tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post4747996178014616073..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Separating families is not Christian. 2 + 2 is not 5. Any questions? Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger209125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69070201495073217902018-06-28T10:22:37.207-07:002018-06-28T10:22:37.207-07:00Oops, spell-check error. S/B "procreative f...Oops, spell-check error. S/B "procreative from the unitive"bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91991673922642425552018-06-22T10:10:32.054-07:002018-06-22T10:10:32.054-07:00Of course I agree that EO is the wrong way to go. ...Of course I agree that EO is the wrong way to go. <br /><br />As far as sex goes, it is a mistake to separate the progressive from the I unitive. This was not a controversy within Christendom until 1930.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2123512166382881312018-06-21T13:00:01.685-07:002018-06-21T13:00:01.685-07:00The Romanian increase in illegal abortions was lar...The Romanian increase in illegal abortions was largely driven by poor economic conditions. For the poor, abortion is a means of making ends meet. <br /><br />The two greatest and non-controversial things we can do to help reduce abortion are free birth control and policies that are pro-family - adequate financial benefits that don't make a new baby a frightening situation.<br /><br />Another thing I would reform is the focus of sex-ed. At work I perform maintenance on electrical equipment. As part of our electrical safety training, they don't simply tell us "Be careful or you can get hurt or killed." They show us videos of people getting killed or severely injured in electrical accidents - that pushes the point home far better than mere words. For sex-ed, I'd have videos of people with STDs show what it's like living with them. I'd show videos of young parents who lost opportunities due to a few minutes of fun. Basically, drive the point home that sex isn't just something to do for entertainment - it has very real consequences. If you can't control yourself and have to do it, use the freaking birth control! <br /><br />It's nice to have an ideal, but politically the path toward the ideal has to be forged through the realities of human nature. Even if a total ban on abortion was achieved, during the next election cycle it would get tossed out. It's better, from a practical standpoint, to reduce those abortions that can be done without mass resentment from half the country. <br />Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49587535177852002702018-06-21T08:57:11.945-07:002018-06-21T08:57:11.945-07:00@Hal,
Why stop at 1990?
Because this was Starho...@Hal,<br /><br /><b>Why stop at 1990? </b><br /><br />Because this was Starhopper's claim: <br /><i>"Nicolae Ceaușescu outlawed it in Romania, which resulted in the number of abortions skyrocketing for decades. The number did not come down (in fact, it collapsed to near zero) after the fall of the Ceaușescu regime when, ironically, abortion was again legalized.</i><br /><br />There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45084110375249231612018-06-21T08:35:13.412-07:002018-06-21T08:35:13.412-07:00@Starhopper,
(See? I have both children and grand...@Starhopper,<br /><br /><b>(See? I have both children and grandchildren. So I am obviously "pro-life"!)</b><br /><br />Nazi were pro-life for themselves and their families too. :-)bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87309134225595894672018-06-21T08:28:01.061-07:002018-06-21T08:28:01.061-07:00"Huh?? We're not asking them about religi..."Huh?? We're not asking them about religion. We don't mention any religion during the interview. We're taking their stated values/principles and seeing if they are hostile to the secular values. Those secular values just so happen to align with many Christian values."<br /><br />Isn't it pretty obviously possible to be very positive about secular values while being very negative about Christian values? Doesn't that in fact actually perfectly describe the progressives who have your proverbial panties in a perpetual bunch? A guy like Bill Maher, for example, would pass a test on secular values with flying colors, and he's openly hateful of Christianity. If your goal is to keep such people out, how do you do that by only asking them questions about secular values? <br /><br />Can you give some examples of the kind of questions you would ask that would be able to differentiate people who are positive about Christianity from those who are hostile towards it, while not mentioning anything religious?<br /><br />While you're failing to do that, also keep in mind that even if you were able to do that, if your STATED REASON for coming up with the questions you do is to weed out people who were hostile to Christianity, it would STILL BE a religious test for citizenship. Which is more clearly anti-American and unconstitutional than any of the imagined transgressions you attribute to progressives.Screwtape Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13874779097608201662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27889231178937819092018-06-21T08:17:16.625-07:002018-06-21T08:17:16.625-07:00"Progressives that lean heavily leftist/socia..."Progressives that lean heavily leftist/socialist/marxist/communist have values that are hostile to American democracy. Their goal is undo America as it was established and create a new system of government."<br /><br />What is this slapdash word salad supposed to even mean? <br /><br />What "new system of government" do people on the left want to establish? Be specific.<br /><br />Do you even know the difference between marxism, socialism, and communism? Do you know what those words actually mean? Can you point to any major political figure on the left who is actually advocating for state-planned economies? Do you know any major political figure on the left proposing a maximum wage? Do you hear any major political figures on the left talking about surplus value?<br /><br />Advocating for higher taxes on rich people and medicare for all IS NOT advocating for replacing our system of government. <br /><br />"I'd rather just point you to people/groups. The group 'Antifa' comes to mind."<br /><br />You'd "rather" try to avoid the fact that your claims are completely vacuous propagandist word-vomit. Trying to pretend that Antifa is representative of the left is like trying to pretend that the Charlotesville protesters who murdered a woman are representative of the right. It's something only unserious blowhards like yourself would ever attempt in a serious conversation, in a desperate attempt to rescue obviously overblown assertions.<br /><br />"Groups/people that use thug tactics to control the lives of others. Groups/people that advocate taking away guns by force. Groups/people that advocate putting people in jail under subjective 'hate speech' laws that are rooted in feelings and political correctness. Groups/people that want America to be governed by some third-party global law without getting the consent of the people. Groups/people that want open borders."<br /><br /><b>NAME</b> the groups and people who want these things. BE SPECIFIC, or admit you're pulling all of this from the deepest recesses of your rear end.<br /><br />Who wants to take guns away by force? Who wants to put people in jail for hate speech? Who wants America to be subject to global law? Who wants open borders?<br /><br />None of these things ARE EVEN CLOSE to the stated positions of the Democratic party as stated by their platform, their leaders, or their candidates. <br /><br />Wanting the tax rate on the rich to go back to what they were under Reagan is not socialism. Wanting medicare for all is not communism. Wanting to extend public education from K through 12 to K through a bachelor's degree is not marxism. Yes, these views are pretty far to the left, but they are not simply by virtue of that fact undemocratic. The main way people are trying to achieve these ends is by voting for Bernie Sanders, not by taking to the streets with weapons. <br /><br />Despite what you've been spoon-fed by Rush Limbaugh et al for a generation, there is SIGNIFICANT SPACE to the left of you before one gets to marxism/socialism/communism. Not everyone to the left of you is Leon Trotsky, you'll no doubt be stunned to discover.<br /><br />"I define the term to include the people that agree with these examples. If you fit, you fit. If you don't, you don't."<br /><br />No mainstream left-leaning politician, group, organization, or intellectual REMOTELY fits the examples you gave. (Though I don't count Antifa as a mainstream group, I don't even think the most ardent member of Antifa believes people should be put in JAIL for hate speech! Just an ABSURD claim!) I have good news for you: the boogeyman who motivates your every political impulse simply does not exist.<br /><br />"As I said before, you may use the term differently."<br /><br />Correctly. The word you're looking for is "correctly." We use the terms correctly. You might want to try it.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />Screwtape Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13874779097608201662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37521169542586123172018-06-21T06:02:28.250-07:002018-06-21T06:02:28.250-07:00Signing off for several days. Heading down to Atla...Signing off for several days. Heading down to Atlanta to visit my younger daughter. See you all (virtually) next week!<br /><br />(See? I have both children and grandchildren. So I am obviously "pro-life"!)Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3643979067065717282018-06-20T23:15:55.573-07:002018-06-20T23:15:55.573-07:00Thank you StevenK and Legion, great food for thoug...Thank you StevenK and Legion, great food for thought!World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5424715864823359222018-06-20T21:23:13.614-07:002018-06-20T21:23:13.614-07:00Just to cause the trip over to 201:-)Just to cause the trip over to 201:-)bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68037179571069298362018-06-20T20:13:25.152-07:002018-06-20T20:13:25.152-07:00@Starhopper,
I did not get my figures from Planne...@Starhopper,<br /><br /><b>I did not get my figures from Planned Parenthood. I got them from 60 Minutes,...Argue with them (unless you're one of those people who like to parrot "Fake News!" every time you hear a story you don't like.</b><br /><br />Why didn't you even bother to read the numbers I pulled from the link in my post?<br />It's complete with footnotes of the sources from government and well known private organizations including links to the original data.<br />I have no idea what 60 minutes report you think you heard or how or if they spun it, but these are the cold hard numbers.<br /><br />1966 973,447<br /><b>1967 205,783<br />1968 220,193<br />1969 257,496<br />1970 292,410<br />1971 341,740<br />1972 380,625<br />1973 375,752<br />1974 334,621<br />1975 359,417<br />1976 383,220<br />1977 378,990<br />1978 394,636<br />1979 403,776<br />1980 413,093<br />1981 427,081<br />1982 468,041<br />1983 421,486<br />1984 303,123<br />1985 302,838<br />1986 183,959<br />1987 182,442<br />1988 185,416<br />1989 193,084</b><br />1990 992,265<br /><br />Put these in an excel spreadsheet and plot it and you will see a dramatic U during the time abortion was illegal.<br /><br />You don't have faith in what you claim is your Church and clutch at anything to avoid agreeing with it.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12169521382243761482018-06-20T18:45:21.929-07:002018-06-20T18:45:21.929-07:00Chad: "It's a religious test for citizens...Chad: <i>"It's a religious test for citizenship, because you're not asking them if they're hostile to Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Sikhism or atheism.<br /><br />There's only one religion you're seeking to protect with your questioning, and that's Christianity. That violates the establishment clause pretty blatantly."</i><br /><br />Huh?? We're not asking them about religion. We don't mention any religion during the interview. We're taking their stated values/principles and seeing if they are hostile to the secular values. Those secular values just so happen to align with many Christian values.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81811947966514325032018-06-20T17:39:22.043-07:002018-06-20T17:39:22.043-07:00Chad: "Still not getting how this is relevant...Chad: <i>"Still not getting how this is relevant to anything being discussed.</i><br /><br />It's only relevant because you brought up the moral justification of voting for a candidate who was pro-choice. I coped what you said below for context. <br /><br />If the rationale is that voting for a pro-choice candidate saves the lives of more unborn children, it would make even MORE sense to vote for the candidate that goes one step further. <br /><br />That candidate is the same as the pro-choice candidate except he advocates letting doctors perform fake abortions where the 'aborted' child is secretly allowed to live in a cage. The calculus being you'd save the lives that pro-choice candidate is giving you PLUS the lives of the children living in cages.<br /><br />----------------------<br />Chad said:<br /><i>"There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil. "<br /><br />http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm<br /><br />So, that seems to indicate that it would be permissible to vote for a pro-choice candidate for the "truly grave reason" that it would actually save the lives of more unborn children."</i>SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15127523781683415972018-06-20T17:13:08.235-07:002018-06-20T17:13:08.235-07:00Hugo: "What are the values implied by the ter...Hugo: <i>"What are the values implied by the term American democracy that Progressives are hostiles to?"</i><br /><br />Progressives that lean heavily leftist/socialist/marxist/communist have values that are hostile to American democracy. Their goal is undo America as it was established and create a new system of government.<br /><br /><i>"What are some examples of statements from Progressives that support the statement?"</i><br /><br />I'd rather just point you to people/groups. The group 'Antifa' comes to mind. Groups/people that use thug tactics to control the lives of others. Groups/people that advocate taking away guns by force. Groups/people that advocate putting people in jail under subjective 'hate speech' laws that are rooted in feelings and political correctness. Groups/people that want America to be governed by some third-party global law without getting the consent of the people. Groups/people that want open borders.<br /><br />I could keep going but I'll stop there. <br /><br /><i>"Do all/most Progressives and/or immigrants agree with these examples, or are they statements from fringe elements?"</i><br /><br />I define the term to include the people that agree with these examples. If you fit, you fit. If you don't, you don't. As I said before, you may use the term differently. SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82352169039660470982018-06-20T16:55:33.819-07:002018-06-20T16:55:33.819-07:00I did not get my figures from Planned Parenthood. ...I did not get my figures from Planned Parenthood. I got them from 60 Minutes, which did a whole segment on the subject. Argue with them (unless you're one of those people who like to parrot "Fake News!" every time you hear a story you don't like.Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83447463668392434252018-06-20T16:28:29.318-07:002018-06-20T16:28:29.318-07:00@Starhopper,
In all honesty, I do not know whethe...@Starhopper,<br /><br /><b>In all honesty, I do not know whether that would be great.</b><br /><br />Given a golden chance to show your true pro-life/anti-abortion position and full agreement with your Bishop and Church (who you should follow in matters of faith and morals) you just can't do it.<br /><br />Looks like you're brainwashed for good from the Planned Parenthood talking points. So please just stop saying you're pro-life. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-romania.html" rel="nofollow">The numbers.</a><br />Abortions dropped dramatically from 973,447 before 770 (the ban) went into effect to 205,783 after it went into effect.(1966 to 1967)<br /><br />Then abortions exploded From 193,084 to 992,26 when 770 was lifted.(1989 to 1990).bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35750343957586171512018-06-20T15:55:54.110-07:002018-06-20T15:55:54.110-07:00With those in full view, here are the answers to y...With those in full view, here are the answers to your questions:<br /><br /><i>Where are the sources?</i><br /><br />Google it. Seriously. You're expecting me to be able to somehow condense years' worth of observations to a couple links that only describe a handful of events? I'd have saved them in a list if I'd known I'd be confronting someone who can't be bothered to spend five seconds to do a Google search. Note: Your refusal to Google anything, as I anticipate, is not in any way equivalent to me being unable to offer examples. But that's just it - me posting a few examples does not show that I've had years' worth of material. And your also-anticipated rejection of my years' worth of observations is not going to somehow make me doubt that I've observed it. So this seems a pointless exercise in every way.<br /><br />Moving on...<br /><br /><i>Are Whites statistically more under attack than non-Whites?</i><br /><br />According to my original posts and the follow-up you quoted, this question has nothing to do with anything I said. I said that I PERSONALLY see more racist behavior from the left and toward whites than I do from the right and toward blacks, and THAT was in response to Starhopper saying that racists are Republicans and that he's never seen a leftist racist. I begged to differ. I also mentioned that it's most likely due to the media sources I do and don't use - no doubt if I used left-wing sources, it would be the exact opposite experience in sampling.<br /><br />Never did I say that blacks do not experience racism, and never did I say that the racism whites experience is as impactful as that experienced by blacks. But then, that wasn't the point I was making, was it? <br /><br /><i>What are the consequences of these attacks?</i><br /><br />Has nothing to do with anything I said.<br /><br /><i>Is there systemic oppression on Whites?</i><br /><br />Has nothing to do with anything I said.<br /><br /><i>Are Whites at a disadvantage because of these attacks?</i><br /><br />Has nothing to do with anything I said.<br /><br /><i>Are Whites targeted solely because they are Whites?</i><br /><br />Google search...<br /><br /><i>If it's just 'verbal and written', isn't that just exercising free speech?</i><br /><br />Only if you think that racism toward blacks is "just exercising free speech". I will be consistent in application of values - if racism is not okay, then it is not okay EVER. Progressives seem to ignore the exact same behavior they decry so long as it is applied to those who are viewed as "having power". That's one of the things I find most distasteful about the left in general. <br /><br />And again, nowhere in anything I ever said was I stating that whites have it as bad. Obviously they don't. Here were my points:<br /><br />1. I see racist behavior and statements from leftists, and I see racist behavior toward whites.<br />2. I see new examples frequently. These aren't rare occurrences.<br />3. My experiences are most likely colored by my media sources, which intentionally point out such examples.<br />4. I don't believe progressives as a whole really care about bigoted behavior toward those "with power" demographically. <br />5. Racist behavior is wrong regardless of the target, as is any bigotry, and deserves to be called out and condemned. Regardless of the target.<br /><br />That's it. There is no "6. Whites have it as bad as blacks." Never said it, never implied it. <br /><br />So once again, what exactly is the problem?Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57252096599477975002018-06-20T15:55:36.288-07:002018-06-20T15:55:36.288-07:00I wanted to close the loop on your most recent com...<i>I wanted to close the loop on your most recent comments because I am puzzled by your lack of willingness to defend claims that you made. </i><br /><br />This is a lie, unfortunately. I've defended my claim every single time you have brought it up (derailing other threads in order to do so, such as this one). This is the type of behavior I'd have expected from Cal or Stardusty, not you. That you don't LIKE my responses does not mean I am somehow unwilling to respond. <br /><br /><i>Your deflection only reflects your inability, or unwillingness to do so.</i><br /><br />Again, this is the sort of thing I would expect of certain others. You are mistaking my exasperation at having my responses repeatedly ignored, and this lie that I have not responded being brought up in threads that have nothing to do with it, with some sort of inability or unwillingness to give a response - despite my having done so every time it gets brought up. What's going on?<br /><br /><br /><i>Asking to Google something would not be very useful FYI</i><br /><br />When someone tells you exactly what to type in a search engine in order to get the material, and you refuse to do so, they aren't the problem. I told you what to look for in order to find the material. It's on page 1 and page 2 and page 3 and so on. That would be much more effective than me posting you a link that only talks about a smaller sampling than what multiple pages of Google hits can provide. I'm not aware of a centralized location compiling everything, but if I find one I'll certainly post it.<br /><br />Anyway, here's my original quote, the previous quote before it that gives context, a response to you in a different thread, and the abbreviated quote you posted here, put together:<br /><br />"This has been the exact opposite of my experience. Granted, this is counting everyone and not just politicians, but the vast, vast, vast majority of racism I see comes from the left. Every black Republican and conservative is an Uncle Tom. If you find someone assuming things about a black person based entirely on the color of their skin, it's likely someone on the left. Someone stoking racial animosity? Democrat's a safe bet. And so on and so on. But, that's been my experience. Perhaps my news sources are more fond of pointing out bad behavior by leftists."<br /><br />"But if I ignore that, and go entirely by overtly hostile things like derogatory racial insults, then I would STILL say that most have been from progressives with their constant attacks on "whiteness" and white people, and demanding safe spaces where white people are not allowed."<br /><br />"Because new examples are reported on a daily basis. Of course these are sites and groups that seek this behavior out and highlight it, but they don't lack for material. I don't necessarily think these people are representative, but I also don't see much in progressive thought that lends itself to opposing such ideas (extends to other things like sexism as well). Perhaps I've missed something."<br /><br />"My position is that attacks (verbal and written) on "whiteness" and white people happen and that they are not isolated events [...] I have an easily-confirmed position [...] I do not lack for additional evidence that further confirms what I found out to be true - more gets presented on a quite frequent basis. I have no reason to suspect it's not true [...] You can downplay its importance of course, but there is no factual way to deny its existence"<br />Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21757360124225157392018-06-20T13:33:55.158-07:002018-06-20T13:33:55.158-07:00Legion and SteveK,
I wanted to close the loop on y...<b>Legion and SteveK,</b><br />I wanted to close the loop on your most recent comments because I am puzzled by your lack of willingness to defend claims that <i>you</i> made. <br /><br />Therefore, when Legion says:<br />"<i>Hugo, I obviously can't get you to see how you're utterly wrong, so I frankly no longer care to try. Your mind is made up, no doubt because of a gut feeling.</i>"<br />Or SteveK says:<br />"<i>Hugo: I don't understand why you need to lie to defend your position."<br />I'm not lying at all.<br />"You literally just said that progressive are hostile to Western Democracy. Come on..."<br />Based on my usage of the term, they are. You may use the term differently than I do. Feel free to use whatever term you think is best.</i>"<br />You are both completely avoiding supporting what <i>you</i> said. It has little to nothing to do with what I claim. Your deflection only reflects your inability, or unwillingness to do so.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with what I believe or said. I could be wrong, of course, on so many things, but it would not make your claims correct. For instance, you could point out to 1 specific sentence that I wrote and I would either try to support it, or reject it and admit that it was wrong. But you guys do the exact opposite! It's as if conceding that just 1 sentence was wrong is conceding that your entire worldview is wrong. In reality, it's the exact opposite; it might make me, personally, consider you opinions with more consideration, should you be able to show that you adjust your thoughts and claims based on feedback received. <br /><br />Assuming you are taking this seriously, I will repeat the 2 specific claims that you made and would love to hear why you think they are indeed correct. I will not even bother stating why I think they are wrong, if I am unconvinced, but I will gladly admit that your defense makes sense, if you have one. Asking to Google something would not be very useful FYI... and if you don't care, fine, time to move on anyway...<br /><br />Legion claimed:<br />"<i>My position is that attacks (verbal and written) on "whiteness" and white people happen and that they are not isolated events [...] I have an easily-confirmed position [...] I do not lack for additional evidence that further confirms what I found out to be true - more gets presented on a quite frequent basis. I have no reason to suspect it's not true [...] You can downplay its importance of course, but there is no factual way to deny its existence</i>"<br />What is unclear, and thus sound absurd:<br />- Where are the sources?<br />- Are Whites statistically more under attack than non-Whites?<br />- What are the consequences of these attacks?<br />- Is there systemic oppression on Whites?<br />- Are Whites at a disadvantage because of these attacks?<br />- Are Whites targeted solely because they are Whites?<br />- If it's just 'verbal and written', isn't that just exercising free speech?<br /><br />SteveK claimed:<br />"<i>I’m talking about people who are preferably Christian but at minimum not hostile to it, preferably from a Western culture but not hostile to it, and not hostile to American democracy. Progressives are hostile to all of these things.</i>"<br />The problems:<br />- What are the values implied by the term American democracy that Progressives are hostiles to?<br />- What are some examples of statements from Progressives that support the statement?<br />- Do all/most Progressives and/or immigrants agree with these examples, or are they statements from fringe elements?World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78854273456488466832018-06-20T13:30:55.585-07:002018-06-20T13:30:55.585-07:00"Wouldn't it be great if he signed anothe..."<i>Wouldn't it be great if he signed another EO making abortion illegal?</i>"<br /><br />In all honesty, I do not know whether that would be great. Nicolae Ceaușescu outlawed it in Romania, which resulted in the number of abortions skyrocketing for decades. The number did not come down (in fact, it collapsed to near zero) after the fall of the Ceaușescu regime when, ironically, abortion was again legalized.<br /><br />Now don't get me wrong - I am not advocating either stance. But one cannot ignore the "facts on the ground" that it appears (at least in this one instance) that blanket bans on the procedure have a negative effect, if your goal is to eliminate abortion. Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62763163262956544722018-06-20T13:19:44.253-07:002018-06-20T13:19:44.253-07:00it is correctable with the stroke of a pen.
As I...<b> it is correctable with the stroke of a pen. </b><br /><br />As I understand it, the Executive Order violates the Flores agreement and so is illegal.<br /><br />Wouldn't it be great if he signed another EO making abortion illegal?<br /><br />By the time it reached the Supreme Court the industry would be closed down and the court would rule in his favor.<br /><br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62632677306436783462018-06-20T13:02:18.994-07:002018-06-20T13:02:18.994-07:00"it's a bad policy"
NO! I's far..."<i>it's a bad policy</i>"<br /><br /><b>NO!</b> I's far more than a "bad" policy. It is immoral, it is evil, it is sin. And unlike abortion (also evil, immoral, and a sin), it is correctable with the stroke of a pen. <br /><br />(Reputably, that may have just happened. But as they say, the devil's in the details. Are efforts now going to be made to reunite these sundered families?)Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82659769399660530622018-06-20T13:01:34.309-07:002018-06-20T13:01:34.309-07:00Great news indeed!
Except it appears the ACLU opp...<b>Great news indeed!</b><br /><br />Except it appears the ACLU opposes it.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20991697684089094232018-06-20T12:58:39.951-07:002018-06-20T12:58:39.951-07:00"Well Trump just signed an executive order en..."<i>Well Trump just signed an executive order ending the separation, so hopefully that's no longer going to happen.</i>"<br /><br />I'm not going to start cheering until I hear that all the families which have been torn apart have been reunited.Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16277040176399129482018-06-20T12:56:52.827-07:002018-06-20T12:56:52.827-07:00@Starhopper,
You love quote texts from various ch...@Starhopper,<br /><br /><b>You love quote texts from various church documents. So why then have you ignored (or at least not mentioned) the decision by the US Council of Catholic Bishops to unanimously condemn our government's policy of separating families at the border (what this thread is all about, after all), calling it "in every way immoral.</b><br /><br />Because I agree with them that it's a bad policy, it's Church teaching and there is no one posting here that disagrees. I'm pointing out that Catholics should be equally or more outraged at those who do not work to end abortion....according to church documents and your Bishop.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.com