Kaptur: Catholic Hospitals May Support Health Care Bill's Abortion Language For Business Reasons

March 17, 2010 1:20 PM

If people start aborting babies, who are the priests going to rape? C'mon, people...Have a heart, look at the big picture.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

March 17, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to bignose

You are so right. Because, obviously, people who support "aborting babies" care so much more about them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 17, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to masanf

We do. One of the most moral reasons for having an abortion is when continuing the pregnancy would create a child with a higher chance of suffering. We also show that we care more about children by working harder to see that they are cared for once born.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tfred

March 19, 2010 8:30 AM in reply to AJM

Please explain how the more moral choice is to kill someone because there is a "chance" they could suffer? How is it not more moral to let them decide for themselves if their own life is worth living?

By that rationale any person could justify killing any other person at any time and it would be considered moral.

Also, why does a life that contains suffering not have value? I don’t know anyone that has not suffered at one point or another.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 19, 2010 9:37 AM in reply to Tfred

If you knew that the next time you had sex you would produce a child who had Tay-Sachs would you go ahead and start that pregnancy? It is right to deliberately create a person facing a terrible disease?

For people who share my view that a fetus is not yet a person, that is what the moral question is. There is not person you are killing, you are merely stopping the development of a human body before it reaches the stage where it can be inhabited by a personality or a soul, however you want to describe the capacity to be a human person experiencing life.

The argument is not that a life without suffering is without value but that deliberately creating someone to be put in a situation with suffering is despicable. Once you have a person faced with suffering you do your level best to alleviate that suffering. Suffering is not a moral virtue.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tfred

March 24, 2010 7:43 PM in reply to AJM

I asked a specific question but you changed the premise without really answering. I asked how is it moral to kill someone because they might suffer. You changed that to say is it right "deliberately creating a person facing a terrible disease"? This is not the same question - and it is a point that no one argues. Of course it is not right to deliberately create a person facing a terrible disease. But do you know people who do this? People who go out to impregnate someone in order to create a child with a disease?

Anyway, I don't see how the parents intent influences wether the baby should die. Even if the child would suffer, that still does not answer how it is moral for someone else to decide that baby's life wont ever be worth living.

You said that a fetus is not yet a person, but this does not make sense. Fetus is a stage of development - like "toddler" or "teenager" - not a thing. So then at what stage does a baby get inhabited by a soul? Since abortions can occur long after a baby can survive out of the womb, what is the difference then between a baby at 9 months in the womb and 9 months out of the womb? The only differences are size, level of dependency, level of development, and environment. None of these seem to present an obvious soul trigger.

However, even the leadership at NOW does not claim what you are claiming. They acknowledge that abortion does indeed claim an innocent life. They just argue that the damage to the woman's life style justifies the taking of the baby's life.

So, if you do not know the "stage" where the soul is deposited, why do you err on the side that creates the possibility that thousands of normal healthy baby are killed each day? Doesn't it make more sense to err on the side of protecting life? For this you cannot use "the law" as a guidepost or you have to accept things like this:

http://www2.wsls.com/sls/news/local/lynchburg/article/mother_wont_be_charged_with_babys_death_because_of_law_loophole/68659/#comments

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 24, 2010 11:40 PM in reply to Tfred

You assumed your conclusion in the question you asked.

I was pointing out that when an early abortion takes place, there is no someone to kill. Would you kill something with the capacity to feel and understand of rabbit or a cow to prevent a child from suffering? Of course you would. And this is precisely the decision that woman who choose to abort a damaged fetus is making. For those of us who recognize that an early fetus is not yet a child it would be highly immoral to continue that pregnancy -- we would be making a decision to create a child with a higher likelihood of suffering.

Your argument as to stages is also wrong but I'll take that up some other time.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tfred

March 25, 2010 6:40 PM in reply to AJM

You are correct - in my question I did assume that you believed a fetus became a child with a soul during the pregnancy. So when does that happen? This seems to be the focal point of the issue.

Is there ever a time when an abortion is morally wrong? I'm just trying to understand your point of view.

Please explain how the argument on stages is wrong. I'm just curious.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 26, 2010 1:17 AM in reply to Tfred

My point is that there is no inherent evil in destroying a fetus before it becomes a person. This is in no way equivalent to killing a person because the person is suffering: in essence, it is preventing a person from suffering.

As an embryo develops more and more of the characteristics which would ultimately make it a person, the reasons for its destruction have to be more compelling, but basically the right to an abortion tracks with the inherent viability of the fetus -- the point when it can survive independent of a womb, natural or artificial. The major exception to this is that I reserve to the woman her right to defend her life and health. If you were to develop one of the sleep walking disorders in which the sufferer commits violence and to start strangling your spouse, you would be totally innocent yet, if need be, your spouse has the right to kill you to preserve his or her own life. Similarly, if pregnancy threatens the woman's life, the life of even a baby does not automatically supersede the woman's right to life. That is her call to make. The second major exception is the point at which it can be shown that the baby-to-be is conscious, can experience emotion and can form memories. I would be much slower to justify an abortion the closer the fetus is to that stage.

The argument from stages fails because it is simply another form of the argument about potential -- the claim that because it could become a baby, it must be treated as though it were a baby now. This leads to morally absurd results. We are all potentially dead -- in fact we all will die but to treat us as though the potential were already realized -- to bury us now -- would be a result which is both morally absurd and morally atrocious.

As to when the soul inhabits the body that is not the terms in which I think about this -- for me it is when the body develops the capacity to hold a personality. The question of soul or when the body can contain a soul is a religious question and since such a question is not capable of verification beyond the appeal to the sacred text and I believe it is wrong to impose the beliefs of one religion as to when this point might be on those who do not hold those views.

Further, since abortion is not mentioned in the Bible and the Bible contains both statements that we come from and return to dust and that "I knew you in the womb" that it is not at all self-evident that the Bible support the idea that a soul is implanted at conception.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tfred

March 29, 2010 9:34 AM in reply to AJM

There is nothing inherently wrong with arguments based on potentiality. You have made two such arguments in our conversation - potential suffering as a variable in the abortion decision, and the potential death of the mother (and I don't know anyone who disagrees with that).

However, I disagree with your premise that there is a change from "something" into a living human being. A fetus is already a human being. Science tells us that the zygote is living: there is metabolism, growth (reproduction), and reaction to stimuli. Since it is a living thing, we must ask what it is. The answer is a living human being.

In our conversation, you have identified different standards for human beings to have personhood (capable of surviving outside the womb; having consciousness and making memories; and the "capacity to hold a personality". These criteria (functionalism) have several problems - they are unusable from a practical standpoint; they vary with the current state of technology; they vary with the individual DNA in question, they posit something that cannot be known; they tend to be capricious, etc. However the biggest problem is that they assert that intrinsic value of human beings is determined by something external to them. This does not make sense.

If a woman asks if 145 days too late for her to have an abortion, no one could know what to tell her based on those criteria. This is why I ask about erring on the side that could allow for the killing of an innocent human being. If a demolition crew is about to demolish a building and the foreman asks "is anyone in that building?" Should he blow it up if the answer were "I don't know?” Of course not.

If the unborn is not a human being, no justification is necessary. If the unborn is a human being, no justification is adequate except self-defense.

I have enjoyed talking with you. Thanks for the conversation.
Todd

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

chimpale

March 17, 2010 3:35 PM in reply to masanf

Unlike right-wingers who don't give a rat's ass about the mother and don't really care what happens to the kid after it's born, either.

The breadth of their concern for life spans from conception all the way to birth. And that's about it. It really has a lot more to do with symbolism than compassion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tfred

March 19, 2010 8:39 AM in reply to chimpale

If your assertion is correct, why do religious private donors raise more private funding for treatment of those who are suffering after an abortion than secular private donors?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

IndyLinda

March 17, 2010 1:21 PM

Nuns are well-known tools of the business establishment. Not.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

barbara63

March 17, 2010 1:31 PM

The story about the Catholic nuns supporting HCR is very important. Please, TPM, give it more attention than simply posting it as a blurb among blurbs. Whenever a Tea Party-Style event occurs, no matter how small, you go all out to publicize it. This story is far more significant than yesterday's tea gathering. (Please accept my apologies if you've already moved it to the front page.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 17, 2010 3:07 PM in reply to barbara63

You're right! Any fucking teabagging wackadoole can say any fucking teabagging retarded bullshit that has no consequence on anybody and TPM gives it a headline!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Kristi

March 17, 2010 1:32 PM

What about the nuns, Marcy? Are they supporting it for financial reasons too?

"Catholic nuns urge passage of Obama's health bill

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Catholic nuns are urging Congress to pass President Barack Obama's health care plan, in an unusual public break with bishops who say it would subsidize abortion.

Some 60 leaders of religious orders representing 59,000 Catholic nuns Wednesday sent lawmakers a letter urging them to pass the Senate health care bill. It contains restrictions on abortion funding that the bishops say don't go far enough.

The letter says that "despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions." The letter says the legislation also will help support pregnant women and "this is the real pro-life stance."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_catholic_nuns

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

benjoya

March 17, 2010 4:16 PM in reply to Kristi

marcy loves baby jesus more than all those penguins put together.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

benjoya

March 17, 2010 4:17 PM in reply to benjoya

that's why she spends her life in washington married to a non-son-of-god.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

March 17, 2010 1:38 PM

Well, we certainly can't have people's stances on this bill be due to business reasons, can we?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Rick Jones

March 17, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

And the Bishops are not "manegerially responsible" for the health or choice of women - especially non-Catholic women.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

VictorLH

March 17, 2010 1:39 PM

These people are inconsistent. Why would anyone who cares about life vote against a bill that would save many more lives than ever could be lost due abortions? Frankly, if they looked at the math, more lives are lost due to not having access to safe abortions than otherwise. Really sloppy thinking and if they really thought about it, a real sin.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

March 17, 2010 1:57 PM in reply to VictorLH

The inconsistencies are even more direct than that. It's well-established that in countries with better access to health care (including FREE abortions) the rate of abortion is far lower. The reasons are equally well-established and perfectly obvious: better access to contraceptives and less worry for an expectant mother over being able to afford health care for her child.

The sad truth is, for all their bleating about unborn babies, they actually DON'T CARE about the babies, unborn or otherwise. They only care about imposing their version of morality.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

There can be little doubt that access to quality, affordable healthcare, childcare, education and job training as well as restoration of the social safety net rent by thirty years of Republican callous indifference to the poor would do a great deal to reduce the number of abortions each year. Sadly, many pro-life activists seem to lose interest in the sanctity of life once the child is born, or if the child is too brown, or too poor, or has health problems and no insurance.

To paint the Catholic Church and the Catholic Bishops as indifferent to the plight of the poor and suffering belies is either remarkably unjust or belies a profound ignorance of history and indeed the present.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 17, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to Chesire111

You don't want to recognize it but it is true. Recognizing when it is a bad time to create a child is an important moral reason for having an abortion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 17, 2010 3:18 PM in reply to Chesire111

How much credit do you think we should give the Catholic Church for their actions in Haiti -- preventing women from having access to abortion or contraception and then wanting credit for providing extremely limited help when families have far more children than they can feed?

Providing limited help to avoid the consequences of your own evil actions does not entitle you to respect.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 2:37 PM in reply to VictorLH

Morality isn’t a simple matter of mathematics.

Let’s suppose that there are three brothers; one of whom is in good health, one of whom will die without a heart transplant and the third who will die without a liver transplant. In order to save their own lives, the terminally ill brothers conspire to kill their healthy brother and attack him one evening. If they succeed in killing him more lives will be saved than if he succeeds in defending himself, Clearly you wouldn’t condemn the healthy brother for defending himself, even more lives would be saved as a result of his demise than if he survived the attack.

Good ends cannot be attained through evil means. If a person believes abortion to be the taking of a human life, as the Catholic Bishops are required to do, then they are morally bound to oppose any measure which results in the taking of innocent life regardless of what good outcomes are intended.

It is not “sloppy thinking” which constrains the Bishops and Catholics, it is rigorously consistent thinking.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DKDC

March 17, 2010 2:45 PM in reply to Chesire111

Bullshit - the Hyde amendment allows abortion in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother, while the Catholic Church opposes abortion even in some of those instances. The Hyde amendment is a compromise, in which the Catholic Church agreed to federal funding of abortions even in some cases in which they wouldn't allow it, in order to attain a prohibition of federal funding of ELECTIVE abortions. So how were the bishops not "morally bound" in that situation?

And how many of you pure Catholics are currently receiving tax-exemption (which is federal funding) for insurance coverage that goes to companies providing abortion coverage, even if your own plan doesn't cover it? Are you not "morally bound" to oppose participation in ANY insurance plan because funds might go to aportion coverage?

Do yourself a favor and go dig that log out of your own eye before you start coming on here and bitching about the specks in others.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 3:59 PM in reply to DKDC

If a boat is taking on water from several holes in the hull, but I only have enough material to patch one of, I think you would agree that it would only make sense to patch the largest of the holes. The fact that the boat still takes on water, albeit at a slower rate, is no reason not to patch what I could nor to accuse me of causing the leaks in the first place.

The Hyde amendment is not a compromise. It is a partial victory in that it decreases a perceived evil – the federal funding of abortions – without increasing any other evils. It does not patch all of the holes, but it does improve the situation.

According to the Bishops’ interpretation, the Senate HCR bill, on the other hand would alleviate some evils, namely denial of care based upon pre-existing condition or ability to pay and would save lives. It would, however, achieve this success at the cost of cooperation with what is believed to be an evil by expanded federal funding of abortion - the equivalent of cutting another hole in order to obtain material for another patch.

Your second point is similarly misleading. In the first place, a tax exemption for health care premiums does not constitute federal funding. All of the funds for my health care premiums are paid by my employer and by me. The federal government is not directing these funds, they are merely refraining from taxing them, and so cannot be said to be funding anything through the exemption. The fact that plans provided by other employers may cover abortion or that my insurer may offer other plans which cover abortion has literally nothing to do with my premium dollars.

Finally, at I would return favor for a favor and, at the risk of sounding like a scold, suggest that might do better to make your points without quite so much sneering and a little more respect for differing opinions. Reflexive belligerence is no more persuasive nor attractive on the left than it is on the right.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

March 17, 2010 4:06 PM in reply to Chesire111

"It would, however, achieve this success at the cost of cooperation with what is believed to be an evil by expanded federal funding of abortion..."

I call BS. It's been established without question that the Senate bill DOES NOT expand federal funding of abortion. Anyone who buys a policy that covers abortion must pay the cost of that coverage themselves. The actuarial costs of that coverage must be strictly segregated and no federal monies can be used. Furthermore, I think we've already established that even if the government made abortions free (small hole), the improved access to health care (large hole) more than offsets any additional abortions, resulting in a net DECREASE.

So what, exactly, is their objection again?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SocialJusticeForAll

March 17, 2010 4:11 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

http://www.lifenews.com/nat6132.html

The bill requires that at least one health care plan be promoted across the country that pays for abortions, more abortion funding would come via the affordability credits, and many of the so-called limits on abortion funding in the Senate bill are temporary and could expire or be overturned at a later date.

The Senate health care bill also pays for abortions under the Indian Health Service program.

And it contains the Mikulski amendment that would allow the Obama administration to define abortion as preventative care and force insurance plans to pay for abortions.

Finally, the Senate bill does not contain language needed to offer full conscience protection for pro-life medical workers and facilities.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

It is NOT without question...from the website of the USCCB:
The Senate bill uses federal funds to subsidize health plans that cover abortions. Sec. 1303 limits only
the direct use of a federal tax credit specifically to fund abortion coverage; it tries to segregate funds within
health plans, to keep federal funds distinct from funds directly used for abortions. But the credits are still
used to pay overall premiums for health plans covering elective abortions. This violates the policy of current
federal laws on abortion funding, including the Hyde amendment, which forbid use of federal funds for any
part of a health benefits package that covers elective abortions. By subsidizing plans that cover abortion, the
federal government will expand abortion coverage and make abortions more accessible.

The Senate bill uses federal power to force Americans to pay for other people’s abortions even if they
are morally opposed. The bill mandates that insurance companies deciding to cover elective abortions in a
health plan “shall… collect from each enrollee in the plan (without regard to the enrollee’s age, sex, or
family status) a separate payment” for such abortions. While the bill states that one plan in each exchange
will not cover elective abortions, every other plan may cover them -- and everyone purchasing such a plan,
because it best meets his or her family’s needs, will be required by federal law to fund abortions. No
accommodation is permitted for people morally opposed to abortion. This creates a more overt threat to
conscience than insurers engage in now, because in many plans receiving federal subsidies everyone will be
forced to make separate payments solely and specifically for other people’s abortions. Saying that this
payment is not a “tax dollar” is no help if it is required by the government.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DKDC

March 17, 2010 4:42 PM in reply to Chesire111

The bill no more requires someone to sign up for a plan that covers abortion than the federal government now forces anyone who is eligible for Medicaid or any other government program to sign up for it - you and your bishops would have us believe that there will be circumstances in which people who are anti-abortion will somehow be "forced" to sign up for plans offering abortion coverage in the exchange because it "meets the needs of their families."

If you don't want abortion coverage and don't want to pay for it, then don't effing pick the plan that covers it. Freedom of choice, the American way. You and your fellow anti-abortion opponents of reform have built hypotheses upon speculations to try and justify your opposition to this bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 5:05 PM in reply to DKDC

Sadly, time presses and I do have to get some work done at some point today. I'm afraid that means that I am going to have to be a bit more selective in chosing which posts to which to respond. Basically, that means I'm done replying to someone who seems incapable of respectful conversation.

Too bad, some of your stuff was actually kind of interesting.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

March 17, 2010 4:47 PM in reply to Chesire111

Horseshit. You're arguing nonsense. The actuarial cost of the abortion coverage is strictly segregated and federal funding cannot be used for paying such.

Instead of getting your information from some pro-life website, let's go right to the bill (pp2071-2):

If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services:

It then goes on to list the various sources of federal funding.

Of course, what you're going to argue next is that money is fungible and that by providing a subsidy to the person to buy insurance, if the person buys abortion coverage with their own money, the federal government is indirectly subsidizing abortion coverage. This, of course, is pure nonsense. By that logic, if they go down the the bar and have a beer, the federal government has indirectly subsidized the cost of that beer. If anyone ever gets a dollar of federal funds the taxpayer has indirectly subsidized everything that person ever spends his/her money on. If a person works for a company that gets federal contracts and that person gets an abortion, the taxpayers have indirectly paid for that abortion. Have I done enough reductio ad absurdum?

Moreover, a plan that covers abortion will (because abortions are MUCH cheaper than carrying pregnancies to full term) be cheaper than a plan that does not, so it's ludicrous to bleat about forcing people to buy coverage that includes abortion coverage. If you have insurance now (either private or through your employer) it almost certainly includes abortion coverage, yet I don't hear the Bishops whining about that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Measure for Measure

March 18, 2010 3:04 AM in reply to mans_best_friend

Furthermore, the biggest taxpayer subsidy for abortions is the tax break on employer-provided insurance, worth some $250 billion. Most of those plans cover abortions.

Sure, the connection is tenuous. But it's a heck of a lot more direct than the Senate plan.

What do the bishops have to say about the employer subsidy? Nothing. But they are willing to stop health care reform in its tracks, though federal abortion funding remains illegal in the Senate bill -- any abortion coverage requires a separate rider purchased by the patient. This is more arduous than current private plans do.

Also, not to put too fine a point on this but methinks the nuns have accumulated a heck of a lot more moral authority over the past 20 years than America's Catholic bishops.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

LynnTTT

March 17, 2010 10:46 PM in reply to DKDC

I am a pro-choice Democrat and support the Bill. I have talked to a few people who say they believe abortion is murder and do not support the bill. However, I have asked them-"If you really believe abortion is murder, why do you do nothing about it? You don't go to protests, you don't picket outside Planned parenthood, you don't really do anything. If I believed that a clinic in my town was killing healthy one week old babies, I sure would be in a panic." They say, "well it's not the same thing". And I say, "Exactly".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

March 17, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to Chesire111

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. -Emerson

If ever I saw an argument that epitomizes that maxim, this is it. As I pointed out above (and you agreed), better access to health care REDUCES the number of abortions. Neither is it true that the Senate bill provides federal funding for abortion or changes the status quo with regard to abortion funding. Yet in their zeal be consistent in their method of choice to try to reduce abortions, the Bishops actually advocate a position that INCREASES the number of abortions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 17, 2010 3:31 PM in reply to Chesire111

It was sloppy thinking that made them declare that a fetus is a human being. This idea is a recent innovation in Catholic theology. It is also sloppy thinking to prefer a course of action which leads to more abortions when you could choose one which leads to fewer abortions.

The sin of pride is involved. Opting for the unglamorous provision of health care doesn't allow you to grand stand about how moral you are by opposing abortion in the name of life.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to AJM

If it's true, then what difference how innovative the idea conversely, how could age hallow an error?

What is sloppy about the belief that life begins at the moment of conception? I would hazard that it is a far more easily defended position than vague and variable notions of trimesters and viability and stages of development. That is not to say that reasonable and intelligent people may not conclude otherwise, but it is hardly an example of sloppy thinking!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 17, 2010 4:34 PM in reply to Chesire111

You appeared to believe that doctrine could hallow the error and the Church has gone out of its way to make it appear that this particular error of opposing abortion had long been hallowed by time when it had not. One of the original reasons given by Church Fathers for opposing abortion was it allowed women to avoid being detected in the sin of having sex. I agree that the length of time a belief has been held is of limited relevance to its validity.

"Life begins at conception" is simplistic. The first sloppiness it that it implies that both the egg and the sperm are not alive. This is manifestly false. Define conception for me and then defend the idea that there is something about a fertilized human egg that makes protecting it worth killing the woman who bears it which is what Catholic doctrine currently calls for.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

elle a

March 17, 2010 4:28 PM in reply to Chesire111

that is a silly argument.

is it moral to deny 30 million americans the access to health insurance coverage in order to deny women the right to choose to have an abortion?

its not like ALL women would have abortions. just some.

so, your argument is that it is morally superior to deny SOME women the OPTION of having an abortion, compared to supporting hcr to allow 30 million men women and children access to health insurance to sustain their lives ALL THE TIME.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 4:42 PM in reply to elle a

It is immoral to deny 30 million Americans access to health insurance.

It is also immoral to take an innocent life.

If the fetus can be proven NOT to be a human life (and I truly and fervently wish that someone would!) then I would agree with you 100%.

Unfortunately, if it IS a human life, then it would be immoral to exchange innocent lives for greater health insurance access.

I do, however, sincerely respect your position, even though I cannot agree with your reasoning.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mrut

March 17, 2010 9:45 PM in reply to Chesire111

elle a is correct.

Keeping abortions legal is not murder.

Just because abortion is legal doesn't mean that it MUST happen.

This is my problem with the Catholic Church and with people who advocate criminalizing abortion. They don't actually work to decrease the INCIDENCE of abortion. Their motivations are basically traditionalist anti-sex conservatism, and they just want sex to go away.

They make big noises about abortion being murder, but they oppose every measure that would decrease abortion because the reality is that these people aren't against abortion as much as they are against sex.

No contraception (why--it equals "murder"?), no sex education (because it's morally equivalent to "murder"?), no family planning (because all that "murder" that takes place without it is the lesser of evils?).

Their position is fundamentally cynical.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mrut

March 18, 2010 7:55 AM in reply to Chesire111

You say "morality isn't a matter of mathematics" and then to prove your point you concoct an unreal, emotionless hypothetical situation that could be taken straight out of a math book!

Your argumentation is are not grounded in reality. It is completely independent of the compelling nature of human experience. It also is devoid of the experience of being a woman, subject to becoming pregnant.

Your reliance upon pure abstraction to consider human problems may seem to you like a source of strength, but it is precisely what weakens the Church and the faith.

You cannot minister to real people in real life with these laboratory-style theoretical scenarios. At first, people will get angry at you and give you the satisfaction of feeling that you won the "debate," but then they will ignore you and leave the Church, because life is life; life isn't a debate about hypotheticals. Morality, too, is meaningless if it isn't lived.

This is the problem we run into with all of our rightwing politicians who get elected by loudly proclaiming their love for Jesus and the flag. Such proclamations are by nature cynical ploys. They are hallmarks of people who do not live by their words.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

George C

March 17, 2010 2:37 PM in reply to VictorLH

Obviously, it's not about saving lives; it's about saving lives that aren't, yet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Bull Schmitt

March 17, 2010 1:42 PM

Yes, Marcy - the hospitals are in an entirely different place - they are trying to heal the sick.

Meanwhile you, like the Catholic Bishops with no actual responsibilities for helping people - can continue to be attention whores.

May I offer you a crying towel, Representative?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Powkat

March 17, 2010 1:46 PM in reply to Bull Schmitt

Exactly right - watch the scenes in Doubt where the priests are dinning and the nuns are having dinner. That's the difference - nuns are out in the real world working with families and children, the sick, the poor. The bishops are pampered darlings who only have to deal with the masses if they choose. Just try to get an appointment with the local bishop sometime - see how long it takes. Unless of course, you do something to tick him off.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DKDC

March 17, 2010 1:51 PM

It's time for everyone to call out the bishops on this bullsh*t - here's the bottom line, and repeat it loud and clear to ANYONE who asks. The Catholic Church will never support health care reform legislation, not just because of abortion but because also becuase of contraceptive coverage, which the right-wingers oppose nearly as strongly as they oppose abortion. Complaining that the Senate abortion language doesn't go far enough is a fig leaf to give them cover to oppose any bill.

The Catholic hospitals, and Catholic nuns, support the legislation because they support reform, period - and feel they can support this bill despite misgivings because it does at least get them closer to their goal of reform.

The Catholic bishops don't oppose the Senate bill because of abortion - they oppose it because they oppose reform, and always have no matter what they say.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to DKDC

Care to back up your allegation that Catholic Bishops oppose any and all health care reform with evidence?

Who do you suppose set up the Catholic Hospitals in the first place? I hate to break it to you, but anybody who has followed the health care issue in the United States for much more than five minutes understands the fact that the Catholic Church has long one of the foremost advocates of reform to allow access to quality, affordable health care for all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DKDC

March 17, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to Chesire111

I would love to remind you and everyone else here who "set up the Catholic hospitals in the first place" - the nuns.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 4:07 PM in reply to DKDC

The Catholic Church set up the hospitals, not the nuns alone.

Nice try though.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Powkat

March 17, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to Chesire111

Gloria Steinham said it first, but it's as true today as it was then: If men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.

The problem with the US Bishops is twofold:

1. They are a very conservative bunch because there have been very conservative popes for the past 30 - 40 years. I have a hard time imagining Joseph Bernadine refusing communion to a pro-choice politician. The priests and bishops who supported civil rights and the anti-war movement are long gone.

2. The second is they are (ostensibly) celibate men. They have no experience of family life with it's compromises and negotiations, they have no financial responsibility for children, their health, education and well-being, and finally, they have not lived in an intimate emotional relationship with a woman, and and have no understanding of how men and women differ.

This is not to say they are bad people - just people who have lead a more narrow existence than most of us, and see the world differently.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mrut

March 17, 2010 9:51 PM in reply to Powkat

I agree with you 100 percent. The bishops have no real-world experience and have never lived and worked in an environment where women are their peers or even superiors.

And the celibacy. There is anger in the Vatican's policy about family planning. They really do seem to feel that women should be punished for having sex. It's a single man's religion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Progressive Party

March 17, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to Chesire111

bullshit...ask a woman what she thinks of the catholic church's compassion; especially as it relates to family issues and abused children.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 4:33 PM in reply to Progressive Party

How does a person respond to a point as uninformed as this? It's like trying to reply to a global warming denier. Only an extremely selective reading of history or a complete ignorance of thereof coupled with an apparent unfamiliarity of the day to day reality of Catholic life in America could possibly produce this sort of jibe.

I'm sorry for your ignorance, but I'm afraid I can't make up, in a brief post, for your lack of awareness.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DKDC

March 17, 2010 5:21 PM in reply to Chesire111

And by the way, love to - the bishops never endorsed the House bill even after Stupak was added - why is that?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

erica

March 17, 2010 1:56 PM

Yes--please point up the Catholic nuns story. It's important, and represents a principled choice made by many practical Catholics.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

March 17, 2010 2:03 PM

Everyone knows that nuns are just agents of the secular liberal establishment. Or big corporate insurance companies. I can't remember at this point.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 2:12 PM

The endorsement of the Senate bill by the Catholic nuns is significant only in that it provides cover for pro-life Catholic politicians who object to the abortion language, but would otherwise desperately like to vote for HCR. Unfortunately, it says very about whether the Senate bill is acceptable from a Catholic perspective. It is the Bishops who speak authoritatively on matters of doctrine, not the nuns.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DKDC

March 17, 2010 2:34 PM in reply to Chesire111

it is not now, nor has it ever been any matter of "doctrine" how a representative votes on health reform or any matter of legislation. It was never a matter of "doctrine" to oppose slavery or support civil rights, or how to vote on any other piece of legislation in the U.S. Congress.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to DKDC

DKDC, I'm not entirely sure of your point. Perhaps I am misinterpreting matters, but it seems that the endorsement of the Senate bill by the American nuns is being waved as some sort of evidence that it is consistent with Catholic doctrine. I merely pointed out the fact that this is not correct.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

George C

March 17, 2010 2:45 PM in reply to Chesire111

I agree with DKDC, Chesire, your position is very troubling. Catholics couldn't be elected President 'till Kennedy because of the argument they would be more attentive to the wishes of Rome than to America. Kennedy took enormous pains to discredit that argument, and he won (barely) only because he was successful. You appear to be suggesting that Catholic politicians' priority of doctrine over public interest is "principled". Would you accept similarly "principled" stands by religious Jewish or Muslim politicians on, for example, refusing to enforce regulations regulating safe pork production? Where would this stop? Everyone is entitled to his or her faith, but this is a very dangerous road.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 3:08 PM in reply to George C

George C-

I do not suggest that Catholic politicians should prioritize doctrine over public interest. I believe that all politicians, whatever their background, should represent the public interest and the interest of their constituents. Their perception of what is in the public interest will be colored by their personal beliefs, but should not be determined exclusively by those beliefs.

I hope that clarifies what I was saying and apologize for any confusion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 17, 2010 4:06 PM in reply to Chesire111

You suggested that pro-choice Catholic politicians needed 'cover' if they went against the "Bishops who speak authoritatively on matters of dcotrine."

This implies that Catholic politicians ought to follow the dictates of the Church as opposed to their own consciences. How would you like to amend your statement to eliminate this implication?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 4:48 PM in reply to AJM

My point is that some PRO-LIFE politicians who truly , and desperately want to vote for HCR and see it succeed, but find it impossible in good conscience to vote for the Senate bill, would welcome the nuns endorsement of the Senate bill to provide them with both an excuse to vote in favor of health insurance for 30 million Americans and cover against criticism from pro-life voters.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 17, 2010 8:21 PM in reply to Chesire111

My error. You did apply this to 'pro-life' Catholic polticians who dislike the abortion language. But this doesn't make your position much better -- you still have politicians seeking 'cover' from the Church for following their conscience OR these pro-life politicians are willing to go against their conscience IF they have such cover. It is the appeal to outside authority for 'permission' to make their decisions which is troubling.

Further, pro-choice Catholic politicians have been threatened with exclusion from rituals vital to salvation under Catholic theology in order to pressure them on their abortion positions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mrut

March 17, 2010 10:14 PM in reply to Chesire111

Might it not be that the bishops are wrong?

They seem highly selective about condemning sins.

During political campaigns, they emerge from their palaces to call for the denial of communion to a politician who supports the *legality* of abortion, which is not the same as the commission of abortion.

But they don't call for denying communion to politicians who support the death penalty, or to politicians who advocate for the repeal of any and all gun control laws, who advocate for completely unregulated gun sales and allowing people to bring concealed weapons into church.

When did the bishops call for denying communion to politicians who BRAG about their love of killing, of war, of violence against Muslims, of torture by Americans.

Where are these bishops on the slander and lies of politicians and TV personalities--gratuitous lies, transparent lies. Isn't there a commandment against that?

The church doesn't care about real people and real people's lives. That's why you answer questions with silly hypotheticals about having multiple holes in a boat. Haven't you ever been in a boat? If there are holes big enough for you to see, the question of which one is the biggest is irrelevant because your boat is already halfway to the bottom of the lake.

There is no real life experience in your answers. That's the problem with the bishops and the Vatican in general. It's all angels on the head of a pin.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Flybynite

March 17, 2010 2:58 PM in reply to Chesire111

Authoritative in the sense that they have vaginas? Or in the sense that they spent decades covering for pedophiles, when they weren't pedophiles themselves?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to Flybynite

Flybynite-

Authoritative in the sense that they have authority to pronounce definitively on matters of belief. Last I knew, genitals were for reproduction, not for thinking.

I would be happy to discuss the failure of members of the hierarchy to apply the moral standards of the Church to their response to the crime of clerical sexual abuse of minors, but that is not the topic of this discussion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Powkat

March 17, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to Chesire111

Bet you went to Jesuit college.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

March 17, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to Powkat

I did. And your point is???

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 17, 2010 3:59 PM in reply to Chesire111

It is relevant for deciding whether the Bishops are suitable sources of moral authority. By their fruits you shall know them and if sweeping the sexual abuse of children under the rug is the outcome of the best moral instruction the Roman Catholic Church can provide, all their teachings are suspect.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 17, 2010 11:01 PM in reply to Chesire111

Here now : Retired Catholic Bishop Endorses Health Care Bill

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 17, 2010 3:54 PM in reply to Chesire111

How to interpret a legislative bill is not a matter of doctrine.

The nuns recognize that the bill does not provide funding for elective abortions and the Bishops are lying and claiming it does.

You are extremely disdainful of the nuns and of the rights of conscience. You need a refresher course:

At the heart of church teachings on moral
matters is a deep regard for an individual’s
conscience. The Catechism states that “a
human being must always obey the certain
judgment of his conscience.” The church
takes conscience so seriously that Richard
McBrien, in his essential study Catholicism,
explained that even in cases of a conflict
with the moral teachings of the church,
Catholics “not only may but must follow the
dictates of conscience rather than the teachings
of the Church.”

From Prochoice Catholicism 101

Jon O'Brien and Sara Morello, president and vice president of Catholics for Choice, outline core Catholic tenets that provide a sound basis for prochoice Catholicism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SocialJusticeForAll

March 17, 2010 4:14 PM in reply to AJM

I respectfully disagree.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10031704.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 5:01 PM in reply to AJM

Sorry, but I am not disdainful of the nuns at all, however, I do disagree with them and dislike the efforts of some to imply that their pronouncements bear the weight of the Magisterium. They do not and in fact in this matter, they are straying from Catholic Doctrine.

Also, I would point out that, it is a “well formed conscience” that is regarded with profound respect.

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

...

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

In other words, conscience is more than a code word for “what sounds alright to me,” and the paraphrase of Richard McBrien’s explanation the position of conscience in Catholic theology, is either taken grossly out of context or is just plain wrong.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Majorajam

March 17, 2010 7:24 PM in reply to Chesire111

I see, so the nuns don't have the right to imply that 'their pronouncements bear the weight of the Magisterium', but you do? Is that how it works? Good trick that one.

As for their charting an unwelcome, heretical course on this issue, I really wasn't aware that Church Doctrine had been established as to how far removed a public subsidy must be from reimbursement of an abortion procedure to be permissible. Tis better the great unwashed not have access to healthcare, (in addition to the sick), than that they might use that access for morally unacceptable things!! You learn something every day.

Of course, it must also be Church Doctrine only to count the subsidies to get an abortion when evaluating these things, not the subsidies in the bill for bring children to term. That low income folks can count on having health insurance for themselves and their born children under this bill, (i.e. the only socio-economic group for which this matters in the least), would clearly factor in a women's decision, were she, as Chesire111 and his fellow emissaries of Catholic Doctrine have it, making the decision based on her demand deposit balance.

Of course, Catholic Doctrine doesn't really care about the born children anyway, as Chesire111 has been careful to point out upthread- "This isn't a math problem", and just like that *poof* their personhood disappeared like magic!

This I didn't know either, and it sounds counterintuitive, but hey- my thoughts and opinions clearly don't bear the weight of the Magisterium!!! Why else would resorting to silly math problems factor into "What Catholic Doctrine Has To Say About the Senate Health Care Reform Bill"?? I mean 40 some odd THOUSAND Americans who die from preventable illness EVERY YEAR, based on one recent study, for insufficient access to medical care, but it's not like these beings are loved by God like those... well, we don't know exactly how many, but certainly must be more than a handful of fetuses that could even weigh over a pound and might have developed eyelids that might be aborted that otherwise wouldn't be. Again, I know this sounds potentially counter-intuitive, but it's all very clearly laid out in Catholic Doctrine. Just ask its personification Chesire111.

Thanks for clearing all that up Chesire111, err.. I mean, Catholic Doctrine. What would God-loving True Catholics do without you?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 17, 2010 8:05 PM in reply to Chesire111

Paying lip service to your respect for nuns doesn't cut it when you undercut the point by failing to respect the nuns' exericise of their own consciences. You parroting the requirements for following one's own conscience: the Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. Implicit in your anger that the nuns disagree with the Bishop as to what the Senate bill entails is a judgment that the nuns consciences are not informed nor their moral judgment enlightened.

I extremely doubt that the 'Magisterium' has any particular expertise in parsing Senate bills.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

magster

March 17, 2010 2:15 PM

If the state's can opt out of the abortion coverage, surely Ohio would be in line to do that. Kaptur is a fraud acting on the behest of her corporate masters.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Theda Skocpol

March 17, 2010 2:23 PM

Despite the fact that this particular extremist rep is a woman, this is clearly a gender-related conflict inside the Catholic Church. Is it more important to claim absolute symbolic control over women's reproductive capacity -- or is it more important to save lives with health care? The old men and the women religious are on different sides of this!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

March 17, 2010 2:35 PM

Marcy Kaptur an extremist rep because she opposes the Senate Abortion language? Give me a break. If you are calling her an extremist because of such a stance, I think perhaps you should look in the mirror. It is amazing how nutbars boil every issue down to patriarchy or some such bullshit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

March 17, 2010 2:45 PM in reply to masanf

It's well-established that in countries that have better access to health coverage, including FREE abortions, the abortion rate is far LOWER than it is in the US. If she really cared about reducing abortions, she should be first in line to vote for this bill. But she's not, is she? I wonder why that is?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Progressive Party

March 17, 2010 2:40 PM

Why not go after these Blue Dogs or Stupidaks that have used personal religious views to prevent public policy from going forward?
It must be easier to attack Progressives who fight for "Choice" rather than these zealots who forget that there is a separation of church and state! Absolutely disgusting to support the largest repressiver of women: The catholic church!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 17, 2010 3:12 PM in reply to Progressive Party

Pssst: Kucinich is anti-choice. There goes your bullshit theory.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 17, 2010 4:26 PM in reply to FreeRider

Psst. He changed his mind:

As president would you have a specific litmus test question on Roe v. Wade that you would ask of your nominees for the high court? A: Any of my appointments to the high court would necessarily reflect my thinking. I don’t know how it could be otherwise. I intend to be a president who’s a healer, who understands that this country has been put in a debate that has torn it apart. But the truth of the matter is, it’s possible to take a course of action where you can get all the people of America in support of a culture of life which includes prenatal care, postnatal care, child care, universal health care, a living wage, all those things that give support to life. And we also need to listen carefully to those who are concerned about abortion. At the same time, a healer as president would help reconcile this nation, and cause a woman’s right to privacy to be protected unquestioningly, protect Roe v. Wade, but also go out and listen to people and engage people and open up hearts. Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 17, 2010 4:42 PM in reply to AJM

He was running for president in a democratic primary. Kucinich has not changed his mind. He's still anti-choice. That statement is trying to split hairs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

readytoblowagasket

March 17, 2010 8:41 PM in reply to FreeRider

You are clueless.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 17, 2010 8:52 PM in reply to readytoblowagasket

You are brainless.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

readytoblowagasket

March 18, 2010 8:48 AM in reply to FreeRider

LOL!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Weeferdog

March 17, 2010 2:42 PM

Masanf, you're arguing with a woman who has more brains in her pinky than you and any ten wingnuts. And Kaptur is full of shit; not shocking you defend her.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Steve S

March 17, 2010 2:55 PM

I do consulting work with many Catholic hospitals (as well as others). They vary, of course, but tend to be located in poorer parts of town, where a disproportionate share of the population is uninsured. Catholic hospitals see more than most the tragedies that result from a lack of health coverage.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Majorajam

March 17, 2010 3:04 PM

The Catholic bishops are moral lepers, and I say that as someone who was raised Catholic, inclusive of schooling. I retain much fondness for Catholic parishioners, but the works of its hypocritical aristocratic clergy are manifestly and decidedly un-Christian.

Here you have a group of folks that spent decades covering up and thus enabling the RAPE of thousands of children around the globe. You have hypocrites who don't raise a peep in protest when a despicable-rumor-spreading dishonorable politician, pillager of God's holy environment (and the people who have and will reap the consequences) and manifest war monger like GW Bush goes to speak at a Catholic University, but lose their composure when Obama does. People for whom the culture wars are more important than the blessed poor in whom Godliness is vested, according to their scripture. This behavior generally speaking makes me want to projectile vomit.

That these people further have the sense of entitlement, the brass cahones to sit in judgment over all, to assume the mantle of the entire church, to insinuate religion into even the particulars of given legislative language, to believe their place resides within political sphere- is remarkably unethical and immoral. They should be deeply ashamed of themselves, and I for one don't understand how they keep the parishioners they have.

Simply to sit in judgment of people who are fighting for what they believe to be just, is just unconscionable. Do they begin to consider the ambiguity here, seeing as how experts estimate that 40 some odd thousand people DIE every year from a lack of health care access? Does they f&!@#% Rather they self-satisfiedly claim sole access to their God, and to be sole arbiter of right and wrong.

The so-called Catholic Bishops are truly beneath contempt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Majorajam

March 17, 2010 3:05 PM

PS Primary this woman.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

readytoblowagasket

March 17, 2010 9:02 PM in reply to Majorajam

The deadline for filing a primary challenger has long since passed. Try to stay current.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SocialJusticeForAll

March 17, 2010 3:47 PM

One must remember that all Catholics freely choose to be obedient to the Catholic Church and its teaching. This obedience is not forced on anyone. The choice carries with it the duty to respect all human life from conception to natural death.

Religious and public officials have been blessed with a higher level of service to their fellow man. Part of this service includes not being a source of scandal which confuses or misleads people of all faiths. Actions that support abortion are scandalous because their form can cooperate with evil and lead to the deaths of millions of innocent unborn human beings each year. Such actions, if one purports to be a person of goodwill, can not be justified.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

March 17, 2010 3:55 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll

Blah, blah, blah. This may come as news to you but there is no federal funding for abortion in the Senate bill. So what, exactly, is their beef? That it doesn't include a Stupak-like amendment that prohibits people from buying abortion coverage with their own money? And for this they're willing to screw over 30 million people who don't now have health insurance, and sink a bill that, by improving access to health care, actually REDUCES abortions? Screw them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

March 17, 2010 6:15 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

The thing that really infuriates me is that the argument made by Catholics who support the Stupak amendment is that money is fungible, so you can't separate money that comes from one source from money that comes from another source.

Switch the argument to governments funding things like textbooks for religious schools, though, and suddenly money is no longer fungible. It is perfectly possible to separate money that comes from different sources.

Hypocrites.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Bull Schmitt

March 17, 2010 3:57 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll

David Vitter is a Catholic, if that's any help in clarifying things on the scandal issue?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SocialJusticeForAll

March 17, 2010 3:56 PM

One must remember that all Catholics freely choose to be obedient to the Catholic Church and its teaching. This obedience is not forced on anyone. The choice carries with it the duty to respect all human life from conception to natural death.

Religious and public officials have been blessed with a higher level of service to their fellow man. Part of this service includes not being a source of scandal which confuses or misleads people of all faiths. Actions that support abortion are scandalous because their form can cooperate with evil and lead to the deaths of millions of innocent unborn human beings each year. Such actions, if one purports to be a person of goodwill, can not be justified.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Bull Schmitt

March 17, 2010 4:01 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll

Jim Bunning is a Catholic, if that's any help in clarifying things on the goodwill issue?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chesire111

March 17, 2010 5:16 PM in reply to Bull Schmitt

Yes, so what's the point? There are Catholics who live moral lives and Catholics who don't. Most of us are somewhere in the middle. Catholics have a responsibility not to give scandal, whether they be a senator like Bunning, or Vitter, or a Bishop or a parent, or a teacher or any other figure of authority.

The fact that there are Catholics who give scandal doesn't call into doubt the validity of the moral laws they violate any more than illness invalidates medicine.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Bull Schmitt

March 18, 2010 12:08 AM in reply to Chesire111

The point is you're picking and choosing which teachings must be followed absolutely, and implying that other teachings are less.. absolute.

I'd get into particulars, but you leave the distinct impression that your views rely more on partisan political ends than anything related to the teachings themselves.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mrut

March 18, 2010 7:41 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll

"Actions that support abortion are scandalous because their form can cooperate with evil and lead to the deaths of millions of innocent unborn human beings each year. Such actions, if one purports to be a person of goodwill, can not be justified."

So, actions whose "form can cooperate with evil and lead to the deaths of millions" "cannot be justified" by person of goodwill.

If you sincerely believe this, you believe that the actions of politicians who voted to authorize a war that doesn't meet the standard of "just war" (like the Iraq War, according to Pope John Paul II) cannot be justified, in the same way as those of politicians who support legalized abortion. More egregiously, politicians' support of legalized torture cannot be justified.

Yet the bishops didn't come out against either of those. They did not deny communion to any of those politicians. Why? Because the bishops are not making moral judgments here; they're expressing worldly political preferences and dressing them up as moral judgments.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

chrisl

March 17, 2010 3:58 PM

Of course those hospitals have more on their minds than abortions --- they are for real human lives.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Brownbagger

March 17, 2010 7:16 PM in reply to chrisl

And Catholic bishops have more on their minds than abortions what with all the molestations to cover up. That's hard work.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

readytoblowagasket

March 17, 2010 8:57 PM

This is a horrendous reporting job. Thanks for nothing.

Kaptur is allowed to be pro-life, btw.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 17, 2010 10:21 PM in reply to readytoblowagasket

Yeah, and people are allowed to vote against her. The Democratic Party has a big tent which includes people who are right to life. And if they wish to reduce the number of abortions by supporting the alternatives by such means as providing health care we are all with them but if they wish to reduce the number of abortions by burdening a woman's right to choose this infringes on our rights and must be opposed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

readytoblowagasket

March 18, 2010 8:01 AM in reply to AJM

Yeah, and people are allowed to vote against her.

Of course they are. They won't, though.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 17, 2010 10:47 PM

Marcy Kaptur is not representing her district on this. Polling done by
Catholics for Choice reveals that:

"Thus, a majority (56%) overall favors making abortion coverage available in some way under government-subsidized health insurance. This number reflects those who favor government subsidies for abortion coverage and those who favor allowing health insurance plans that receive government subsidies to offer abortion coverage as long as those services are paid for with private funds."

Here's the link: American Catholics Want Bishops Out of Healthcare Reform

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

readytoblowagasket

March 18, 2010 8:23 AM in reply to AJM

Marcy Kaptur is not representing her district on this.

First, let me say I admire your contributions to this discussion, AJM, and I'm not challenging you.

But I'm curious: Do you live in Kaptur's district? I ask because my impression is she is very popular in her district.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ooicx

March 18, 2010 7:51 AM

welcome to:

http://www.famalegoods.com
———-
50%off ca,ed hardy t-shirt$15 jeans,coach handbag$33,,
dunk,polo t-shirt$13,,lacoste t-shirt $13 for sale,
lnba jersy for sale sale,$35,nfl nba jersy for sale

and so on..

if you like to order anything you like.
More details, please just browse our website
Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift.
enjoy yourself. thank you!!

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

xcvvd

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 18, 2010 8:25 PM

Anti abortion forces have quite successfully used single issue voting pattern and it is a pattern that pro-choice voters should consider adopting.

I do not live in her district but if I did I would probably vote for her despite her stand on choice but only because I have two issues on which I am close to being a single issue voter. Choice is one but the other, and more vital, is global warming and she is decent on that -- she fought for measures to make the transition easier for her state but she voted for cap and trade.

Also, unlike either Kildee or Stupak she voted 100% on contraception on the pro-choice side. The following is a link to Progressive Punch's site describing the two bills involving contraception that Stupak and Kildee voted against:Roll Call 362. H.R. 1950. State Department Authorization/Vote to Deny U.S. Aid to an International Family Planning and Health Organization. Jul 15, 2003. Y N L Roll Call 157. H.R. 1298. Global AIDS Relief/Vote to Require One-Third of AIDS Relief Funding Be Used for Abstinence Programs. May 01, 2003. Y N L

Progressive Punch is my favorite site for a quick transparent assessment of a legislator's voting pattern: it compares the legislator's voting pattern against progressive generally and rates the legislator in terms of how good a record could be expected from politician elected from a district with a particular partisan tilt. Marcy Kaptur is rated poorly because coming from a staunchly Democratic district they believe whe could have voted more liberally had she chosen to do so.

P.S. Please feel free to challenge me

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

readytoblowagasket

March 18, 2010 11:13 PM in reply to AJM

If your answer was to me, thanks, AJM. I always enjoy your thoughtful, informed comments.

I personally don't like Kaptur's position on choice (and likewise on the Stupak amendment), and I am not defending her on that.

I like her position on NAFTA, and I admire how hard she has fought to keep people in their homes in foreclosure-devastated northern Ohio.

She is the longest-serving woman in the House (not that that's a reason to keep her there, just a fact: 28 years), and she beat her last opponent with 74% of the vote. My point about her is that she's got incredibly strong support from her district, because (as far as I know) she's worked really hard for them. So I simply think the cries in this thread to unseat her are ridiculous. Pressure the shit out of her, okay, but unseating her is not going to happen.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 18, 2010 11:50 PM in reply to readytoblowagasket

Thanx. My comment was intended to reply to you.

My point was that on this issue she was in disagreement with the majority of voters in her district and given that the Republicans are more anti-choice than Democrats, she is probably in even greater disagreement with the majority of her own voters. I sought to make the point because anti-choice votes are frequently excused if the politician comes from a district with a higher percentage of Catholic voters and presumptions are made about their preferences which are not true.

How would you suggest that she be pressured?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

readytoblowagasket

March 19, 2010 12:12 AM in reply to AJM

I totally get and appreciate what you're saying, and I'm not excusing Kaptur's position on this. In fact, I can't say I understand her position at all, since it is so poorly reported in this blog. The context is missing, and while I could use the Google to try to find the context, I don't have time for this one. But I do know that Kaptur is not normally someone who sounds like a babbling idiot, as Brian Beutler has so carefully presented the quotes here. So I'm perplexed.

Anyway, at this late stage, I think a barrage of email, fax, and phone calls would make a point. Polite, persuasive, and firm messages. Not crazy threats, of course.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?