• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pope to US Speaker Pelosi: Reject abortion support

No.
You are wrong because you are stating an opinion that has no factual basis (without caveats) as fact.
It is not murder in our society.

Human life begins at conception. Not an opinion. No caveats.

Murder is the wilful termination of human life without just cause. Personal convenience is not a just cause. Practical working definition, no caveats.

Abortion is the wilful termination of human life without just cause. Definition. No caveats.

Abortion is therefore murder. Logical conclusion.

Like I said, people who support the murder of babies are wrong. People who have to warp and distort logic to argue that it isn't wrong are warped and distorted. And wrong.

It's easy being perfect. I'd say you should try it, but there's only one of me.

The Church in this regards should make exceptions because it would be foolish of them to try and force their viewpoint, through a member of their Church, on a voting public who hold an opposite view. That is just wrong.

The Church claims to get it's directions from God.

All Churches do.

So you're arguing that God should change his mind....differently, in every Congressional district....to suit the whims of the voters of that district.

That it an interesting idea...if you're trying to create a jellyfish church.


As far as I am concerned a Catholic who intends to disregard their constituency and vote on issues based on their catholic beliefs, need not run for, or hold, any public office, unless elected on that platform.

Okay, I'm fine with that.

Don't complain if a church kicks a politician out. It's their club, not the politicians. The members follow the rules, or they get booted, if that's what the rules of the club say.

You got a problem with that?

It's clear Pelosi isn't a real catholic, so she should either change the way she votes, or find the ovaries to formally leave the Church.

Please show me where the Bible says the Pope is infallible.

Ask a Catholic that cares. I'm an atheist. I merely repeated what's needed to be an RC.

The Pope is God's Right Hand Man on Earth. You don't agree? Argue it with someone that does.

God's right hand man can't make mistakes, though.

Anyhooo, if Nancy doesn't want to live like a catholic, there's no one locking the doors of the church to keep her in.

That's pretty straightforward, isn't it?

Not at all funny.
The Catholic church is making up rules that the Bible doesn't support.
Can they do it? Sure they can. Is it right? Nope! Not one bit.
That is an abuse of power.

That makes the Catholic Church....exactly like every other self-proclaimed "Christian" religion on earth. You got a problem with that? Take it up with someone that cares.

It's really not relevant to the topic that Nancy doesn't have to be a Catholic if she doesn't want to be, and the Church isn't required to let her in if she refuses to obey their rules.

Not a democratic one, but in it's own right, it is.

Knew you were going to say that.

Doesn't matter.

I said it isn't, because it isn't.


I said it is.

I invented it.

I laid it out for all to see.

Can't help it if you can't see the simplest of metaphors.

To equate a sporting team in a sporting event where the outcome of a players conduct of not following the rules and greatly effects the outcome of who wins or looses is "imprecise and inapplicable".

It's precise and perfectly applicable.

If Pelosi ran as a real Catholic, ie, promising that her firmly held religious beliefs would guide her votes in the House, she wouldn't have been elected. Therefore her false use of the "Catholic Label" greatly affected the outcome of the elections she ran in and thus fraudulently affected the outcome, just as if ole Nancy was catching that ball on the soccer field illegally.


Instead of running as a real catholic, she ran as a baby-murdering tax-and-spend liberal socialist "catholic" with corporate donor owners. Her "catholic" label meant nothing.

If the people that own the label object to her use of it, charging false representation, and revoke her privilege to use that label by revoking her privilege to attend their churches, until such time as she convincingly demonstrates to them her true repentance, that's their right to do so. Under the First Amendment, it's illegal for the Congress to make laws infringing that freedom.


This isn't a game or a sporting event, is it?

Absolutely.

The stakes are life, death, wealth, poverty, freedom, slavery, happiness, and despair.

It's the most exciting game on the planet.

You play it, or you wouldn't be posting here.

The fans didn't elect the player to represent them, did they?

Her fans did.

What Pelosi does or doesn't doas an elected official doesn't equate in a win or a loss like it does in a sporting event, does it?

No.

The Roman gladiators put their own lives on the line.

When Pelosi plays, she helps to kill millions and millions of unborn babies.

Yes, your analogy/comparison has no bearing on said subject.

You only say that because you know you're not telling the truth.

But hey, since you used it the sporting team analogy - most players are not kicked of the team for not following the rules. Get the drift why your analogy doesn't have any bearing?


You mean sporting teams are almost as corrupt as the Catholic Church?

Oh, I'm just SHOCKED! I tell you SHOCKED!!!!

:doh

But when it comes to corruption, the Roman Catholic Church is a little league team compared to the Most Mighty and Awesome Major League Democrat Party, though. I'm sure you can't disagree honestly with that.

I mean...the RC had a Borgia Pope here and there....the Democrats have Bill and Hillary and Obama and Harry and Nancy and William Jefferson and all the rest. Can't pick up a Democrat without the corruption getting your fingers all slimy.
 
If it is irrelevant (and there is no need to scream), then there was no reason to mention it in the first place.


It's relevant because it's what the Catholic Church teaches.

That it's not supported in the Magic Book doesn't have any bearing.

Pelosi is claiming to be a Catholic, that means she's agreeing the pope is the Dude!

It's really not all that complicated when looks at the issues honestly with a desire to reach the truth.
 
By not making adultery illegal, you are cooperating with that sin. THAT is against church teachings. No way out of that one.

By not doing something it's doing something? Not the same thing, dear.
 
Sorry you are confused.

Pelosi isn't following the rules so to say, and as the Bible is the rule book so to say, then the Church isn't following it either, but makes up rules as it deems fit. Hypocrisy.
If the Bible is a rulebook, and there are disagreements as to the rules--whose YOUR coach? You can't claim the Holy Spirit guides your understanding, because that is who supposedly coaches all those other denominations that you don't agree with. When there is no authority, there is chaos. That's why Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom and the power of binding and loosing to the Church he established. Those are Jewish concepts that relate directly to authoritative power guided by supernatural means.


Why don't you tell me.
I just did. Do you know your Bible? the verse should sound familiar--I'll give you a hint, it's in the Gospels.

Please, supply away.
I did.

You tell me.
Just did;)
 
By not doing something it's doing something? Not the same thing, dear.

That is the logic you are using. Pelosi hasn't gotten an abortion nor has she encouraged people to get abortions. So to you, doing nothing is doing something. Make up your mind.
 
That is the logic you are using. Pelosi hasn't gotten an abortion nor has she encouraged people to get abortions. So to you, doing nothing is doing something. Make up your mind.

Nancy Pelosi on the Issues
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Protect the reproductive rights of women. (Jan 1993)
Supported funding contraception and UN family planning. (Jul 1999)

That is material support for procuring abortions.
 
Abortion is therefore murder. Logical conclusion.
An illogical conclusion based on opinion.
The beginnings of a human life of course begin at conception, but is not a human life in and of it's self.



Like I said, people who support the murder of babies are wrong. People who have to warp and distort logic to argue that it isn't wrong are warped and distorted. And wrong.
Considering your warped logical leap that a group of cells that only have the possibility to become a human life if not interfered with... is in fact a human life.
You are wrong.



So you're arguing that God should change his mind....differently, in every Congressional district....to suit the whims of the voters of that district.
No, I am arguing that the Church should understand that some of it's followers would end up in political positions, sometimes representing a majority of non-Catholics and when this happens the politician should not be held liable for not imposing the Catholic beliefs on their constituency, when the constituency doesn't want them.


Don't complain if a church kicks a politician out. It's their club, not the politicians. The members follow the rules, or they get booted, if that's what the rules of the club say.

You got a problem with that?
I have no problem with that.
But it doesn't stop me from commenting on how wrong it is for a Church to try and force it's beliefs on those who do not hold the same.



It's clear Pelosi isn't a real catholic, so she should either change the way she votes, or find the ovaries to formally leave the Church.
Real Catholic?
That must be a joke, right?



The Pope is God's Right Hand Man on Earth. You don't agree? Argue it with someone that does.
Then why even make the comment in the first place? :doh


That makes the Catholic Church....exactly like every other self-proclaimed "Christian" religion on earth.
You were arguing that position. I simply stated that it is an abuse of power.
Glad we can agree.



Knew you were going to say that.

Doesn't matter.
Really?
Then why did you say it in the first place? :doh



It's precise and perfectly applicable.
No, it truly isn't.


Absolutely.

The stakes are life, death, wealth, poverty, freedom, slavery, happiness, and despair.
No it isn't.
The rest is just hyperbole.



Her fans did.
And again, not the same thing.
And just another reason your analogy doesn't fit.



When Pelosi plays, she helps to kill millions and millions of unborn babies.
If your opinion was correct I would agree with you, unfortunately for you it isn't, so what you say above is nothing but hyperbole.


You only say that because you know you're not telling the truth.
No, 'you' only say that because you know you are not telling the truth.


You only say that because you know you're not telling the truth.I'm sure you can't disagree honestly with that.
I am not just sure that I could, I know I could, but why should I?
I don't like the democratic party.
 
That is material support for procuring abortions.

Supporting the legality or choice of something is not the same as supporting it.

Adultery is legal, so does that mean you support it?

I know many people that support the choice for OTHERS to have an abortion, but they themselves would never have one.

That is not pro-abortion, that is pro-choice.
 
You can't claim the Holy Spirit guides your understanding, because that is who supposedly coaches all those other denominations that you don't agree with.
I most certainly could claim it.
I could even claim that Jesus is my guide.

But to me this is exactly what makes all Christian religions hokey.



When there is no authority, there is chaos.
This is a given, is it not?


That's why Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom and the power of binding and loosing to the Church he established.
That is an opinion based on interpretation. Nothing more.


Those are Jewish concepts that relate directly to authoritative power guided by supernatural means.
This really is a subject that deserves it's own thread.
Presently, I have not the time to give this comment proper attention.
 
That is an opinion based on interpretation. Nothing more.
Look them up in the Jewish Encyclopedia to understand the historical context of Jesus uttering such a radical thing to Peter. It's very clear what Jesus meant.
 
Supporting the legality or choice of something is not the same as supporting it.

Adultery is legal, so does that mean you support it?

I know many people that support the choice for OTHERS to have an abortion, but they themselves would never have one.

That is not pro-abortion, that is pro-choice.

Adultery is NOT legal.
State Adultery Laws

Federal Law Against Adultery FindLaw | Cases and Codes sections of the Federal Criminal Code apply to the reservation, including not only the Assimilative Crimes Act, but also those making penal the offenses of rape, 4 assault with intent to [327 U.S. 711, 714] commit rape,5 having carnal knowledge of a girl,6 adultery7 and fornication. 8 years; ... and when such act is committed between a married man and a woman who is unmarried, the man shall be deemed guilty of adultery.' Criminal Code, 316, 35 Stat. 1149, 18 U.S.C. 516, 18 U.S.C.A. 516. [Footnote 8] 'If any unmarried man or woman commits fornication, each shall be fined not more than $100, or imprisoned not more than six months.' Criminal Code, 318, 35 Stat. 1149, 18 U.S.C. 518, 18 U.S.C.A. 518. Adultery: (1887) 24 Stat. 635, in connection with the amendment of bigamy statutes; (1909) 35 Stat. 1149.
 
Look them up in the Jewish Encyclopedia to understand the historical context of Jesus uttering such a radical thing to Peter. It's very clear what Jesus meant.
Please provide the source.

I hope it is as clear and unequivocal as the cite I gave earlier on the fetus.
 
Please provide the source.

I hope it is as clear and unequivocal as the cite I gave earlier on the fetus.

Google "Jewish Encyclopedia" and look up "Key" and "binding and loosing." It's not rocket science.:doh
 
Google "Jewish Encyclopedia" and look up "Key" and "binding and loosing." It's not rocket science.:doh
( :doh ) is right.
Yes, I can simply do as you suggest and would do so if things were different that they are at the moment.
I just previously indicated that a statement of yours required more time to give it proper attention than I currently have.
Obviously you should have realized that I am busy.
So now I have to take time to answer this. Whew!

I politely asked you to provide the source for that which you state.
Do it, or not. It is your choice.
Just as I have taken the time to reply, instead of googling, you too could have taken the fraction of time to provide the source for that which you speak of.

When a person provides the source for that which they state, all parties are then on the same page, instead of possibly two different internet sources that may or may not be the same.

I was negligent earlier when I cited the Exodus 21:22-25 by not providing the source, which was the Catholic Bible my Mother gave me.
Yet I am sure I could find an internet source of the Catholic Bible that says the same, given that the Church dictated it's interpretation and translation.

So, will you please provide the source so that we can be on the same page?
 
( :doh ) is right.
Yes, I can simply do as you suggest and would do so if things were different that they are at the moment.
I just previously indicated that a statement of yours required more time to give it proper attention than I currently have.
Obviously you should have realized that I am busy.
So now I have to take time to answer this. Whew!

I politely asked you to provide the source for that which you state.
Do it, or not. It is your choice.
Just as I have taken the time to reply, instead of googling, you too could have taken the fraction of time to provide the source for that which you speak of.

When a person provides the source for that which they state, all parties are then on the same page, instead of possibly two different internet sources that may or may not be the same.

I was negligent earlier when I cited the Exodus 21:22-25 by not providing the source, which was the Catholic Bible my Mother gave me.
Yet I am sure I could find an internet source of the Catholic Bible that says the same, given that the Church dictated it's interpretation and translation.

So, will you please provide the source so that we can be on the same page?

You don't have enough time to type in Jewish Encyclopedia key and binding and loosing (38 total characters) but you have time to complain about it? Whatever.:roll:

JewishEncyclopedia.com
JewishEncyclopedia.com - KEY
JewishEncyclopedia.com - BINDING AND LOOSING
 
Genesis 25:22 "But the children in her womb jostled each other ... "
II Kings 19:3 "Children are at the point of birth, but there is no strength..."
Ruth 1:11 "Have I other sons in my womb..."
Numbers 12:12 "Let her (an unborn child) not this be like the stillborn babe..."
Luke 1:43 "And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me." (A reference to Jesus PRIOR to his birth)

There are many other examples of reference to the unborn as people in the Bible, but these should suffice.
 
You don't have enough time to type in Jewish Encyclopedia key and binding and loosing (38 total characters) but you have time to complain about it? Whatever.:roll:
I believe I already said that didn't I?
I asked so we could be on the same page for reference.
You do understand that, right?
 
Is there anyway to put a thread on ignore, this one just won't go away.
 
I believe I already said that didn't I?
I asked so we could be on the same page for reference.
You do understand that, right?

If you typed in "Jewish Encyclopedia" in google, it's the first (and second,and I believe third) option. You do understand that, right?:doh
 
Tell me a person that has been prosecuted for cheating on his wife. YOU FAIL.

It is legal.




The failure once again is as usual, yours. :rofl



Of Lust and the Law (washingtonpost.com)


Last month, John R. Bushey Jr. was finally brought to justice in a small courthouse in Luray, Va. Bushey, the former town attorney, stood before the court as an accused criminal with reporters from all over the state in attendance. The charge was adultery
 
The failure once again is as usual, yours. :rofl



Of Lust and the Law (washingtonpost.com)

I'll concede it is illegal in SOME states, but not all. So let's throw out adultery then.

The bible according to Christians and Catholics is also against acts of homosexuality.

The same thing, homosexual acts are not illegal. Therefore anyone that doesn't continue to fight to make homosexual acts illegal are in cooperation of it according to Felicity's logic.

Pelosi doesn't encourage people to have abortions, nor would she have one herself.

The act of something being LEGAL, doesn't mean you support it as felicity and others have said about Pelosi and abortion.
 
I'll concede it is illegal in SOME states, but not all. So let's throw out adultery then.

The bible according to Christians and Catholics is also against acts of homosexuality.

The same thing, homosexual acts are not illegal. Therefore anyone that doesn't continue to fight to make homosexual acts illegal are in cooperation of it according to Felicity's logic.

Pelosi doesn't encourage people to have abortions, nor would she have one herself.

The act of something being LEGAL, doesn't mean you support it as felicity and others have said about Pelosi and abortion.



There are plenty of Sodomy laws still on the books. Do I need to show you up again? :lol:



Technically homosexual acts are illegal in some states. Texas is one I believe.
 
Back
Top Bottom