Lilllabettt Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='17 March 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1268852730' post='2074711'] You have convinced me . . . I now support the bill. I know that you personally are opposed to it, because [i]you think[/i] it will increase abortion coverage, but that is just what [i]you think[/i] and you admit that there is no objective basis to [i]your thoughts[/i] on this issue; therefore I agree with the nuns, [i]who think[/i] it is pro-life, even though there is no objective basis for [i]their thought[/i]s on this issue. If I must choose between the nuns and Lilllabettt . . . I will go with the nuns, because they outnumber her by many thousands. Ah, relativism certainly makes a person feel free and powerful. [/quote] I pretty much have to :shrug: at that the legislation will have an objective effect, one way or another but no one can say for certain what that is just what their best judgment is What I'm getting out of this convo is that 1. People who support expanding abortion funding are anti-life and 2. People who don't think the health care bill expands abortion funding are anti-life ... somehow? that don't make no sense to me Apo, you shouldn't use a majority vote to help you decide what's right. That is a dumb American type thing. Which is something the USCCB indulges in from time to time.
Lilllabettt Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='17 March 2010 - 04:06 PM' timestamp='1268852801' post='2074712'] Æquiprobabilism holds that it is not lawful to follow the less safe opinion when the safe opinion is certainly more probable; that it is not lawful to act on the less safe opinion even when it is equally probable with the safe opinion, if the uncertainty regards the cessation of a law; but that if the existence of the law is in question, it is lawful to follow the less safe opinion if it has equal or nearly equal probability with the safe opinion. [/quote] Wiiiiish. That is the sound of this going over my head.
Apotheoun Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 [quote name='Lilllabettt' date='17 March 2010 - 01:20 PM' timestamp='1268853651' post='2074720'] [b]but no one can say for certain what that is[/b] [/quote] This is sufficient reason to vote against the legislation, because the outcome is uncertain, but could be morally evil.
Nihil Obstat Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Lilllabettt' date='17 March 2010 - 02:23 PM' timestamp='1268853790' post='2074721'] Wiiiiish. That is the sound of this going over my head. [/quote] It's not a very long quote. It took me a few minutes, but read it slowly. It's well worth it. Just go a few words at a time. Helps you keep track of what it's saying. Besides, it's St. Alphonsus (in principle). It's got to be good. Edited March 17, 2010 by Nihil Obstat
Apotheoun Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 [quote name='Lilllabettt' date='17 March 2010 - 01:20 PM' timestamp='1268853651' post='2074720'] Apo, you shouldn't use a majority vote to help you decide what's right. That is a dumb American type thing. Which is something the USCCB indulges in from time to time. [/quote] Yes, the idea that the majority position is moral because it is the majority position is stupid, just as a person believing that something is moral simply because they think it is moral is stupid.
Lilllabettt Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='17 March 2010 - 04:24 PM' timestamp='1268853889' post='2074723'] This is sufficient reason to vote against the legislation, because the outcome is uncertain, but could be morally evil. [/quote] But that's the case with almost every piece of legislation. If we can never vote for something unless we are sure it will not have some morally bad unintended side-effects we can never vote for anything.
Apotheoun Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 [quote name='Lilllabettt' date='17 March 2010 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1268854030' post='2074726'] But that's the case with almost every piece of legislation.[/quote] And alas, most of the work that Congress does is unnecessary, and it would be better if they stopped passing so many bills.
Nihil Obstat Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 [quote name='Lilllabettt' date='17 March 2010 - 02:27 PM' timestamp='1268854030' post='2074726'] But that's the case with almost every piece of legislation. If we can never vote for something unless we are sure it will not have some morally bad unintended side-effects we can never vote for anything. [/quote] It's not like I already addressed that or anything. That's cool, maybe someone else will. [spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][/spoiler][/spoiler][/spoiler][/spoiler][/spoiler][/spoiler]
Lilllabettt Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='17 March 2010 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1268854082' post='2074727'] And alas, most of the work that Congress does is unnecessary, and it would be better if they stopped passing so many bills. [/quote] +1 for this
Lilllabettt Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='17 March 2010 - 04:29 PM' timestamp='1268854156' post='2074728'] It's not like I already addressed that or anything. That's cool, maybe someone else will. [spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][/spoiler][/spoiler][/spoiler][/spoiler][/spoiler][/spoiler] [/quote] Oh no I am deeply uncomfortable with emotional displays especially tears. I will break my spring-break-mushed head with your equilibriumish thing if you promise not to cry
Apotheoun Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 [quote name='Lilllabettt' date='17 March 2010 - 01:30 PM' timestamp='1268854202' post='2074730'] +1 for this [/quote] +1 for your +1.
Nihil Obstat Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 [quote name='Lilllabettt' date='17 March 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1268854320' post='2074732'] Oh no I am deeply uncomfortable with emotional displays especially tears. I will break my spring-break-mushed head with your equilibriumish thing if you promise not to cry [/quote] I'll (*sniff*) try.
add Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 [quote name='Lilllabettt' date='17 March 2010 - 02:06 PM' timestamp='1268845588' post='2074620'] Yes. Like when Susan G. Komen gives money to Planned Parenthood. It is only for breast cancer screening ... but every $1 less that Planned Parenthood has to spend on breast cancer screening, they can use to promote their (far more lucrative) abortion services [/quote] PP calls abortion services, heath care... some might call it genocide.
kamiller42 Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 The government run healthcare system, as the senate defines it, will not fund abortions directly, but will pay subsidies on premiums for insurance that does. Is government [i]directly[/i] funding abortions? Doesn't seems so. Will this takeover increase access to abortions? No doubt about it.
Nunsense Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 (edited) [quote name='laetitia crucis' date='18 March 2010 - 02:49 AM' timestamp='1268840951' post='2074571'] [/quote] What she said! Edited March 17, 2010 by nunsense
add Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 [quote name='kamiller42' date='17 March 2010 - 07:17 PM' timestamp='1268864252' post='2074824'] The government run healthcare system, as the senate defines it, will not fund abortions directly, but will pay subsidies on premiums for insurance that does. Is government [i]directly[/i] funding abortions? Doesn't seems so. Will this takeover increase access to abortions? No doubt about it. [/quote] according to PP website: [color="#0000ff"][b]The road to health care reform:[/b][/color] [color="#0000ff"]January 26, 2010 – The health care reform conference process is stalled by a Congressional special election in Massachusetts. Planned Parenthood supporters emailed Congress urging them to move forward and pass health care reform. January 14, 2010 — As the House and Senate versions of the bill are combined, anti-choice extremists and their allies in Congress are demanding that the Stupak amendment be included in the final bill. Planned Parenthood continues to press for comprehensive women’s health care including abortion.[/color] [color="#0000ff"]December 24, 2009 — The Senate passed the health care reform bill. Next up: combining the House and Senate versions into a final bill.[/color] [color="#0000ff"]December 19, 2009 — Planned Parenthood opposes the new abortion language offered by Senator Nelson in the manager's amendment. Last week, the Senate rejected harsh restrictions on abortion coverage and it is a sad day when women's health is traded away for one vote. The amendment creates an unworkable system that leaves tens of millions of women without abortion coverage. [/color] this Obamacare is [i]directly[/i] funding abortions?
Maximilianus Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 Text from letter endorsing the health care bill. [indent]Dear Members of Congress: We write to urge you to cast a life-affirming "yes" vote when the Senate health care bill (H.R. 3590) comes to the floor of the House for a vote as early as this week. We join the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA), which represents 1,200 Catholic sponsors, systems, facilities and related organizations, in saying: the time is now for health reform AND the Senate bill is a good way forward. As the heads of major Catholic women's religious order in the United States, we represent 59,000 Catholic Sisters in the United States who respond to needs of people in many ways. Among our other ministries we are responsible for running many of our nation's hospital systems as well as free clinics throughout the country. We have witnessed firsthand the impact of our national health care crisis, particularly its impact on women, children and people who are poor. We see the toll on families who have delayed seeking care due to a lack of health insurance coverage or lack of funds with which to pay high deductibles and co-pays. We have counseled and prayed with men, women and children who have been denied health care coverage by insurance companies. We have witnessed early and avoidable deaths because of delayed medical treatment. The health care bill that has been passed by the Senate and that will be voted on by the House will expand coverage to over 30 million uninsured Americans. While it is an imperfect measure, it is a crucial next step in realizing health care for all. It will invest in preventative care. It will bar insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It will make crucial investments in community health centers that largely serve poor women and children. And despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions. It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments – $250 million – in support of pregnant women. This is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it. Congress must act. We are asking every member of our community to contact their congressional representatives this week. In this Lenten time, we have launched nationwide prayer vigils for health care reform. We are praying for those who currently lack health care. We are praying for the nearly 45,000 who will lose their lives this year if Congress fails to act. We are also praying for you and your fellow Members of Congress as you complete your work in the coming days. For us, this health care reform is a faith mandate for life and dignity of all of our people. We urge you to vote "yes" for life by voting yes for health care reform in H.R. 3590.[/indent] Marlene Weisenbeck, FSPA LCWR President Leadership Conference of Women Religious Joan Chittister, OSB Co-Chair Global Peace Initiative of Women Erie, PA Sr. Mary Persico, IHM President Congregation of the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Scranton, PA Sr. Susan Hadzima, IHM Councilor for Missioning and Community Life Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Scranton, PA Mary Genino (RSHM) Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary Western American Province. Nancy Conway CSJ Congregation Leadership Team The Congregation of St. Joseph Debra M. Sciano, SSND Provincial Leader Milwaukee Province, School Sisters of Notre Dame Josephine Gaugier, OP Adrian Dominican Sisters Holy Rosary Mission Chapter Prioress Adrian, MI Kathleen Nolan, OP Adrian Dominican Sisters Office of the General Council Marlene Weisenbeck, FSPA President Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration La Crosse, WI Corinne Weiss Servants of Jesus Leadership Team Saginaw MI Adrian Dover OP Prioress Dominican Sisters of Houston, Texas Rose Mary Dowling, FSM President Franciscan Sisters of Mary Leadership Team Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (from Mary Martens, BVM, Administrative Assistant) Beatrice Haines, OLVM President, Our Lady of Victory Missionary Sisters Huntington IN Joan Saalfeld, SNJM, Provincial Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary U.S.-Ontario Province Jo'Ann De Quattro, SNJM Sisters of the Holy Names U.S.-Ontario Province Leadership Team Sharon Simon, OP President Racine Dominicans Maryann A. McMahon, O.P. Vice President Dominican Sisters of Racine, WI Agnes Johnson, OP Vice President Racine Dominicans Pat Mulcahey, OP Prioress of Sinsinawa Dominicans Pam Chiesa, PBVM President Sisters of the Presentation, San Francisco Patricia Anne Cloherty, PBVM Leadership Team, Sisters of the Presentation, San Francisco Gloria Inés Loya Leadership Team Sisters of the Presentation, San Francisco Gloria Marie Jones, OP Dominican Sisters of Mission San Jose Congregational Prioress and Council Mary Litell Provincial Councilor Sisters of St. Francis of Penance and Christian Charity St. Francis Province Theresa Sandok, OSM Servants of Mary (Servite Sisters) Ladysmith, Wisconsin Sr Claire Graham SSS General Director Sisters of Social Service Encino CA Margaret Byrne CSJP - Congregation Leader Teresa Donohue CSJP - Assistant Congregation Leader Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace Sr. Carmelita Latiolais, S.E.C. Sisters of the Eucharistic Covenant Joan Mumaw, IHM – Vice President On behalf of the Leadership Council Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Monroe, Michigan Sister Clare of Assisi Pierre, SSF Sisters of the Holy Family New Orleans, LA Sister Marla Monahan, SND Provincial Sisters of Notre Dame (St. Claire Regional Medical Center in Morehead, KY and St. Charles Care Center in Covington, KY) Vivien Linkhauer, SC Sisters of Charity of Seton Hill, United States Province Greensburg, PA Dolores Maguire Sisters of the Holy Faith Northern California LCWR Region XIV Sr. Mary Elizabeth Schweiger, OSB Subprioress Mount St. Scholastica Atchison, KS Marianites of Holy Cross Sr. Suellen Tennyson, MSC Congregational Leader Barbara Hagedorn, SC Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati Mt. St. Joseph, Ohio Francine Schwarzenberger OP Dominican Sisters of Peace Denver, Colorado Sister Maureen McCarthy School Sisters of St. Francis U.S. Provincial Team Milwaukee, WI Eileen C. Reid, RJM Provincial Superior Religious of Jesus and Mary Washington DC Sister Cecilia Dwyer, O.S.B. Prioress Benedictine Sisters of Virginia The Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes Sister Joann Sambs, CSA General Superior Sisters of St. Francis Tiffin, Ohio (from Sr. Mary Kuhlman) Sr. Helen McDonald, SHCJ Province Leader Society of the Holy Child Jesus Leadership Team Sisters of the Precious Blood Dayton, OH The Leadership Team of the Sisters of St. Joseph of the Third Order of St. Francis Sister Jane Blabolil, SSJ-TOSF Sister Michelle Wronkowski, SSJ-TOSF Sister Dorothy Pagosa, SSJ-TOSF Sister Linda Szocik, SSJ-TOSF Sr. Gladys Guenther SHF Sisters of the Holy Family Congregational President Fremont, CA Sr. Dorothy Maxwell, Councilor Sisters of St. Dominic Blauvelt New York Sheral Marshall, OSF Provincial Councilor Sisters of St Francis Marilyn Kerber, SNDdeN Canonical Representative, Ohio Province Sisters of St. Louis, California Region (from Sr. Michele Harnett, SSL) Ruth Goodwin, OSF Sisters of ST. Francis of Philadelphia Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Leadership Team Sr. Joanne Buckman, OSU Ursuline Sisters of Cleveland
Maximilianus Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 (edited) DP. Edited March 17, 2010 by Maximilianus
kamiller42 Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 [quote name='apparently' date='17 March 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1268865562' post='2074834'] this Obamacare is [i]directly[/i] funding abortions? [/quote] From my original message... [quote]Is government directly funding abortions? Doesn't seem so. [/quote]
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now