Mr. President, Abortion Is Not Health Care

As expected, the White House issued a statement today commemorating the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

The President’s statement, in its entirety:

On the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we reaffirm its historic commitment to protect the health and reproductive freedom of women across this country and stand by its guiding principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters, and women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care. Today and every day, my Administration continues our efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and minimize the need for abortion. On this anniversary, we recommit ourselves to supporting women and families in the choices they make and redouble our efforts to promote safe and healthy communities.

55,000,000 dead and counting.

That’s not “health care,” Mr. Obama.

That’s genocide.

6,121 views

Categories:Uncategorized

81 thoughts on “Mr. President, Abortion Is Not Health Care

  1. Chris R says:

    Well said. Reminds me of some other real human rights violations.

  2. unborn babies ARE a national group and this IS genocide!

    1. Paulspr says:

      Lawyer for Catholic Church submits legal brief claiming unborn children are not persons.
      http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/23/1181447/-A-fetus-is-not-a-person-if-it-costs-us-money-says-Catholic-Church

      1. Joe M says:

        The article itself reveals the extreme bias of dailkos. So, it’s difficult to have confidence that they explained the entire story in an honest way. However, for the sake of argument, assuming that they are not distorting the facts in some way, so what?

        The moral principles of the Catholic Church are not changed by some anecdotal misrepresentation of them. You, and others, seem to think that the Church is like a corporation and if someone with any level of authority makes a statement, the entire Church must be held liable for that persons statement. So much so that the Church must then change their carefully stated moral principles to match this persons statements.

        It’s an absurd line of reasoning.

        1. Paulspr says:

          The article itself quotes a few paragraphs of the legal argument put forth by the Catholic Church where they claim that an unborn fetus is not a person. That’s a fact.

          1. Joe M says:

            Can you cite which legal argument came from the Catholic Church?

            From what I see, the legal argument came from the defense counsel of a hospital. Not the Church.

  3. ARJAY McEwen says:

    Johnny, Johnny, Johnny,
    You seem upset. And , if I may, you seem upset because once again you are missing the big picture. Let me “luciferadate’. “Reproduction Freedom”…I know what you are thinking…we do not need presidential approval to reproduce. And you are right. We have always been free. But don’t focus on the words, back way off and take a wide angle look. After all who actually benefits?
    First…Obama’s conversion in support of gay marriage…end result: no reproduction here.
    Second…Obama’s mandate and support of birth control…end result : it’s designed to stop reproduction.
    Third…Obama’s planned parenthood poster boy support of abortion…end result: no reproduction here either.
    And it’s easy to do the math. If you Catholics are the only ones having babies (with permission siigned, sealed and approved by Barack), within just a few generations you will be the only ones standing. Of course that means all this fiscal cliff borrowing falls on YOUR grandchildren, not ours…and if that is why you are really upset, I feel your pain.
    “Reproductive Freedom” is actually being used to your benefit…it’s a method of reducing your enemies and eventually giving your offspring the upper hand.
    So, Johnny, is there really anything to get upset about?
    JAY (Propaganda Productive) Swindler

    1. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

      J.M.J. Abortion should disturb each of us. An individual life is snuffed out. What a tragedy.

      1. Marvin Derks says:

        Abortion concerns all of us. Pro-choice advocates are very concerned about abortion. We don’t agree that taking away a woman’s right to determine when and if she will bring a child into the world is the way to reduce abortions however, because we feel that every woman has this right. The cause of abortions is unwanted pregnancies. The cause of unwanted pregnancies is poor choices made by women and men. We need to bring our children up in such a way so that they make better decisions for themselves. This involves, among other things, in teaching our children in such a way as to increase their self-esteem. I know hundreds of pro-choice advocates and not a single one of them is pro-abortion. We need to remember that no matter what side of this issue we are on, that we are all people. We are not fetus haters. We are not women haters. I’m sure no one who is anti-abortion has as their goal to enslave women. We really need to move forward and stop putting labels on each other.

        1. ARJAY McEwen says:

          Marvin,
          That’s a good comeback, but I believe you should go a little deeper. You say that pro choice Advocates are very concerned about abortion. Why? Could it be they realize there is a life that will end and a mother who makes that decision. And that mother will have to live with that decision the rest of her life and in the eternal life to come? Could it be that the little baby that is aborted is also destined to live for eternity and the mother and baby will eventually meet. Or could it be that pro choice advocates realize the true tragedy of abortion…the taking of a child’s life in the womb offends God? Yes the loss of 55 million lives in our country is a tragedy, and the pain and guilt felt by the mother and all involved is a tragedy, and the fact that our society seems to indorse abortion is a tragedy, but the worst of being pro choice is the fact that abortion–the killing of an innocent child in a mother’s womb–is a grave sin and offends God.

          1. Marvin Derks says:

            Thanks for your input.

          2. abadilla says:

            “Thanks for your input.” Wow! a “robust” intellectual reply!

        2. abadilla says:

          “Pro-choice advocates are very concerned about abortion.” Really? As much as the KKK is concerned with the rights of Blacks in this country.

  4. And yet Mr Obama ignores the fact that half of the aborted babies are GIRLS that were denied THEIR RIGHTS!

  5. Marvin Derks says:

    I wonder how many abortions were avoided because of the counseling efforts of Planned Parenthood.

    1. halberst says:

      Millions: “According to PPFA’s own estimates, its contraceptive services prevent approximately 612,000 unintended pregnancies and 291,000 abortions annually.” Imagine how many abortions PP prevent if they didn’t have to fight about contraception!

      1. Joe M says:

        This statement is like giving credit to Marlboro for preventing cancer because they put a warning label on cigarettes.

        1. halberst says:

          No pregnancy = no abortion.

          1. Joe M says:

            Planned Parenthood = Largest Abortion Provider in the Country

          2. Sean Ahern says:

            “No conception = no abortion”. Corrected that for you.
            Recall that artificial ‘birth control’ pills are medically abortifacient per their own documentation.

          3. halberst says:

            So contraception is abortion?

          4. Sean Ahern says:

            Depends on the contraception. If it’s a hormone-based pill, one of the working of the pill is its abortifacient effect. This isn’t really a debated point, medically speaking. Talk to a doctor about it. Hormones trick the woman’s body into thinking that it’s pregnant and suppress ovulation, but it’s never 100% sure. You need to look at the medical data sheet for the “breakthrough ovulation” rate, but I believe it’s often in the 1-5% range. Given that ovulation still may occur and thus conception, the secondary effect of hormone-based contraceptives is to reduce the effectiveness of the endometrium, the lining of the uterus, so that a fertilized embryo is much less likely to implant. In this way, all hormone-based contraceptives act as abortifacients.

          5. halberst says:

            Do you consider use of the pill the same as abortion? If so, do you consider abortion murder? There are extreme fringe opinions I’d never even thought of. That would make, maybe 17% of women in the US murderers.

          6. Sean Ahern says:

            If these are ideas you’ve never heard of, I would suggest that you explore the writings of the Church on this subject over the last 40 years or so and the commentary surrounding them, starting with Pope Paul VI’s Humanæ Vitæ. These are certainly not “fringe.” If you find these documents ‘information dense,’ there are many popular press books on the subject that I would be happy to recommend.

          7. halberst says:

            The idea that women on the pill are murderers is about as extreme as I can imagine.

          8. Sean Ahern says:

            I say again, please educate yourself on these teachings before rendering opinions. An opinion expressed without a grounding is worth very little, and I’m growing weary of discussing the matter with someone with no knowledge of the subject at hand.

            Now, we’re well into tangental subjects here, but we’re getting into the area of occasions of sin, proximate and remote. From a culpability point of view, murder must be deliberate. If a couple has no knowledge of the abortifacient nature of hormonal contraceptive, then the killing of the embryo can hardly be called a murder. But if a couple understands the abortifacient nature of contraceptive, and yet continues to employ such methods with full knowledge of the death of the embryo, then that’s a completely different matter. My expectation is that the vast majority of women using hormonal contraceptive have zero knowledge of the abortifacient effects, though it’s well documented in medical literature.

          9. Marvin Derks says:

            Perhaps you should take a nap.

          10. Sean Ahern says:

            Thanks, I’ll do so. May you sleep well also.

          11. Marvin Derks says:

            Thank-you.

          12. abadilla says:

            “Perhaps you should take a nap.”

            Wow!
            What an incredible “intellectual” response! It’s much easier to tell people to take a nap than it is to hit the books and try to understand “deeply” not “superficially,” what Catholic teaching is.

          13. abadilla says:

            Some contraceptives do lead to abortion, thus they are called “abortifacient.” Others do not lead to abortion but they hurt the physical aspects of the women who takes them because they will rather believe in the contraceptive mentality of culture as opposed to the moral teaching of the Church.

      2. Marvin Derks says:

        Right on!

      3. Christa Sena says:

        55 million babies have died from abortion since Roe vs. Wade. That’s more than all the wars combined.

        1. halberst says:

          Does that make the Supreme Court Justice that lead that decision worse than Hitler? That’s quite an extremist position.

          1. Christa Sena says:

            http://www.orgsites.com/ca/lifecenters/_pgg3.php3

            I didn’t call anyone names. Just listed the facts. Guilty conscience perhaps?

          2. halberst says:

            I wasn’t on the Supreme Court. Though I’m flattered you might have considered the possibility that I was a Supreme Court Justice in 1973. Especially since I would have been four years old at the time ;-)

          3. Joe M says:

            So you do not think that continued support by people like yourself makes you complicit with new abortions?

            It was all an individual justice’s fault?

          4. abadilla says:

            Good. If you had lived in 1973, your mom might have decided to kill you legally. Thanks be to God that didn’t happen!

          5. abadilla says:

            Why is it an “extreme” position to blame the Supreme Court for the death of 55 million unborn children because they failed miserably to interpret the Constitution correctly?

      4. abadilla says:

        How wonderful, and “contraception” services do not harm the women that take them nor are those same contraceptives a clear violation of Catholic moral teaching, right?

    2. Joe M says:

      Are you claiming that Planned Parenthood tries to talk women out of having abortions?

      1. Marvin Derks says:

        Are you implying that they don’t?

        1. Joe M says:

          In general, yes.

          Can you provide any basis beyond anecdote that they do?

          1. Marvin Derks says:

            Yes. I have friends who volunteer at Planned Parenthood. What I’ve stated previously comes from them.

          2. Joe M says:

            So, your answer is no. You can’t provide any basis beyond anecdote.

          3. Marvin Derks says:

            These people work at Planned Parenthood and are my friends. I have no reason to believe they are lying. It’s anything but an anecdote.

          4. Joe M says:

            Look up the meaning of “anecdotal evidence.” You’re just reinforcing my point.

          5. Joe M says:

            Planned Parenthood’s own web site clearly places abortion on an equal level with every other option. There is zero indication that talking women out of having abortions is something that they do. In fact, they repeatedly warn women not to go to crisis pregnancy centers because they are anti-abortion and will not provide all options.

            If your friends are talking women out of abortions, that is great. However, it is in contradiction to Planned Parenthood’s stated objectives.

          6. Marvin Derks says:

            Maybe they/ll get fired.

          7. Joe M says:

            Maybe they should quit and work at a crisis pregnancy center instead. In fact, can you ask them why they don’t do that? If they want to talk women out of having abortions, why don’t they do work for an organization that is dedicated to that?

      2. abadilla says:

        That’s exactly what he claimed from the most pro-abortion organization in this country. Amazing!

    3. Sean Ahern says:

      I wonder how many abortions were avoided because of the counseling efforts of crisis pregnancy centers. Having Planned Parenthood counsel for or against abortion is a simple conflict of interest due to their business plan.

    4. Christa Sena says:

      That’s like saying “I wonder how many children were saved during the shooting in Connecticut?” Shouldn’t that event never have even taken place? Those children should never have been lost at all! Perhaps the thought process should not be, “Abortions happen, and it is sad, but not every pregnancy ends that way.” Perhaps it should be, “There shouldn’t be abortions, how can we prevent them from happening in the first place.” Much like the tragedies that keep happening with guns, bombs, etc, we need to find out how to PREVENT them not just say, “Well, it wasn’t a total loss.”

      By the way – abortions are the only “medical procedure” in which the doctor goes into it practically blind and which half of the patients die…sometimes even both patients die, but PP never reports that.

  6. Paulspr says:

    Genocide is “the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group”

    It’s not genocide either.

    1. Joe M says:

      Is that a relief to you?

      1. Paulspr says:

        Using inflammatory rhetoric that is a an inaccurate lie doesn’t help either side. It does create a divisive, hate filled, political climate. Maybe that was the only point.

        1. abadilla says:

          How is it inflammatory rhetoric to say the unborn is indeed human when both Science and the Church uphold the same truth? Is what you find in the Catechism inflammatory?

    2. Dood says:

      I wonder though. Aren’t the unborn a “group” and aren’t certain ones, i.e., ‘in part’ being deliberately destroyed?

    3. Sean Ahern says:

      gen·o·cide
      /ˈjenəˌsīd/

      Noun
      The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

      Seems like abortion fits the definition. Although the unborn are not an ethnic group (note: there has been a disproportionate number of black children aborted), they can be considered a “large group of people” that has been deliberately killed, per the main part of the definition.

      1. Paulspr says:

        Nope. It doesn’t actually because a fetus is not “people”

        1. Sean Ahern says:

          Hogwash. Of course a fetus is a person. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2270: Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

          1. Paulspr says:

            They religious teachings of Vatican City is not a basis for Amrican Civil Law.

          2. Christa Sena says:

            Can’t respond to the fetus argument….?

          3. Paulspr says:

            I did. A fetus is not a person. It is a fetus.

          4. abadilla says:

            And that is neither scientific nor Catholic teaching. One would think a good liberal secularist like you pretending to be a Catholic, would, at the very least, embrace biology.

          5. Sean Ahern says:

            And yet here we are talking on a site called CatholicVote. Many politicians (of all stripes) have attested that an active faith cannot be separated from their interactions in the public realm. Indeed, it is through one’s faith that a grounding in in the moral code is rooted.

            But if you wish to base the definition on a civil authority only, I’ll quote the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama ruling on case 1110176 Ankrom v. the State of Alabama: “The decision of this Court today is in keeping with the widespread legal recognition that unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law”.

          6. halberst says:

            This site is called CatholicVote, but look at the content: plenty of anti abortion rhetoric, some anti gay talk, a little anti Obama funniness. But virtually nothing on Catholic doctrine on the issues where Democrats hold the upper hand. Where is all the anti war discussion? The anti poverty and anti capitalism discussions?The gun control debate?

            To show how silly this is to call this “CatholicVote” there is (really honestly I’m not kidding) an entry titled: Jesus Supports Concealed Carry, Settles Gun Debate.

          7. Sean Ahern says:

            Yes, I saw that article. In fact, I would like to see more discourse on subjects where Catholic doctrine is less discussed (euthanasia, preferential option for the poor, opposition to war, death penalty, gun control, etc.). However, you have to forgive the correspondents for the focus on abortion. Given the sheer magnitude of the deaths (100s of millions killed worldwide), it’s understandable if the discussion skews strongly that direction.

          8. Paulspr says:

            I find that there is very little that could be considered catholic on this site.

          9. Joe M says:

            I find that you express very few opinions that could be considered Catholic.

          10. abadilla says:

            Then, why are you here? Prove your accusation against CV. Quote from the Catechism, from encyclical letters, from the 16 documents of Vatican II, from episcopal letters, from the Scriptures, particularly from the book of Romans, that CV is NOT Catholic! Stop making baseless accusations!

          11. Joe M says:

            Didn’t we just go over this claim?

            A) The Democrats do not “hold the upper hand” on the majority (if not all) of the issues you suggest.

            B) All of those issues have been brought up here.

            Don’t blame us for the Democratic Party adopting positions that contradict the principles of the Catholic church. That’s on Democrats.

          12. abadilla says:

            “Where is all the anti war discussion? The anti poverty and anti capitalism discussions?The gun control debate?” All of these issues have been discussed in the past. Where have you been?

            Let’s see, the Master said “the poor we will always live with us,” but Catholic social teaching states we must help the poor by using the principle of subsidiarity, nothing about government control. Catholic social teaching decries the abuses of Capitalism, it does not condemn the whole concept. The gun control debate? Do you honestly expect the Church to teach all of us to disarm ourselves? I didn’t know there was no right to self-defense in the Church.

            You don’t think CV is Catholic enough for you? Well, don’t come in.

            “nothing on Catholic doctrine on the issues where Democrats hold the upper hand.”
            Such as their war on the unborn, their acceptance of homosexual marriages, their acceptance of anti-religious freedom legislation such as the HH Mandate, feeling ashamned of God in their convention, etc. You are right, they have the upper hand on those issues which happen to be diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching.

          13. Paulspr says:

            Actually they can. When they are sworn into office they vow to uphold the constitution of our country. They vow to represent all their constituents.

            They do not take a vow to change the laws of our nation to force others to live under their religious tyranny.

          14. abadilla says:

            When they chose to legalized the murder of the unborn, don’t tell me they were upholding their constituents because those same constituents were horrified at the Court’s decision to allow a law that would butcher millions of unborn babies by creating out of nothing a “right” of women which does not exist but in their sick minds. That so-called “right” was invented because no father of this nation ever wrote such a “right” in the Constitution.

          15. Joe M says:

            Ok. Is scientific teaching of when human life begins a basis for American Civil Law?

          16. abadilla says:

            But it is the basis of the religion you claim to uphold. That’s why I have called you a “pretend” Catholic because you are first an American who apparently does not believe in the pursuit of happiness and “life,” but who does not take seriously his Catholicism.

        2. Christa Sena says:

          Fetus means “young one”….a young what you ask? A young human. Because that’s what women get pregnant with – people. Ask the abortionists – they have to account for BODY PARTS after doing an abortion to ensure they got the entire “fetus”.

        3. Neither are newborns. So if we kill a bunch of them, it will be alright.

        4. abadilla says:

          Here we go again. Is that Catholic teaching you taught when you taught CCD?
          How many times have many of us explained to you and other pretend Catholics here that being a fetus is part of the development in the womb of a mother, and that no one can arbitrarily decide that a fetus or and embryo, or a zigote is not “human.”

    4. abadilla says:

      Paul, it may not be “genocide” if you follow the definition of the word, but to butcher 55 million unborn babies, just in numbers alone, is worse than the butchering of six million Jews.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.