Archbishop Rips Moral Idiocy Of Obama’s Abortion Democrats
About the Author: The Party of Kennedy is NOT the Party of Pelosi. The Democratic Party has radically degenerated into a socialistic and postmodern perversion of its former place in American political thought. In place of Judeo-Christian values they embrace secular humanism; in place of a strong national defense they embrace a reliance upon internationalism; in place of a strong family they embrace a radical abortion agenda that increasingly includes outright infanticide.
I can't sit idly by and watch the culture war pass me by. It is time to choose sides. As Joshua 24:15 puts it, "choose this day whom you will serve."
Polls have shown that the more committed one is to (any) religious belief, the more conservative one tends to be politically. One’s views toward religion profoundly affect one’s commitment to political, social, and moral issues. In my articles, I seek to argue in favor of a religion-friendly view of culture, morality, and politics. Read more from this authorDenver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput had a lot to say about Democrats and abortion:
DENVER (AP) - Denver Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput labeled Barack Obama the “most committed” abortion-rights candidate from a major party in 35 years while accusing a Catholic Obama ally and other Democratic-friendly Catholic groups of doing a “disservice to the church.” ….
Chaput, without getting into much detail, called Obama the “most committed” abortion-rights major-party presidential candidate since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion in 1973.
“To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year’s ‘real’ pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse,” Chaput said according to his prepared remarks, titled “Little Murders.” ….
The Obama campaign has been promoting an unusual-suspect sort of endorsement from Douglas Kmiec, a Catholic law professor and former legal counsel in the Reagan administration.
Kmiec wrote a book making a Catholic case for Obama. He argues the Obama campaign is premised on Catholic social teaching like care for working families and the poor and foreign policy premised on peace over war. Democratic efforts to tackle social and economic factors that contribute to abortion hold more promise, Kmiec said, than Republican efforts to criminalize it.
While applauding Kmiec’s past record, Chaput said: “I think his activism for Senator Barack Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.”
Pro-Obama Catholics “seek to contextualize, demote and then counterbalance the evil of abortion with other important but less foundational social issues,” said Chaput, who wrote a book this year, “Render Unto Caesar,” about Catholics and politics.
I have heard many people say that world hunger, global poverty, and other social welfare issues should be primary, and that abortion is of relatively minor significance in comparison. It doesn’t work that way.
First of all, a fetus is a human being, every bit as much as you are or I am. According to the most rigorous scientific categorizing of all things - taxonomy - a human fetus is of the Kingdom Animalia, of the Phylum Chordata, of the Class Mammalia, of the Order Primates, of the Family Hominidae, of the Genus Homo, and of the Species Sapiens. From the moment of conception, that is how a human being is classified. And nothing else in existence is so classified. As a matter of funamental reality, you who are reading this are no more or less human than a human zygote. An unborn human being is human by virtue of its parents, and a being by virtue of the fact that it is a living, growing, developing thing: it is a human being.
Either human beings are fundamentally, intrinsically, and incommensurably valuable as human beings in and of themselves or they are not. If they are not, and a woman can subjectively choose to terminate her pregnancy - and kill her child - then human beings have only subjective value. Human beings in this sense would be little different from a pet dog: my dog has a great deal of value to me, but not much to anyone else. One woman loves and cherishes the baby growing in her womb; another despises it and wants it dead. Neither is any more “right” or “wrong” than the other.
The baby who emerges from its mother’s womb in the delivery womb would be the kind of thing that could have been killed only moments before. And as that child grows into adulthood, it is always the kind of thing that could have been terminated without moral consequences.
I remember seeing a bumper sticker on a car that read, “Pro Child, Pro Choice.” If you can be pro-child while strongly supporting abortion, then why can’t you be “Pro Jew, Pro Holocaust”? We have in the United States aborted nearly 50,000,000 innocent human beings for the simple reason that they were unwanted. And the view that one can care about children so much that one supports that babies’ death because it isn’t wanted by its mother has rather terrifying implications about other “unwanted” people.
That’s not a real strong position from which to argue about social and economic justice. The desperately poor, starving child in Africa? Does he or she have rights? Does he or she matter?
Is a newborn baby a precious human being, or is it merely an abortion that didn’t happen?
If his or her value is merely a matter of subjective determination, then the answer may be yes or or it may be no, depending on how you personally feel about the baby in question. If, on the other hand, his or her value is a matter of objective ontological status as a human being, then the answer is an unqualified YES. And if you don’t care about that baby, then the issue isn’t about that baby’s humanity, but about your appalling lack of human decency and compassion.
Why should a woman’s decision to have her child or to kill it alter the reality of that child’s value? Who is she to decide, “This child is valuable,” or “This child is worthless”? “Oh, she had her child, so therefore it matters, and I should care” is a bizarre thought to hold at the same time as “Oh, she aborted her child, so therefore it didn’t matter, and I shouldn’t care.”
That’s the archbishop’s point. If you’re not pro-life, nothing else really matters. It’s such a bunch of subjective posturing once you have abandoned the fundamental dignity of human life. We’re just meat puppets, then. We’re just primates who are somewhat more “evolved” than the very animals we eat for food or allow to live as pets. We’ve killed untold millions of such primates in wars, and untold millions more have died of neglect. What does one more - or one million or one billion more - matter?
Please watch this video:
Care for working families and the poor, peace, love and kill you young !!! It’s about darn time the church stands up to these morally bankrupt people. Designer catholics, they all get to pick and chose which parts are good for them.
Catholics do not support abortion period. If you’re not seeing it the way the church does, this religion is not for you. God Bless Chaput !
Alan Keyes !!!
Ultimately, it isn’t a Catholic issue, or even a Christian issue, but an issue as to whether human beings should be accorded fundamental, objective value or not.
We too often yield the argument to our opponents, and let them get away with the equivalent of murder.
Don’t give these people anything: if they are going to argue for abortion, make them demonstrate that ANY human being is “valuable.” Just keep claiming that human beings are just animals, that being “more or less evolved” doesn’t mean that one species is more valuable than another species, and that there are too many human beings, and that’s why global warming is a problem. There are too many human beings on the planet. The planet was fine before we came along, we are threatening the planet, and human extinction would be good for Mother Earth and for all the other species.
And, of course, because of all that, we should allow the poor and the “unwanted” to die - or even actively kill them to put them out of their misery. And that liberal social justice is every bit as wrong as being pro-life.
Tell them how Planned Parenthood under Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate black babies and other social undesirables by encouraging abortion. And how Planned Parenthood is still overwhelmingly located in black neighborhoods.
And then watch them flail widely around trying to provide the reasons why your arguments are wrong, and human life is valuable.
Take the roof off their pro-abortion arguments and let the world see the cockroaches scurrying around in their house.
All very good points Mike ! I will try your theory out tomorrow. I have a few victims in mind :twisted:
You can take Peter Singer, the Princeton University professor of ethics who thinks may be okay to kill a child as old as three years because he or she is still not functionally equivalent to an adult pig.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2659
Make your debating opponent show why Singer is a moral monster, or ask him to agree with Singer in killing babies (like the Democratic candidate for President).
Or you can use as another leaping off point University of Texas Professor Eric Pianka. Let me give you a quote:
“According to Pianka, 5.8 billion people should be systematically killed” to save the planet from global warming.
http://www.punditguy.com/2006/04/save_the_earth.html
Force your opponent to objectively refute these monsters - these monsters who inhabit our own universities (just like Obama’s pal William Ayers) and poison the minds of our young people. Force them to do more than say, “Well, I don’t think that’s right.” That’s drivel. Tell them, “I don’t really give a damn what you think. Humanity doesn’t formulate its morality or its ethics based on what YOU think. If you can’t tell me why these guys’ views are wrong from your moral perspective, then your moral philosophy and your stupid abortion position is pure crap. And you are a moral criminal for holding on to your baby killing views.”
Fifty million human beings are dead because of abortion, and its past time we started seriously confronting the people who support that holocaust.
We have a tendency to assume that the people we’re debating are decent people, and allow them to say they think X or Y without going after why they think it. But they aren’t good people. Abortion is hateful. They are coming from a fundamentally different worldview, which is genuinely vile if you just expose it as such. Their worldview lacks the necessary presuppositions for genuine moral goodness. All you have to do is take the roof off an expose that worldview for what it is.
Mind you, this isn’t always the best way to make friends.
Ultimately, what you are looking for is a teachable moment: if you can get it through your opponents’ heads that they don’t have an objective principle - a law of the universe - to explain why abortion is okay, but killing other human beings who were until recently the very kinds of things it is okay to kill is wrong. Then you can begin to explain why the only place that you can clearly draw the line is at the status of human life. It is always wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. If you make intelligence, or “consciousness” (whatever that even means as an objective criterion) any other criterion the “thing” that makes it okay to kill a human being, you go down the slippery slope just like Singer and Pianka go down the slope. The “ethicists” who propose criterion justifying why abortion is okay all give DIFFERENT criteria!