to abortion. So why not take the path of both prolife and prochoice and work toward that common goal.
All the money should go toward stopping rape, incest, sexual abuse, relationship abuse, and anything else
that contributes to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

See also www.nurturingnetwork.org and www.choices4life.org

Bull

You have people out there like Dr. Gosnell running around. In the 1970's he was investigated and shown to have violated many health regulations. But instead of doing anything about it, they simply chose not to investigate him anymore because abortion is such a hot political football that any restrictions on it will be faced with fierce opposition. He then continued to abuse both women and fully term infants and killing many along the way before being brought to justice some 30 to 40 years later.

Dear Votto So quit the division. When we agree to help each other, these abuses will get caught faster.

What do you think of this proposal:
Since banning abortion at the point after pregnancy targets the women more than the men,
what about banning sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy or unwanted children or abortion?

What if statutory rape were expanded to include complaints of relationship abuse and fraud.
So if a complaint is reported of relationship abuse or conflict over a pregnancy that isn't wanted,
both the men and women are subject to counseling to address and resolve that complaint.
And if it is found that one person coerced the other fraudulently, then that is addressed
as a violation of "health and safety codes" because such abuse is harmful to mental and emotional
health by causing distress to both people in the relationship. So both partners would
be required to get relationship counseling until the issue is resolved as reported by a professional counselor
they both agree on.

Since this is personal, it is the choice of the community to write up their own policy,
as how some universities have consent forms required before students engage in sexual relations.

Why can't communities agree on policies on abuse, and work on prevention and see if that reduces
the rates of incest rape sexual abuse relationship abuse unwanted pregnancies teen pregnancies and abortion?

Or we could just start the discussion with human life does begin at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life and see where that leads us, right? It seems to me that those are two things that should be self evident.

Dear ding it's still faith based even if we agree.
We're still asking the question when does the soul or human identity of a person
enter into the body. We don't get to see the part in the process when that actually happens.
It's on a spiritual level. So it's faith based.

What we can do is either AGREE on it, and then AGREE to pass laws respecting this by consensus.
Or I think it's easier to AGREE to respect both the prolife and prochoice beliefs equally
and make sure laws don't violate one or the other.

We can also agree to separate the funding and policies until we can wipe out abortion
by prevention.

Whatever we do, we need to agree or it's not fair to both sets of beliefs.
So by that alone, that should be enough to protect both prolife beliefs equally as prochoice.

No. It is not faith based. It is based on science. It is not a matter of opinion or taste. It is a clearly established scientific fact that at conception the genetic coding to guide the rest of their lives is established. Not only are they a new human being, they are a distinctly new human being that has never existed before and will never exist again. Furthermore, at every step of the way they are fully human and have the appropriate characteristics of a human being that they are supposed to have at that stage of human development. This is through from conception to death.

 

[ding]

Look at Bill's flippant attitude about religion
Sez he is a southern baptist and believes in death bed repentance so everything will be all right.
Hillary has radical views on abortion.
These 2 are tortured by their beliefs and their balm of gilead is to get the church to change.

mormons aren't considered christian by prots or cathy lickers

What is a cathy licker?

I think it is a funny nickname for Catholic.

I've been called worse before, it's not so bad.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Votto
1. If you look at how all prolifers work by education, helping mothers and prevention, all that can be done by prochoice, without making it illegal by banning abortion. So I'm saying to support prolife efforts by free choice, to prevent abortion 100%, and then we can have both prolife and prochoice.

2. This is like how people can be against the death penalty but still keep it a legal choice on the books.
You can still prevent capital punishment 100% by preventing murder.
Most capital murders I have seen can be prevented because they are premeditated.
The killings that can't be helped tend to be accidental or unforeseen, or with some other
elements that make it not a capital offense.
Capital punishment can still be avoided without banning it completely as a choice.
I think it should be kept as a choice to use as leverage, and more people would plead and work with authorities
if full cooperation was necessary for due process in order to qualify for life in prison. So it would help to prevent
the death penalty if it were kept as a choice to require people to confess to all their crimes to avoid that path.

As with abortion, it can be prevented 100% without banning it.
In fact, it helps not to ban it because threatening to do that divides groups and wastes money campaigning in conflict
when those resources and advertising dollars could go into promoting solutions to prevent abortion in the first place.

I find cooperation between prolife and prochoice groups is the key to preventing abuse that
leads to abortion. So why not take the path of both prolife and prochoice and work toward that common goal.
All the money should go toward stopping rape, incest, sexual abuse, relationship abuse, and anything else
that contributes to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

See also www.nurturingnetwork.org and www.choices4life.org

Bull

You have people out there like Dr. Gosnell running around. In the 1970's he was investigated and shown to have violated many health regulations. But instead of doing anything about it, they simply chose not to investigate him anymore because abortion is such a hot political football that any restrictions on it will be faced with fierce opposition. He then continued to abuse both women and fully term infants and killing many along the way before being brought to justice some 30 to 40 years later.

Dear Votto So quit the division. When we agree to help each other, these abuses will get caught faster.

What do you think of this proposal:
Since banning abortion at the point after pregnancy targets the women more than the men,
what about banning sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy or unwanted children or abortion?

What if statutory rape were expanded to include complaints of relationship abuse and fraud.
So if a complaint is reported of relationship abuse or conflict over a pregnancy that isn't wanted,
both the men and women are subject to counseling to address and resolve that complaint.
And if it is found that one person coerced the other fraudulently, then that is addressed
as a violation of "health and safety codes" because such abuse is harmful to mental and emotional
health by causing distress to both people in the relationship. So both partners would
be required to get relationship counseling until the issue is resolved as reported by a professional counselor
they both agree on.

Since this is personal, it is the choice of the community to write up their own policy,
as how some universities have consent forms required before students engage in sexual relations.

Why can't communities agree on policies on abuse, and work on prevention and see if that reduces
the rates of incest rape sexual abuse relationship abuse unwanted pregnancies teen pregnancies and abortion?

Or we could just start the discussion with human life does begin at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life and see where that leads us, right? It seems to me that those are two things that should be self evident.

Dear ding it's still faith based even if we agree.
We're still asking the question when does the soul or human identity of a person
enter into the body. We don't get to see the part in the process when that actually happens.
It's on a spiritual level. So it's faith based.

What we can do is either AGREE on it, and then AGREE to pass laws respecting this by consensus.
Or I think it's easier to AGREE to respect both the prolife and prochoice beliefs equally
and make sure laws don't violate one or the other.

We can also agree to separate the funding and policies until we can wipe out abortion
by prevention.

Whatever we do, we need to agree or it's not fair to both sets of beliefs.
So by that alone, that should be enough to protect both prolife beliefs equally as prochoice.

No. It is not faith based. It is based on science. It is not a matter of opinion or taste. It is a clearly established scientific fact that at conception the genetic coding to guide the rest of their lives is established. Not only are they a new human being, they are a distinctly new human being that has never existed before and will never exist again. Furthermore, at every step of the way they are fully human and have the appropriate characteristics of a human being that they are supposed to have at that stage of human development. This is through from conception to death.

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

 

[bodecea]

Wikileaks first dumped emails showing Clintons staffers discussing the "backwards" Catholic Church. This should come as no surprise of course. In another email Podesta describes setting up fake Catholic groups to try and change the religious beliefs of Catholics. The Democrat party and Christian beliefs are directly opposing of course so you can see the logic and necessity.
But the important part, faith wise, is their complaint that the Bishops refused to bend. Despite fooling "98%" of Catholics not one Bishop would bow and backtrack on church teachings to help the Democrats in their game of fooling people. And Hillarys staffers were PISSED about it.
But here is the interesting thing to me. Going all the way back to St Ignatius he said

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.

This is from the late 1st early 2nd centuries of Christianity. Over and over you see early Christian saints saying the same thing...stick with your Bishops. Have the Democrats found the truth of this matter inadvertently? That no matter how many laymen and even priests they may fool the Bishops continue teaching Christianity?

The Podesta email with complaints about the Bishops can be found here. The email calling Catholics backwards, retrograde and unable to understand democracy is found here.

A statement from Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops which condemns the Democrats efforts to "interfere in the internal life of the church" can be found here.

Wikileaks also is saying they are Satanists and pedophiles.

In other words, Wikileaks is jumping the shark.

 

[Penelope]

Dear Votto
1. If you look at how all prolifers work by education, helping mothers and prevention, all that can be done by prochoice, without making it illegal by banning abortion. So I'm saying to support prolife efforts by free choice, to prevent abortion 100%, and then we can have both prolife and prochoice.

2. This is like how people can be against the death penalty but still keep it a legal choice on the books.
You can still prevent capital punishment 100% by preventing murder.
Most capital murders I have seen can be prevented because they are premeditated.
The killings that can't be helped tend to be accidental or unforeseen, or with some other
elements that make it not a capital offense.
Capital punishment can still be avoided without banning it completely as a choice.
I think it should be kept as a choice to use as leverage, and more people would plead and work with authorities
if full cooperation was necessary for due process in order to qualify for life in prison. So it would help to prevent
the death penalty if it were kept as a choice to require people to confess to all their crimes to avoid that path.

As with abortion, it can be prevented 100% without banning it.
In fact, it helps not to ban it because threatening to do that divides groups and wastes money campaigning in conflict
when those resources and advertising dollars could go into promoting solutions to prevent abortion in the first place.

I find cooperation between prolife and prochoice groups is the key to preventing abuse that
leads to abortion. So why not take the path of both prolife and prochoice and work toward that common goal.
All the money should go toward stopping rape, incest, sexual abuse, relationship abuse, and anything else
that contributes to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

See also www.nurturingnetwork.org and www.choices4life.org

Bull

You have people out there like Dr. Gosnell running around. In the 1970's he was investigated and shown to have violated many health regulations. But instead of doing anything about it, they simply chose not to investigate him anymore because abortion is such a hot political football that any restrictions on it will be faced with fierce opposition. He then continued to abuse both women and fully term infants and killing many along the way before being brought to justice some 30 to 40 years later.

Dear Votto So quit the division. When we agree to help each other, these abuses will get caught faster.

What do you think of this proposal:
Since banning abortion at the point after pregnancy targets the women more than the men,
what about banning sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy or unwanted children or abortion?

What if statutory rape were expanded to include complaints of relationship abuse and fraud.
So if a complaint is reported of relationship abuse or conflict over a pregnancy that isn't wanted,
both the men and women are subject to counseling to address and resolve that complaint.
And if it is found that one person coerced the other fraudulently, then that is addressed
as a violation of "health and safety codes" because such abuse is harmful to mental and emotional
health by causing distress to both people in the relationship. So both partners would
be required to get relationship counseling until the issue is resolved as reported by a professional counselor
they both agree on.

Since this is personal, it is the choice of the community to write up their own policy,
as how some universities have consent forms required before students engage in sexual relations.

Why can't communities agree on policies on abuse, and work on prevention and see if that reduces
the rates of incest rape sexual abuse relationship abuse unwanted pregnancies teen pregnancies and abortion?

Or we could just start the discussion with human life does begin at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life and see where that leads us, right?

Hey I'm pro life and pro choice, called the private part of me verses the public part, because I do realize freedom is a good thing, you seem the type that would like to dictate your views upon others.

Dear Penelope and ding
And what do you call it when Democrats push right to health care mandates on people
who believe in free market choices.

If prochoice refuse regulations on the right to choose abortion
why can't free market believers refuse regulations on the right to choose how to pay and provide for health care.

Is the harm or fear of having free choice to pay for insurance or health care other ways
SO BAD
that is deserves a penalty more than the harm or fear of giving people free choice of abortion?

Is that even fair?

Do you get the point, that prochoice advocates have forced people to pay for insurance or register for federal programs who don't believe in that.

Where's the free choice there? why is that so harmful it has to be regulated and forced
but not the choice of abortion that has to remain up to the individual and not penalized by govt
as not buying insurance is?

I am pro the ACA, because it costs us more when people are uninsured, this way everyone pays something and with the increase of Independent Contractors , work at home, etc, and more and more jobs hiring part time employers which then they are disqualified for employer shared HI, the more we need the ACA, and also for preexisting conditions. Its not perfect but to just drop it like Trump suggests would be a disaster. If insurance companies don't like it too bad, they are the gatekeepers and paper pushers is all. Middle men make the money and we do not need insurance companies.

Some religions do not believe in blood transfusions, should we not cover them. I do not think abortions should be covered except for medical reasons (the mothers life) and its not covered is it?

The big think is birth control coverage, and well I think it needs to be covered, but even more, I would suggest they also use a condom. Abstaining is recommended but that is not going to happen. With so many VD's , HIV and cervical CA, the pill is just not enough anymore, anyone sexually active should be able to get cheap well made condoms.

 

[ding]

Bull

You have people out there like Dr. Gosnell running around. In the 1970's he was investigated and shown to have violated many health regulations. But instead of doing anything about it, they simply chose not to investigate him anymore because abortion is such a hot political football that any restrictions on it will be faced with fierce opposition. He then continued to abuse both women and fully term infants and killing many along the way before being brought to justice some 30 to 40 years later.

Dear Votto So quit the division. When we agree to help each other, these abuses will get caught faster.

What do you think of this proposal:
Since banning abortion at the point after pregnancy targets the women more than the men,
what about banning sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy or unwanted children or abortion?

What if statutory rape were expanded to include complaints of relationship abuse and fraud.
So if a complaint is reported of relationship abuse or conflict over a pregnancy that isn't wanted,
both the men and women are subject to counseling to address and resolve that complaint.
And if it is found that one person coerced the other fraudulently, then that is addressed
as a violation of "health and safety codes" because such abuse is harmful to mental and emotional
health by causing distress to both people in the relationship. So both partners would
be required to get relationship counseling until the issue is resolved as reported by a professional counselor
they both agree on.

Since this is personal, it is the choice of the community to write up their own policy,
as how some universities have consent forms required before students engage in sexual relations.

Why can't communities agree on policies on abuse, and work on prevention and see if that reduces
the rates of incest rape sexual abuse relationship abuse unwanted pregnancies teen pregnancies and abortion?

Or we could just start the discussion with human life does begin at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life and see where that leads us, right? It seems to me that those are two things that should be self evident.

Dear ding it's still faith based even if we agree.
We're still asking the question when does the soul or human identity of a person
enter into the body. We don't get to see the part in the process when that actually happens.
It's on a spiritual level. So it's faith based.

What we can do is either AGREE on it, and then AGREE to pass laws respecting this by consensus.
Or I think it's easier to AGREE to respect both the prolife and prochoice beliefs equally
and make sure laws don't violate one or the other.

We can also agree to separate the funding and policies until we can wipe out abortion
by prevention.

Whatever we do, we need to agree or it's not fair to both sets of beliefs.
So by that alone, that should be enough to protect both prolife beliefs equally as prochoice.

No. It is not faith based. It is based on science. It is not a matter of opinion or taste. It is a clearly established scientific fact that at conception the genetic coding to guide the rest of their lives is established. Not only are they a new human being, they are a distinctly new human being that has never existed before and will never exist again. Furthermore, at every step of the way they are fully human and have the appropriate characteristics of a human being that they are supposed to have at that stage of human development. This is through from conception to death.

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?