kert1 writes
"Can someone explain to me how we make Health Care a Right? What happens when it bankrupts america and we can't afford it?"

Health care isn't a 'right' any more than education is a 'right'. However a healthy and educated population is in the national interest, so it is good policy.
I see 'health insurance coverage' and 'health care' as seperate issues. Health Insurance - I don't even know why we need that. The big companies simply exist to charge premiums and deny coverage. The government can do the first, not do the second, and be more efficient as it's not-for-profit. I don't think giving everyone coverage is going to bankrupt the government (as if Conservatives can be taken seriously on fiscal restraint!)

Can someone explain to me how we make Health Care a Right? What happens when it bankrupts america and we can't afford it? Whose responsibility is it then.

Is having enough food a right?
Is owning a house a right?

And in summary, we have these important rules that have evolved over 60,000 years of human history:

"Thou Shalt Not Kill"

"Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery"

"Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife"

ProLifeActivistBorn59 - you provided some URLs - so what? You pretend to care about all these 'babies' being killed, but you're too lazy to copy and paste the information that 'proves' your case?
FYI, I have gone to many websites that list numbers of abortions by year, through estimates, etc. You leave the impression that you have either not bothered to visit your own sites and read the information, or that you don't understand it.
Try harder!

marcedward1:

ProLifeActivistBorn59 writes

"More than FOUR THOUSAND unborn babies are killed each DAY in the US - 1.2 MILLION per year. Only a fraction of the number used to be killed before Roe vs Wade"

'only a fraction' is rather misleading. What is that fraction? 1/10th? 5/4ths? I bet you have no idea what so ever!

October 29, 2008 10:44 AM

______________________________________
ProLifeActivistBorn59:

From the statistics compiled (and regularly updated) by William Robert Johnston ( http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/about.html ):

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

Check out and compare for the years

before 1967 (sexual revolution)
1967 - 1973 (Roe vs Wade)
after 1973 (abortion as a constitutional right)

1. Abortion ratio is abortions per 1000 live births.

2. Abortion % is abortions as percentage of pregnancies (excluding fetal deaths/miscarriages).

October 29, 2008 7:25 PM

_______________________________________

marcedward1:

ProLifeActivistBorn59 - as I thought you provided no information.
If you're going to make a claim, be prepared to be challanged to back it up. It's not my job to do your research for you.

October 29, 2008 11:17 PM

_________________________________________

??????????????????

ProLifeActivistBorn59 - as I thought you provided no information.
If you're going to make a claim, be prepared to be challanged to back it up. It's not my job to do your research for you.

Alternatives to Abortion

Despite all their talk about "choice," those at abortion clinics who counsel women on their options often act as if abortion is a woman’s only realistic alternative. This simply isn’t so.

_________________________________________________

Throughout the United States, there are nearly 3,000 Crisis Pregnancy Centers staffed by volunteers ready to provide real help to women facing unplanned or untimely pregnancies.

_______________________________________________

In addition to providing pregnancy tests and counseling, these centers often offer a full range of services, helping women obtain housing, maternity and baby clothes, baby equipment, pre- and post-natal medical care, legal assistance and financial support, information about adoption, and even advice on how a woman in school can continue her education. Offering real and tangible assistance, these centers have helped thousands of women to realize that they didn’t have to choose between their own lives and the lives of their unborn babies.

Unlike their counterparts at the local abortion clinic, the volunteer counselors at your Crisis Pregnancy Center do not have a vested financial interest in the ultimate decision you make. Their concern and commitment are genuine, so you can count on them to stick by you through the tense and sometimes difficult months ahead.

Look up your local Crisis Pregnancy Center to have some idea of the quality of people who work there. But if not, you can look in the Yellow Pages under the heading "Abortion Alternatives," or call, toll-free, 1 (800) 848-LOVE, any time, day or night, to find the nearest Crisis Pregnancy Center in your area. You’ll find someone who genuinely cares about what happens to you and your unborn baby.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf15.html

I do not stand in judgment of any woman, but there needs to be shift in the attitude of women (and men) towards the barbaric practice of killing the defenseless unborn child and using sophisticated vocabulary to disguise the heinousness of the act, and going to the extent of calling it a woman's right. Women who complain because they have suffered under the abuse of power by men should know better than to turn around and become abusers themselves, even murderers of their own completely innocent and defenseless children.

From the website of Stanford Students for Life:

Links and Resources Menu

http://www.abort73.com/

Resources

* Abortion Alternatives
* Partial Birth Abortion
* Pro-Life Action
* Pro-Life Feminism
* Resources for Pregnant Women
* Calendar for Life

Pro-Life Links

Abortion Alternatives

* Abortion alternatives directory
* Dr. Feelgood: Adoption as an Alternative
* National Life Center: Abortion Alternatives

Euthanasia

* Feminist Case Against Assisted Suicide
* Physicians Against Euthanasia

Feminism

* Feminists for Life
* Feminism and Nonviolence
* Pro-Life Feminism Pages
* Real Feminists Can Be Pro-Life
* Pro-Life Philosophy and Feminism

General

* Abort 73: Everything they don't want you to know
* Allies of Peace
* California Students for Life
* The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (note: graphic images)
* Date Of Life Foundation
* Feminism and Nonviolence Studies Association
* Libertarians for Life
* Pro-Life, Pro-Children
* Priests For Life
* Pro-Lifers' Quiz
* Pro-Woman, Pro-Life
* Rock for Life
* Silent Voices
* Stop Fetal Tissue Research
* Ultimate Pro-Life Resource List

Partial Birth Abortion

* People for Life
* How can this be legal? (Warning: this site contains graphic pictures)
* The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act

Pregnant Women Resources

* Community Pregnancy Centers
* Crisis Pregnancy Center Network
* Pregnancy Care Centers of San Mateo County
* America's Crisis Pregnancy Helpline (Counseling and information for women and men)
* Crisis Pregnancy Center of San Francisco
* Information for Pregnant Women
* Abortion Alternatives

Roe vs. Wade

* The Court Opinion in Roe v. Wade
* A profile on Jane Roe and HER CHANGE OF HEART
* Roe v. Wade Information

Scientific and Medical View

* Medical Facts
* Scientific Fetal Development

Women's Health and Abortion

* After Effects of Abortion
* Is Abortion Safe?
* Physical Complications of Abortion
* Project Rachel -- Post-Abortion Syndrome
* Psychological Consequences of Abortion

http://www.stanford.edu/group/ssfl/

marcedward1:

ProLifeActivistBorn59 writes
"More than FOUR THOUSAND unborn babies are killed each DAY in the US - 1.2 MILLION per year. Only a fraction of the number used to be killed before Roe vs Wade"

'only a fraction' is rather misleading. What is that fraction? 1/10th? 5/4ths? I bet you have no idea what so ever!

October 29, 2008 10:44 AM

______________________________________

From the statistics compiled (and regularly updated) by William Robert Johnston ( http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/about.html ):

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

Check out and compare for the years

before 1967 (sexual revolution)
1967 - 1973 (Roe vs Wade)
after 1973 (abortion as a constitutional right)

1. Abortion ratio is abortions per 1000 live births.

2. Abortion % is abortions as percentage of pregnancies (excluding fetal deaths/miscarriages).

Fact of the matter is that NEITHER of the candidates are qualified for the Catholic vote.

McCain is pro preemptive (unjust war) and Obama is pro infanticide.

Both major parties are two wings of the same bird - i.e. McCain will vote for pro abortion justices and Obama will encourage war with Iran.

Time for a new center party...

PS - Arroyo is still a HACK.

The problem is that only those who enjoy the right to life bother about the right to healthcare. So, first things first ...

MikeL4 writes
"My friend, it seems you believe I am writing to support a candidate."

One assumes you are beginning your sentence with a tradmark McCain-ism to be ironic?

"No where have I endorsed any candidate."

Dintinction w/out a difference, as you only attack Obama's position (pro-legal abortion) and not McCain's consistant lack of action (under Republicans no limits on legal abortion).

"I do object, however to those who willing look to the Church to support their political beliefs on the War, but turn their back on the Church when it comes to Abortion."

It's called politics. One can only associate with people who agree with you on EVERYTHING. This is how the Bush Administration picked people to run the Iraqi occupation. Would you hire the worst plumber in town to work on your house if he happened to be the only pro-life plumber in town? One can also deal with people with whom you share many values, but not all, and get a lot more done.

"Senator Obama supports the right to kill a child up past viability if the "mental health" of the mother might be adversely affected."

Got a quote to back that up? I've never heard that before.

"To support a candidate who supports this, supports that position, in turns supports this evil. Any practicing Catholic who supports Senator Obama supports that position."

Point is moot as there is no difference between McCain and Obama on abortion when it comes to results. If you disagree, please explain how McCain would end legal abortion if elected.
Thanks!

ProLifeActivistBorn59 writes
"More than FOUR THOUSAND unborn babies are killed each DAY in the US - 1.2 MILLION per year. Only a fraction of the number used to be killed before Roe vs Wade"

'only a fraction' is rather misleading. What is that fraction? 1/10th? 5/4ths? I bet you have no idea what so ever!

CCNL Writes "And why should we have to pay for the sexual misconduct of others? Universal health care insurance or any kind of health insurance should not cover STDs of any person who knows about their disease but continues to practice unsafe sex."

1) Health Care ought to cover everything, not just those ills that we judge to be 'unfair' or 'nobody's fault'. Universal Health Care that doesn't cover politically incorrect illnesses is hardly universal.
2) With easy access to health care, wouldn't those untreated people get treated? Not sure about every STD, but aren't some rather uncomfortable?

"And "monks'dust"/saltpeter used in monasteries/boys' schools. Scientific references please!!"

Oh please, you're speculating about drugs to suppress sexuality (which would probably have massive amounts of hormones) and I'm the one not being scientific?

"We have no qualms about the use of ED drugs but have qualms about temporary disablement of the sex drive via safe drugs?? RCC priests would love to have such a drug available."

Ed drugs are taken voluntarily, while most people wouldn't want to take drugs that make them less than human. Not sure why RCC priests would love such a drug.

"As would most parents."

Well, parents who are more concerned with controlling their kids than their kids health. I can only imagine what it would be like growing up, not dealing with one's sexuality until one gets out of the house. Think it would be a lot worse for a guy to wait till he's 18 and suddenly all his sexual desires manifest all at once because his parents can't make him take 'the pill' any more.
later - Interesting as always!

Inviting anyone who may be concerned to speak out on behalf of suffering Christians in India:

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2365

Abortion should be viewed as abuse of power: the power a woman has over her defenseless, unborn child, who is dependent on her body for its very life, for the first nine months of its life. The child continues to need help in order to grow and develop after it is born. The only reason the woman is not able to abuse her power from the point of the child's birth - the law of the land stands in the way.

Abortion should be viewed as abuse of power: the power a woman has over her defenseless, unborn child, who is dependent on her body for the first nine months of its life.

knjincvc

A lot of comments about how wrong abortion is but no comments about helping women who feel they have no other choice.

I suggest those who feel so strongly about abortion work as a volunteer in a local hospital to experience the tragedy women experience when they make their decision.

October 29, 2008 1:10 AM

_________________________________________

Unconvincing sanctimonius platitude.

The attitude "Abortion as a constitutional right," with all the rationalizations, and dehumanization of the growing child that accompanies it, and compunction about resorting to abortion are mutually incompatible. Nobody is expected to feel guilty about exercising a right and the vast majority of women don't.

More than FOUR THOUSAND unborn babies are killed each DAY in the US - 1.2 MILLION per year.

Only a fraction of the number used to be killed before Roe vs Wade, even less before the advent of the sexual revolution.

The sexual revolution and Roe vs Wade has turned out to be literally deadly for unborn children.

clearbeard wrote;

Well, I've never met anyone who used abortion as a "primary method of birth control." Other than that, I fit all your categories, thank you for asking.

OK! That is one!!!

A lot of comments about how wrong abortion is but no comments about helping women who feel they have no other choice.

I suggest those who feel so strongly about abortion work as a volunteer in a local hospital to experience the tragedy women experience when they make their decision.

Non-Christians only make up roughly about 25% of the US population.

Of the roughly seventy five million non-Christians, how many would resort to abortion because their religious beliefs or lack of them do not respect the right to life of the child growing in the womb?

How many Christian churches would interpret the Bible in a way that makes abortion, fornication and adultery acceptable (considering 88% of women seek abortions for pregnancies outside marriage)?

To those who say abortion as a constitutional right cannot be wrong, NULONO, the pro-life atheist, had this response on 28 Oct 08:

“Let’s also not forget that, in 1850, there was no consensus in America for outlawing slavery or allowing women to vote. There was also a time when consensus was that the earth is flat. In fact, world history is littered with examples where “consensus” simply meant that most of the fools were on one side.”

It is outright disingenuous to use Jesus as a scapegoat to justify abortions.

"Thou shalt not kill" is clear enough and existed as a Commandment since the time of Moses.

Psalm 139 was written by King David, long before the birth of Jesus.

Luke chapter 1 describes the "ensoulment process" which begins with conception.

There are specific laws in Judaism which punished sexual immorality - fornication and adultery - severely. Jesus stepped that up by forbidding even lustful glances, and forbidding divorce emphasizing that divorce was allowed only because of the hardness of people's hearts, not because God intended it that way when He created human beings.

Statistics show that 88% of abortions in the US are sought out by UNmarried women.

If Jesus is being used as a scapegoat to justify abortions on the grounds he didn't mention abortion as a sin, just as He didn't mention pedophilia, why is His teaching forbidding even lustful glances, and prohibition of divorce not being followed? If everyone followed the teachings the number of abortions would drop at least by 88% automatically, the numbers sought by UNmarried women.

That leaves only 12%, 30% or more of whom may be talked out of abortion with economic help, adoption options etc.

"Thou shalt not take the name of Jesus in vain!"

Depending on the data one uses, "hard cases" could vary from 2-8%. That still leaves 92% abortions of convenience - 30% of them for economic reasons and 62% as constitutional right.

Maybe pro-abortionists should stop referring to the plight of all pregnant women in the US, as if they were all living in a desperately poor third world country?

According to William Roberts Johnston, who has compiled worldwide statistics on abortions (link provided in an earlier post), in the US 98% of abortions are for convenience; 88% of them by UNmarried women, around 76% of those under the age of 24. Of the 98% who seek out abortions of convenience, 30% do so for economic reasons.

So social programs that help women who seek out abortion for economic reasons would help reduce abortions in only 30%. That leaves out 62% women who can afford to keep the children and yet choose abortion as their constitutional right.

Only two percent of abortions are "hard cases" - due to rape, incest, illness in mother, fetal deformities.

In West European countries, where social support is good in most countries, tighter abortion laws have had a direct impact in reducing the number of abortions.

A pro-life atheist wrote:

I just wanted you all to know that we exist. It was terribly offended by being accused of being religious...

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/
http://www.l4l.org/

For high quality pro-Life essays:

Princeton Pro-Life

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/

Worldwide abortion statistics and other data compiled and regularly updated by William Robert Johnston:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html

Since various religious groups seem to have different teachings on the value of human life in the womb, it is essential to look to one uniform source that is based on empirical evidence - medical science. The single celled zygote is the beginning of every human being. It develops at its genetically predetermined pace for nine months in its mother's womb and continues to grow after birth.

Theories about ensoulment is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. The soul is eternal and is not killed in abortion, infanticide, homicide, euthanasia or suicide. Only a living body is deprived of its life.

More high quality pro-life information:

Physicians for Life:

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/

Canadian Physicians for Life:

... affirming the Hippocratic tradition in medicine of “Do No Harm”

Statement of Principle

1. Reverence for every human life, regardless of age or infirmity, lies at the root of all medical tradition and is basic to accepted standards of human conduct and our tradition of justice.

2. The long and honourable ethical tradition of medical sciences through the ages has been expressed and protected by the oath of Hippocrates. This tradition, rephrased in modern terms in the Declaration of Geneva (1948) must be our guide. The Declaration of Geneva says, in part: “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.” We reaffirm this Declaration.

3. The International Medical Declaration (Lejeune, 1973) addresses itself more specifically to the abuse of abortion, eugenics and euthanasia. Conscious that human life begins at conception, we hold that to directly cause the death of a human being, at any stage in life, because of physical or mental disabilities, or for social, economic, ecological or eugenic reasons, is a gross injustice to the person, degrading to humanity, and contradictory to the role of the physician.

4. A physician must recognize that there are two patients in every pregnancy and that he/she bears the medical responsibility for the lives of both the mother and her unborn child.

5. It must be the goal of medical science and its practitioners to preserve and protect human life, to relieve suffering and to promote healing

http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/html/position/

knjincvc wrote:
"Hummm!! How many posters know a woman who has had to make the difficult decision to have an abortion?

How many know a woman who uses abortion as her primary method of birth control?

How many are willing to help women carry their unborn child to birth and then help the woman raise her child?

How many have adopted a child or know someone who has adopted a child?

How many know families who have gone to another country to adopt a child?

How many know someone whose child has died in Iraq?

So instead of ranting about abortions...
Do something to help someone who feels the need to have an abortion!!"

Well, I've never met anyone who used abortion as a "primary method of birth control." Other than that, I fit all your categories, thank you for asking.

The most ironic element of the anti-abortionist's position against Obama is that, by dispassionate and realistic estimates there will be far fewer abortions (legal and illegal combined) following Obama's positions than there will be under McCain/Palin. If voters are going to be single-issue, be they gun rights advocates (Obama and especially Biden are both very much pro-second amendment rights) or anti-abortionists or anything else, they really should take special care to evaluate all sides and elements of their issue of choice, rather than blindly mouthing the talking points of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh (or MSNBC and the Daily Kos, to be fair).

Hummm!! How many posters know a woman who has had to make the difficult decision to have an abortion?

How many know a woman who uses abortion as her primary method of birth control?

How many are willing to help women carry their unborn child to birth and then help the woman raise her child?

How many have adopted a child or know someone who has adopted a child?

How many know families who have gone to another country to adopt a child?

How many know someone whose child has died in Iraq?

So instead of ranting about abortions...
Do something to help someone who feels the need to have an abortion!!

Marc, Marc, Marc,

And why should we have to pay for the sexual misconduct of others? Universal health care insurance or any kind of health insurance should not cover STDs of any person who knows about their disease but continues to practice unsafe sex.

And "monks'dust"/saltpeter used in monasteries/boys' schools. Scientific references please!!

We have no qualms about the use of ED drugs but have qualms about temporary disablement of the sex drive via safe drugs?? RCC priests would love to have such a drug available. As would most parents. The drug companies are unforutnately making too much profit from curing STDs to develop such a drug. And the sex industry surely would balk via their lobbyists.

And my three children were well educated about sex and sexual self-control at the correct age.

marc edward,
There are few people that are rooting for more abortions. However, there are those that actively want to reduce even what little restrictions on abortions that still exists in the US. Obama Barrack is one of those. While he will say that he wants fewer abortions, and lets take him at his word that he does, he still is pushing policies that will in fact increase abortions. That's because in his view of the world, the mother's right to choose is paramount and the child's right to life is non-existent. He will therefore maximize the woman's right to choose by overturning all limits, which will increase abortions. Sure, he talks a good game about limiting pregnancy but I don't think its in his wherewithal to fix this. It's not a problem of lack of birth control. Its a problem of birth control's limitations in actually controlling pregnancies. While they reduce the odds, the probability of an unplanned birth is still high (14% of those using condoms will still give birth within a calendar year)..

Marcedward1
My friend, it seems you believe I am writing to support a candidate. No where have I endorsed any candidate. I do object, however to those who willing look to the Church to support their political beliefs on the War, but turn their back on the Church when it comes to Abortion. Senator Obama supports the right to kill a child up past viability if the "mental health" of the mother might be adversely affected. Senator Obama supports and defends Abortion on demand. He is pro-abortion. As the Church has pointed out, Abortion is the greates evil of our time. To support a candidate who supports this, supports that position, in turns supports this evil. Any practicing Catholic who supports Senator Obama supports that position. They need to seriously evaluate why they continue to cling to their Catholic faith if they are willing to support a pro-abortion candidate.

MikeL4 writes
"Senator Obama's apologists"

You mean people who believe in telling the truth.

"would have us believe that pro-choice and pro-abortion are two separate things."

They are.

"When you, like Senator Obama, take no legislative steps too limit an evil,"

LOL - that's a good one.
So exactly how many legal abortions have the Republicans stopped with legislation?
Where's the human life amendment to the constitution?
Where's the ban on ALL late term abortions?
Not only have the Republicans failed to end legal abortion, THEY HAVEN'T EVEN TRIED. There was no attempt to sway the country to their point of view like there was to sell the invasio of Ireq.

"He is pro-abortion."

So is the Republican party, as judged by their ACTIONS.

"If a practicing Catholic votes for him they are supporting someone who supports a great evil."

They would be, IF there was an alternative that was going to end legal abortion - there isnt!

game-set-match

Senator Obama's apologists would have us believe that pro-choice and pro-abortion are two separate things. When you, like Senator Obama, take no legislative steps too limit an evil, when you use semantics like "health" exceptions to justify infanticide, I do believe that makes you pro-abortion. Senator Obama has never said that abortion is morally wrong. He is pro-abortion.
If a practicing Catholic votes for him they are supporting someone who supports a great evil. They in turn should find a church, such as Senator Obama's, that can tolerate such a "choice" as theirs.

Arroyo is a HACK...a pasty for the anti Catholic Newsweek magazine group and the Democrats.

Both candidates are looking to improve health care for Americans and added govt. influence DOES NOT mean better health care.

(the govt. is already involved in 60% of health care transactions via medicare, veteran hospitals etc. - they are driving costs UP not down)

Arroyo is a leftist hack that looks for power and tries to use Catholic teaching to achieve that power.

Obama is the most EXTREME proponent of killing humans in the womb that this nation has seen...

He is also a war monger looking to expand commitments in the mid east.

Did I mention that Obama supports the death penalty.

Arroyo is informed/motivated by evil and power - not the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Healthcare is directly related to any pro-life position which purports to protect both potential and actual child birth. The infant mortality rate in this country is a national disgrace, placing us squarely with the third world, because of the lack of pre-natal and post-natal health care. Planned Parenthood clinics are often the only affordable community resource available to women, young and more mature, who are not eligible for medicaid, to get any kind of medical service, including just a physical check up. The no matter what anti-Obama, or anti-Democratic wing of the Karl Rove Catholics must be transmitting these messages from whatever other country or planet they really inhabit.

MikeL4 "Senator Obama is NOT a Pro-Life candidate by any stretching and distortion of the truth."

Not sure you meant to say what you just wrote. Senator Obama is for the legal right to get an abortion, that doesn't make him 'for abortion'. Of course being 'pro-life' is more than opposing abortion. Moreover, the is no difference between the results of a McCain or Obama presidency when it comes to legal abortion. Obama has said he'd not end legal abortion, and McCain won't and can't do anything to end legal abortion.

As a propagandist, you're not very good.

Stephens-Arroyo agains distorts Catholic teaching to support a political candidate. Senator Obama is NOT a Pro-Life candidate by any stretching and distortion of the truth. Senator Obama believes in no restrictions on Abortion the greatest evil of our times. No Catholic can support this evil, no matter what other seemingly benign proposals Senator Obama might have.

Health care as a right means basic life saving or preventative measures, basic health care for the dignity of human beings. Health care as a right does not include such things as vanity surgeries or abortions.

CCNL writes
"It is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone"

Well, it's obvious that too many people aren't practicing safe sex. However 'out of control'? That implies that the government ought to be controling how often we have sex. What about better parenting? I know countless people who got their 'sex education off the street' (FYI, I told my eldest about sex stuff before he was 8).

"How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start."

They used to give boys in bording schools saltpeter so stop them from touching themselves. Seems rather intrusive to me, but maybe you like big government.

"And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, condoms and chastity belts are no protection against STDs. "

Yeah, nagging teenagers will get them to change their behavior. Obviously you've never had kids! oOral sex is much safer than sexual intercourse (no pregnancies, less spreading of STDs). Claiming that condoms offer 'no protection' is just a lie. Any parent who shops for a chastity belt for their kid is mentally ill. Any kid who want's to wear a chastity belt is kinky.

"Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!!"

In a fascist country that might sound good. However we have RIGHTS in this country, including the right to privacy, let along the Amendments that clearly spell out people being 'secure in their papers'.

"Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???"

Uh, yeah - as in sexual predators are breaking the law and assaulting other people. BTW, has it crossed your mind that universal healthcare will help get more people treated for their STDs?
Have a good day - as usual you're an extremist, but an interesting extremist.

Somethings BO should have noted about reducing health care costs:

It is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone.

from the CDC-2006
"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, condoms and chastity belts are no protection against STDs.

Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

withouthavingseen writes
"By this reasoning, Stalin was an excellent choice for the conscientious Catholic vote."

Wow stupid much? Obama wants wider availability of health care and he's Stalin? Are you drunk? If you're referring to abortion, explain how McCain would do anything about legal abortion with a Democratic senate - keep in mind McCain has spent no time at all doing anything about legal abortion in the past.

"Don't get me wrong, I'm no McCainist, but frankly, all the lavish attempts by 'progressive' Catholics to explain to us how Obama is compatible with the Catholic faith because he is a socialist"

So Obama is a socialist?
Defend your assertion. List 5 industrys Obama wants the Federal government to take over
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Methinks your rather a liar.

And another thing:

"Health care is a right, not just a responsibility."

I am not denying that this quotation represents a teaching of the Catholic Church, but I cannot find it anywhere. It is not scriptural, nor can I find it, or anything like it, in the Catechism. It seems anachronistic to suppose it will pop in Denzinger anywhere. Maybe it is from one of JPII's encyclicals.

Prof. Stevens-Arroyo cites it as a teaching of the Catholic Church. I wonder if he or anyone else will provide a citation to that effect from a magisterial document.

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

Another excellent piece of obamapology. By this reasoning, Stalin was an excellent choice for the conscientious Catholic vote. Don't get me wrong, I'm no McCainist, but frankly, all the lavish attempts by 'progressive' Catholics to explain to us how Obama is compatible with the Catholic faith because he is a socialist make me think of Shakespeare.

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much."

yours,

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

It's great to see a Catholic point of view that correlates well with humanist values. This is of course where social pragmatism butts heads with orthodoxy (and where religious orthodoxy tries to shape social policy).

In fact, ancient religious mythologies are not a good basis for developing contemporary secular policies that effect one and all in the grand scheme of things.

We can see how said religious thinking becomes skewed in the direction of religious faith - and not always with the desired consequences hoped for in an egalitarian-based secular democracy.

Prof. Stevens-Arroyo is clearly out of synch with the majority of ultra-conservative orthodox Catholics that tend to post here - nevertheless, his is a voice of reason in the miasma of doctrinaire religious thinking that clings to a medieval world view.

National healthcare is just a good idea, plain and simple - and we will get there, one way or another....but it will cost the richest among us (both corporate and individuals) alot more than they'd care to pay.....thus we have complaints and dire warnings of imminent socialism, etc.

The statistics prove that as each year passes, the rich get richer and everyone else either stagnates or drifts downward, socio-economically speaking - trickle down economics indeed!

My feeling is that Obama and a democratic super-majority in Congress will reverse that inexorable upward movement of wealth. What could possibly be wrong with a more fair, just and prudent re-distribution of assets?

When you give folks a license to steal, you get the housing, mortgage and banking fiascos that we're currently living through - and many of the perpetrators are very, very rich.

The rich folks are definitely not going away, but in the future a much larger percentage of those vast profits need not only more regulation and oversight, but re-distribution for the common good. National healthcare is one such excellent repository for re-directed monetary overflow in the future - and away from those already-bulging personal and coporate offshore bank accounts.

Regarding right-to-life and pro-choice issue, Roe v Wade will remain the law of the land, and the Supreme Court will move decisively back toward the middle, where it belongs.

cummingsjp writes
"Everybody has a right to health care. They also have the responsibility to pay for it"

I think there is a bigger issue here. The first is that the 'health insurance' industry seems only interested in two things - collecting money and denying payments when people get sick. Health insurance companies seem useless to me. If all they do is collect money and try as hard as they can to deny coverage, why have them at all? The government could do the same thing without the 'denial of coverage' part.
The larger issue that NOBODY is talking about is the awful state of health care. I live in Chapel Hill with lots of medical schools around, and the care provided at UNC is so bad I wouldn't send my cat there - and I don't like my cat. In rural areas it gets even worse. Almost as bad is our poor care for the elderly. Very few doctors get trained in caring for the needs of old people. Nursing homes are (bad) warehouses where people are sent to sit around till they die. Assisted living communities look nice, but they are so expensive so as to be out of reach of most people. Worse, once elderly people need more extensive care their treatment can be very poor (I got lotsa horror stories). NO candidates are talking about these problems, and we will all suffer in the long run.

democratssuckcom writes
"I agree that health care is a pro-life issue, but it does not even begin to equal the slaughter of innocents that Barack Hussein Obama advocates."

Liar. Obama has never advocated slaughtering innocents.

Rocky31 writes
"but Mr. Obama cannot have it both ways - his position on abortion and the rights of the unborn is clear and is unacceptable - as Catholics we cannot support him"

Accept McCain will do no more for 'the unborn' than the Republicans have done for the last 38 years - nothing. Show me McCains plan to end legal abortion - I dare you! There is no difference between McCain and Obama on abortion when it comes to results, which matter a lot more than talk.

Not only would our tax money support abortion, it would also support contraception, and American Catholics--on the Right and the Left--conveniently forget that contraception violates the Natural Law (paganism, Hinduism and Islam also oppose contraception, as does the Old Testament-"Be fruitful and multiply," "happy the man who has filled his quiver with these arrows," etc.).
Secondly, in places where "universal health care" is a right--such as Oregon, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom--euthanasia always follows closely on its heals.

Thirdly, as a person with a genetic disorder and constant medical expenses, I would never want to be part of a socialist system. Every person I've ever communicated with from a country with socialized medicine--Canada, UK, or otherwise--has admitted--even while praising their own systems--that there are huge waiting lists for specialists, that people have to have waiting lists for what we consider routine procedures like MRIs and "normal" heart surgeries.

People with rare disorders in socialist countries Try to save their money and pray for the opportunity to come to the US for surgery.
One of the sign-in ladies at our local ER used to know a Catholic family in Brazil where the father and several of the 10 kids all had Marfan syndrome (which I have). She said that just about every member of the family needed surgery for some body part--heart, eyes or bones--and they were despeartely hoping to come to the US for their surgeries.

That's what you want for America? You consider that pro-life?

Robert,

Where do I begin? You sound very angry and its hard to see or hear clearly the facts when you're in such an emotional state. The truth is that Obama voted no on a health bill denying rights to botched abortions because there was already a law on the books guaranteeing that babies would legally have to be treated under this circumstance. The purpose of the bill was to undermine Roe vs. Wade, evident by the language of the bill which is why he denied it. Again, newborns in the circumstance of botched abortions in illinois are, by law, given medical treatment to save their life.

Also, I am a born again, evangelical christian (raised jewish). I had an abortion when I was 19 years old. I agree that abortion is a sin and is against the commandment "thou shall not kill" given to Moses in Deutoronomy. Although I am adamant that abortions are wrong, and feel ashamed of my choice to have one, I ultimately still am pro-choice on the issue. Here is my reason why, from a much prayed on, much contemplated position:

We live in a fallen world, without legal abortion women determined to terminate their pregnancies will still find ways to do so. The majority of the American public leave this choice up to the women, government is obligated to serve the public. If the majority agrees, then the government should side with the majority.

abortion goes against the commandment "Thou shall not kill" According to God, all sins are equal. If we use the argument thou shall not kill as a reason to make abortion illegal, we have a responsibility to make it illegal to break any of the ten commandments, including no other Gods before me, no false idols, honor your mother and father, to not covet your neighbors wife, ect. We are all guilty of all of these laws.

The problem I have with this idea id this:
Forcing people to do what is right by God does not make people authrntically love God.

God gives us free will because he is not a divine rapist( He does not force us to love him) He lets us choose. It's this choice to choose God that creates genuine love for our redeemer, not forceable laws.
I wish the pro-life evangelical movement put half as much energy into caring for the broken women who are seeking abortions as they do into blasting any one who opposes them or judging people who have abortions. Our job is to love, lets leave the judging to God.

That affordable health care is an issue on the minds of most Americans is no doubt - but Mr. Obama cannot have it both ways - his position on abortion and the rights of the unborn is clear and is unacceptable - as Catholics we cannot support him.
http://vizmojo.net/Canvas.aspx?ZXVC=CCA27C8A32D52A1A

Thank you. An opportunity for me to congratulate the Catholic church for remembering that Jesus spent His Life ministering to the sick, poor and despised of his society.

McCain represents the most reprehensible part of America - those who talk about God and moral values, but really worship the Golden Calf of the God of Greed. That is their only goal - more and more wealth, to hell with everyone else. Sounds like the republican leadership are sociopathics.

Remember that Sen McCain cheated on the wife who waited faithfully 6 years for him to return from Vietnam, and then left her to marry Cindy McCain because she is worth several hundred million $$$. That is proof enough of his character, or lack therof. And a perfect example of the people who are destroying the institution of marriage.

And his health insurance plan - $5000 credit for a family - My previous employer just offered me entrance into their retiree medical plan for myself and my wife. Total Cost about $21000. And what would I do if had to get individual insurance and had to tell them that I have heart valve and aortic damage from high blood pressure - from decades of trying to earn a living in high pressure corporate life. They would tell me, and 50-75 million other Americans with pre-existing conditions to go take a hike, and maybe just go die. Fortunatly we have Medicare, but it isn't cheap - we spend about $6500/yr for that medical insurance, fortunately that we can afford.

McCain is like his party. Once a good man and a good party, it has been corrupted by the God of Greed. May they be banished to the hinterlands of poltics for decades. Until they clean house, including getting 100% rid of the people who feed them with some of the profits they made, while destroying our economy, and possibly giving us another 10 years of a new great depression.

Obama considers the life of all. He opposed the partial birth abortion bill because it failed to address the health and life of the mother. Neither goverment or your neighbor should have the right to decide between the life of the mother or the child when both hang in the balance. It is rather zealous of anyone to suggest such a thing. Repent!

McCain on the other hand is responsible for the thousands of young American's who died in Iraq and for the failures of providing vets proper health care coverage.

He is further responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children killed in US Bombings and Terrorist Bombings as a result of not ensuring a proper security plan. However he is responsible for providing Iraqi children health care while many of our American children have none or substandard care.

On dafur he has been vocal but has only recieved a grade of C by www.darfurscores.org All sentors including Obama need to step up action to stop the genocide.

Everybody has a right to health care. They also have the responsibility to pay for it. Government's responsibility ends with making sure that people have access to it.

I agree that health care is a pro-life issue, but it does not even begin to equal the slaughter of innocents that Barack Hussein Obama advocates. I think that we will make more strides in health care with a moderate John McCain than the ultra-liberal and dangerous Obama.

How can you justify this pro-Obama diatribe when Obama has voted against bills in Illinois that would have guaranteed health care for a baby born alive after a failed abortion? Have you even researched his positions? I don't think so. A person of faith could never vote for a person who is such an unabashed instrument of evil.

Robert
Please read: http://www.democratssuck.com/?p=133

Health care is a pro-life issue, which is why Americans should oppose Obama. It's very likely that our tax money would be used to pay for abortions under Obama's plan and Obama voted against health care for pregnant women and their unborn children. See www.lifenews.com for details.