Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Pelosi lies about Catholicism and abortion

posted at 1:55 pm on August 24, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

I’m always astounded as to the extent of deception in which pro-choice Catholics indulge themselves, both inwardly and outwardly, to justify their positions.  Perhaps there is no balder example of this than Nancy Pelosi attempting to spin the Catholic doctrine on human life today on Meet the Press.  Pelosi argues that the Catholic position on human life only developed in the last 50 years and that it doesn’t impact abortion in any case:

REP. PELOSI:  I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.  And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition.  And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months.  We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.  Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester.  There’s very clear distinctions.  This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god.  And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.  As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

MR. BROKAW:  The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

REP. PELOSI:  I understand that.

MR. BROKAW:  …begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI:  I understand.  And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that.  So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.  But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions.  And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions.  That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception.  My Republican colleagues do not support contraception.  If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must–it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think.  But that is not the case.  So we have to take–you know, we have to handle this as respectfully–this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been–and I’m not saying Rick Warren did, because I don’t think he did, but others will try to.

The notion that the Catholic Church declared abortion a sin at the same time as the Pill is patently absurd, and shows that Pelosi has either lied about studying the issue in terms of Church history or lied about what she found.  Church writings specifically naming abortion as murder appear as early as 70 AD in the Didache, the first written catechism of the Christian church:

“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

Tertullian, sometimes known as the Father of the Latin Church, wrote with equal clarity and force:

“In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed” (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).

“Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.

“There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] “the slayer of the infant,” which of course was alive. . . .

“[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive” (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).

Saint Hippolytus, who sometimes found himself in conflict with the Church hierarchy, nevertheless agreed completely on abortion.  He made the point that abortion managed to combine the sins of adultery and murder at the same time:

“Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!” (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).

The Catholic catechism is extremely clear on the nature of its position on human life, and has been remarkably consistent on this point for almost 2,000 years, and it finds that position in the Old Testament.  Human life begins at conception, not at birth, and not at some point consistent with Roe for convenience.  In Psalm 51, David refers to his sinfulness beginning at the moment of conception, and sinfulness requires physical life and a soul to exist.

Pelosi isn’t the only Catholic with a habit of self-deception or flat-out dishonest on this topic; Joe Biden also falls into this category.  Douglas Kmiec shifted his support from Mitt Romney to Barack Obama, and as John McCormack points out at the Weekly Standard, he did so by claiming abortion to be one of many issues that Catholics must consider as part of their faith when voting.  I addressed that thinking in an earlier post, but I’ll recap it by noting that the Church urges people to address “sinful” inequalities but does not demand any particular strategy for that purpose.  It does, however, make abortion — even formal facilitation of abortion — an instantly excommunicating act.

Membership in the Catholic Church is voluntary.  If people do not want to follow its doctrines, they should find another faith community that reflects their values — and at the least, they should learn what the Church teaches on abortion and life before mischaracterizing it on national television.  Pelosi is either a fool or a liar, or perhaps both.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 5

Pelosi is either a fool or a liar, or perhaps both.

Put me firmly in the “both” column.

Guardian on August 24, 2008 at 2:01 PM

Her mouth is open; therefore, she’s lying.

SouthernGent on August 24, 2008 at 2:01 PM

“My Republican colleagues do not support contraception.”

???

exhelodrvr on August 24, 2008 at 2:02 PM

If only someone had replied to her with this information, we could power the world with the rapid eye blinking that would follow.

aikidoka on August 24, 2008 at 2:03 PM

Pelosi , “And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions.”

But yet, the Democrats vote in favor of allowing minors to cross state lines to get abortions without parental consent(enabling MORE abortions), THEY VOTE FOR ALL kinds of things that increase abortions, including the funding of them at the federal level.

Chakra Hammer on August 24, 2008 at 2:03 PM

Membership in the Catholic Church is voluntary. If people do not want to follow its doctrines, they should find another faith community that reflects their values — and at the least, they should learn what the Church teaches on abortion and life before mischaracterizing it on national television. Pelosi is either a fool or a liar, or perhaps both.

Most “christians” view their church as a social club these days and if you don’t like the rules of the club you can just try to have them changed.

I’m not a Catholic but I am a fellow christian and Protestant churches certainly have had more than their share of this phenomenon lately.

Benaiah on August 24, 2008 at 2:04 PM

Well it’s good to know that not only will she save the planet, but she is also auditioning for the Papacy. The restrictions on the taking of innocent life make the answer to what their position on the matter was inherently obvious going back at least a millenia or so. That the Church waited until the last 50 years to mke an overt ruling speaks more to the fact that once upon a time this horrid procedure was seen as a source of shame and kept behind closed doors.

Not bandied about like some atheistic sacrament and rite of passage.

sven10077 on August 24, 2008 at 2:04 PM

Pelosi is either a fool or a liar, or perhaps both.

Perhaps?

Russ on August 24, 2008 at 2:04 PM

These people wouldn’t treat a mongrel dog the way they casually treat the killing of a child. Kill the child if you wish, and if it fails toss it in the laundry closet to die a slow death out of the site of the medical staff and family. They are disgusting.

JonRoss on August 24, 2008 at 2:04 PM

Saving the planet by reducing the population one person at a time. Go San Fran Nan.

HawaiiLwyr on August 24, 2008 at 2:06 PM

These people wouldn’t treat a mongrel dog the way they casually treat the killing of a child. Kill the child if you wish, and if it fails toss it in the laundry closet to die a slow death out of the site of the medical staff and family. They are disgusting.

JonRoss on August 24, 2008 at 2:04 PM

Indeed, part of what brought me out of my dormancy and lukewarm following of McCain was the difference between the two on the matter of “dustbin babies” in Chicago.

Pro-abortion people should have the courage of their convictions and codify post-partum murder if that is what they believe instead of allowing the wounded child to bleed to death without ever feeling the trace of empathy.

I know they will burn in hell, and the fact is they do too.

sven10077 on August 24, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Can her face get anymore scary?

j0 on August 24, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Perhaps the bishop of Colorado could clarify the Church’s position for Ms. Pelosi. He hasn’t seemed shy about public statements the Church’s teaching on abortion.

Wethal on August 24, 2008 at 2:10 PM

What makes anybody think Pelosi is a better Catholic than she is Senator?

EJDolbow on August 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Yeah, she is both, most certainly, fool and a liar.
Even IF what she were saying was true, science finds new truths each day, and if it was only 50 years ago that this notion of life at conception became more clear, then she still has no leg to stand on.

bbz123 on August 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM

San Fran Nan really will tell any lie to support her side, won’t she?

Even Tom Brokaw knows what the Catholic Church’s position on abortion is.

Here’s a little reminder Nancy, from the Catholic Catechism. Perhaps you should learn it.

On Abortion
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 recognised as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

IrishGirl17 on August 24, 2008 at 2:12 PM

Tertullian, sometimes known as the Father of the Latin Church, wrote with equal clarity and force:

It would be interesting to try and reconcile the Tertullian writing with Aquinas’s view on ensoulment. Also, Pelosi refers to Augustine. Would Augustine’s views be less relevant than Tertullian’s?

Granted Pelosi is cheating by trying to take the ball away from the current Vatican, which is unambiguous on the issue.

dedalus on August 24, 2008 at 2:14 PM

were not sure when life begins …. so lets kill it

DarianCounts on August 24, 2008 at 2:15 PM

It wasn’t until the Nineteenth Century, I believe, that scientists discovered that there was an ovum. Until then, they thought all the cells for the new life came from the male and the female just provided the nurturing environment. But the Church was still pro-life, and science caught up with it, as 3-D sonograms show.

Wethal on August 24, 2008 at 2:15 PM

that this notion of life at conception became more clear, then she still has no leg to stand on.

bbz123 on August 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM

But life doesn’t really start at conception, does it?

The day before conception is the ovum dead? Is the sperm dead? No, conception may be the beginnig of a NEW and UNIQUE life but it also may be a continuation of the lives of the parents until that point it is a new life.

EJDolbow on August 24, 2008 at 2:18 PM

“When the chi—”

When you have to stop yourself from using the word “child”, you have pretty much lost your humanity.

RushBaby on August 24, 2008 at 2:18 PM

Well, the Catholic Church only came out against gay marriages a few years ago too.

Those poor, poor liberals. They uphold age-old commonsense values, and all the rest of us flighty twits keep making up crazy new rules all the time.

logis on August 24, 2008 at 2:19 PM

We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.

That quote says it all. Even if we knew beyond any doubt the exact moment when human life begins in the womb, it still should not affect the woman’s right to end that human life.

Her statement makes no sense — theologically, legally, morally, or otherwise.

AZCoyote on August 24, 2008 at 2:20 PM

“When the chi—”

When you have to stop yourself from using the word “child”, you have pretty much lost your humanity.

RushBaby on August 24, 2008 at 2:18 PM

Quite I’d love to know what slang the abortion crew was using in Chicago for the botched abortion survivors. They meet every definition for “birth”. I’d suspect something like “accidental fetal discharge” or something. The fact is that in most cases they will have so damaged the baby it is likely suffering terminally anyway.

The minimum the child deserves is enough care and empathy to speed its murdered soul to heaven in comfort.

sven10077 on August 24, 2008 at 2:21 PM

The day before conception is the ovum dead? Is the sperm dead? No, conception may be the beginnig of a NEW and UNIQUE life but it also may be a continuation of the lives of the parents until that point it is a new life.

EJDolbow on August 24, 2008 at 2:18 PM

New, genetically distinct life starts at conception, as the fertilized egg gets half its DNA from the father and half from the mother. Two live cells with the DNA of the donors beforehand.

Wethal on August 24, 2008 at 2:21 PM

That quote says it all. Even if we knew beyond any doubt the exact moment when human life begins in the womb, it still should not affect the woman’s right to end that human life.

Her statement makes no sense — theologically, legally, morally, or otherwise.

AZCoyote on August 24, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Their logic taken to its conclusion means a “woman”(never a man) can choose to abort a delivered child if they “feel the need to choose”.

That is the end result of their insistence on allowing dustbin babies to die. We are slouching our way to an inverted Logan’s Run where it is not 30 year olds getting killed but 30 minute olds.

sven10077 on August 24, 2008 at 2:23 PM

It would be interesting to try and reconcile the Tertullian writing with Aquinas’s view on ensoulment. Also, Pelosi refers to Augustine. Would Augustine’s views be less relevant than Tertullian’s?

Because Augustine and Aquinas just copied from aristotle.

ninjapirate on August 24, 2008 at 2:24 PM

And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months

Augustine was a Senator? Who knew? Thought he was Bishop of Hippo in North Africa.

Or is she saying certain US Senators should be elevated to sainthood? Like the One that God has sent us?

Wethal on August 24, 2008 at 2:24 PM

Augustine was a Senator? Who knew? Thought he was Bishop of Hippo in North Africa.

Or is she saying certain US Senators should be elevated to sainthood? Like the One that God has sent us?

Wethal on August 24, 2008 at 2:24 PM

PBUH

The One instinctively knows that bearing a baby is “punishment”….they have neat views on “attrition”.

sven10077 on August 24, 2008 at 2:26 PM

New, genetically distinct life starts at conception, as the fertilized egg gets half its DNA from the father and half from the mother. Two live cells with the DNA of the donors beforehand.

Wethal on August 24, 2008 at 2:21 PM

Which is exactly by point.

EJDolbow on August 24, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Oh my. She’s a total idiot.
I hope she is bombarded by catholics who know the truths of this issue.
Sheesh! The woman has No shame!

bridgetown on August 24, 2008 at 2:28 PM

You should have put McCain’s response to that question Ed.

It’s begins at conception.

Nancy’s position is totally contrary to Catholic doctrine

Kini on August 24, 2008 at 2:29 PM

I think everything is just above Obama’s pay grade

Kini on August 24, 2008 at 2:31 PM

But life doesn’t really start at conception, does it?

EJDolbow on August 24, 2008 at 2:18 PM

.

Yes, life begins at conception.

Chakra Hammer on August 24, 2008 at 2:32 PM

Not a Catholic or a woman so to borrow a phrase I heard recently the abortion question is “above my paygrade”. What I do know is that abstinance education doesn’t work. Abstinance only leads to marriage which all married men will attest only leads to more abstinance. When are the poor young folks ever going to get laid?

Spider79 on August 24, 2008 at 2:32 PM

So, since Roe has been law less than 50 years, is it OK with Nancy if we ignore it?

snaggletoothie on August 24, 2008 at 2:34 PM

Membership in the Catholic Church is voluntary. If people do not want to follow its doctrines, they should find another faith community that reflects their values

Islam is not voluntary and not following Islamic law can lead you to disastrous results. Where’s yer burqa Nancy?

Kini on August 24, 2008 at 2:35 PM

Islam is not voluntary and not following Islamic law can lead you to disastrous results. Where’s yer burqa Nancy?

Kini on August 24, 2008 at 2:35 PM

she is incrementally on her way.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25004_Pelosi_in_a_Hijab

Pretty funny that she respects religious law on the go….

sven10077 on August 24, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Spider79 on August 24, 2008 at 2:32 PM

snicker…. hmphmmm, LOL!

Actually, as a married man…. it only gets better and better, the sex that is…. the imagination has no boundaries.

Kini on August 24, 2008 at 2:39 PM

But life doesn’t really start at conception, does it?

The day before conception is the ovum dead? Is the sperm dead? No, conception may be the beginnig of a NEW and UNIQUE life but it also may be a continuation of the lives of the parents until that point it is a new life.

EJDolbow on August 24, 2008 at 2:18 PM

I think you are confused..

Yes, life begins at conception. the “ovum” is not dead however it is not a separate life either it would be better be characterized as an ordinary cells of the woman as it is alive in her body no different than her heart cells, or liver cells before it’s fertilized. When fertilized and gains 1/2 the DNA from the sperm(father) then it becomes it’s own unique LIFE and separate from the woman and the woman nurtures the baby with her bodys nutrients until birth.

skin cells are alive and they die and make dust… ovums “die” and women have periods every month.. unfertilized ovum is not a sentient life or even capable until it’s fertilized.

Chakra Hammer on August 24, 2008 at 2:39 PM

But Planned Parenthood is making millions of dollars! Are we looking for a Windfall Profits Tax for the Abortion Industry as well as the Banking Industry?

DfDeportation on August 24, 2008 at 2:39 PM

I love it when Dims say they want to make abortions “rare.”

If that’s really your goal, Nancy, then stop forcing taxpayers to subsidize abortions. We all know that the quickest way to stop an unwanted behavior is to make that behavior costly for the person who’s engaging in it. If abortions had an actual financial cost associated with them for every woman who gets them, then we’d see a lot fewer women showing up at the “free” clinics for their 4th or 5th abortions. And please don’t try to tell us that that doesn’t happen; we know damn well that it does. Just the other day, that “View” host Sherry Shepherd was quoted as saying she’d had more abortions than she could recall. Too many women, especially “poor” women who get abortions for free (courtesy of the taxpayers) use abortions as a type of after-the-fact birth control. And why not, when it costs them nothing?

If Dims really wanted to reduce the number of abortions in this country, there’s a quick and easy way to do it. The fact that they won’t even consider it tells us everything we need to know about their true goals.

AZCoyote on August 24, 2008 at 2:40 PM

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic

Meaning I’ve been to church, I’ve given them money for the tax break, I’ve been to confession, I’ve been baptized, and I take communion when I go to church.

What she believes is not as relevant as what she does.

ThackerAgency on August 24, 2008 at 2:40 PM

aikidoka on August 24, 2008 at 2:03 PM

Your statement, besides being incredibly funny, makes another strong point. Why isn’t there the desire by the interviewer to more forcefully take the opposing view? Simply stating that the Catholic church (her church)is opposed to abortion is insufficient. A true professional would be just as familiar with arguments of her statements and present them with equal force. Instead that line is just used as a prompt for more Democratic talking points. The public is not being well served.

Cindy Munford on August 24, 2008 at 2:41 PM

I had a tubal 11 years ago.
My son is a teenager.
Opposition to abortion=oppostion to contraception?
Wrong again Nancy.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 24, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Ha, Nancy is right next to the lady in the sidebar ad who always reminded me of her…all she needs is a red apron and we have a match!

surrounded on August 24, 2008 at 2:41 PM

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.

Catholic? So was Al Capone

And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know.

Yes, we do know. Conception. Doctors of the Church? Which ones- House?

The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions.

Roe is part of the chirch and Catholicsm?

drjohn on August 24, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Tony Villar, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Fabien Nunez, Roger Mahony, and 30 Illegal Aliens are catholics? Hmmmmmmmmm….Is that who’s working in Pelosi’s vineyards in Northern California and in Tony Villar’s sweatshops in Los Angeles? Hmmmm

DfDeportation on August 24, 2008 at 2:41 PM

9% approval rating…

DfDeportation on August 24, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Because Augustine and Aquinas just copied from aristotle.

ninjapirate on August 24, 2008 at 2:24 PM

Sure in Aquinas there is much Greek influence along with modifications, but both Augustine and Aquinas were writing after Tertullian and their concept of delayed ensoulment was
adopted by the Pope as official teaching in 1591. That position lasted until 1869 when the church took a position of “simultaneous ensoulment”, where the soul is present at conception.

The church chose to canonize Aquinas and Austine, but not Tertullian.

dedalus on August 24, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Guardian on August 24, 2008 at 2:01 PM

I second that emotion.

drjohn on August 24, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Her remark about contraception.
That’s it. That’s what they want. They want Abortion to be a form of contraception, and that is what it has become. It’s really very sad.

And, as a woman, I’m totally embarrased that she is speaker of the house. She needs to step down, or shut up, one.

bridgetown on August 24, 2008 at 2:43 PM

I know it’s picky of me, but I can’t resist:

they should find another faith community…

“Faith community.” Ugh. That’s political jargon, substituting a vapid, clumsy phrase for perfectly good words such as “religion, “sect,” or even “faith.” It sounds like it comes straight from “Identity Politics for Dummies.” :)

My apologies for picking on you for this, Ed. I’ve just seen this phrase too often and it really jars me.

On your specific point, you’re right. Catholics who support a right to abortion should admit it: they’re no longer Catholics and should find a faith more comfortable to their values. Unlike Islam, no one says you have to die for changing sect.

irishspy on August 24, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Nancy: Bless me father for I have sinned. It’s been months since my last confession.

Father Pfluger: Nancy? Is that you?

Kini on August 24, 2008 at 2:44 PM

DfDeportation on August 24, 2008 at 2:39 PM

DING! DING! DING!

Kini on August 24, 2008 at 2:46 PM

And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions.

Why rare? If there is nothing wrong with it, what does anyone care how frequently it occurs?

DrMagnolias on August 24, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Catholics who support a right to abortion should admit it: they’re no longer Catholics and should find a faith more comfortable to their values.

If Catholics lost all of their pro-choice parishoners, they’d be cut by 75%. I doubt the Vatican wants to get rid of these donors so easily.

ThackerAgency on August 24, 2008 at 2:48 PM

“God also said to him, ‘I am God Almighty; Go forth, be fruitful and multiply.”

Well, she’s got the fruitful part right.

Kini on August 24, 2008 at 2:50 PM

If Catholics lost all of their pro-choice parishoners, they’d be cut by 75%.

ThackerAgency on August 24, 2008 at 2:48 PM

I think that number is more or less than 25%. Worldwide Catholics I think would be less than 1%.

Oh ye of little faith.

Kini on August 24, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are dead wrong…
You can’t be pro-choice, for partial-birth abortion and be Catholic!

byteshredder on August 24, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Human life begins at conception, not at birth, and not at some point consistent with Roe for convenience.

There is that word again that Obama, Pleosi, and the left just love……………convenience.

How many people think it would be convenient if Pelosi was aborted?

Seven Percent Solution on August 24, 2008 at 2:53 PM

And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions

Safe? Quess who looses in that statement.

Kini on August 24, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Membership in the Catholic Church is voluntary. If people do not want to follow its doctrines, they should find another faith community that reflects their values — and at the least, they should learn what the Church teaches on abortion and life before mischaracterizing it on national television. Pelosi is either a fool or a liar, or perhaps both.

Gold Star Summary.

Bob's Kid on August 24, 2008 at 2:54 PM

That’s it. That’s what they want. They want Abortion to be a form of contraception, and that is what it has become. It’s really very sad.

And, as a woman, I’m totally embarrased that she is speaker of the house. She needs to step down, or shut up, one.

bridgetown on August 24, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Pelosi’s church opposes all artificial birth control. Further, a few regard the pill as abortifcaient since in some cases it can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. More regard the IUD as an abortifacient.

To the extent that she can focus the debate on birth control and the first days after fertilization she is in territory that is more poll-friendly, as opposed to late-term abortions.

dedalus on August 24, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Wasn’t it the head of the philosophy department at Yale, maybe, that stated recently he didn’t see a problem with killing children up to age 2 since they didn’t have a concept of life or something stupid like that. We have always talked about “the slippery slope”, well I believe it is finally kicking in big time.

JonRoss on August 24, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Pelosi, like no small number of others who claim to adhere to Catholicism, seem to operate as if Catholic was a born into ethnic group rather than a religion.

MB4 on August 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM

I’m not a Catholic, but I actually have a 14-week bun in my oven. Therefore, I fell free to say this to her:

Nancy, girl, you are no theologian. Stop pretending that you know any doctrine. That’s not your job. Stick to your day job, shall you? Besides, you’re a mom, aren’t ya? How come common sense departed from you after having children? Any mom-to-be who has exhaustion and morning sickness can tell you when human life begins!

Heck, Peggy Noonan made the point that even those who buy packs of condoms know when life begins!

Seriously, Nancy. Stick to your day job.

newton on August 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM

It’s probably true that nobody debated it 50 years ago, for the same reason that nobody debated whether suicide was a sin 50 years ago. There was just nobody on the other side.

RBMN on August 24, 2008 at 2:58 PM

There’s Nancy! ha ha

DfDeportation on August 24, 2008 at 3:05 PM

Wait Nancy wouldn’t support suicide….her insurance industry friends would lose a ton of money!!!!

DfDeportation on August 24, 2008 at 3:06 PM

JonRoss on August 24, 2008 at 2:54 PM

That would be Peter Singer, who is Chair of Bioethics at Princeton. He has no problem killing children who are not “self-aware,” but believes animals have rights. He has shared such philosophical pearls as:

“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”

“Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all.”

“Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans.”

Quite the bioethicist, don’t you agree?

DrMagnolias on August 24, 2008 at 3:06 PM

I’m always astounded as to the extent of deception in which pro-choice Catholics indulge themselves, both inwardly and outwardly, to justify their positions.

As a Catholic myself, I agree. And I see the Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice debate NOT as a political issue, not as a religious issue…but as a basic human rights issue.

JetBoy on August 24, 2008 at 3:08 PM

“Pelosi is either a fool or a liar, or perhaps both.”

It’s apparent, isn’t it!?

grumpy_old_soldier on August 24, 2008 at 3:09 PM

Brokaw: When does life begin?
Pelosi: …The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose….

That’s despicable.

CP on August 24, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Seriously, Nancy. Stick to your day job.

newton on August 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM

I don’t even want her to do that!

Congrats on the “bun”!

JetBoy on August 24, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Some time in the not too distant future, the American Psychiatric Association is going to name a psychosis after Nancy.

Dusty on August 24, 2008 at 3:10 PM

God help the unborn children

custer on August 24, 2008 at 3:15 PM

Quite the bioethicist, don’t you agree?

DrMagnolias on August 24, 2008 at 3:06 PM

A philosophy professor I know told me a revealing story about Singer. He is a utilitiarian, who believes that one should take the choice that provides the most net good for the most people (”the greatest good for the greatest number”).

Singer’s mother had Alzheimer’s and was in a very expensive nursing home in Australia. Singer was asked if it wouldn’t be better to euthanize such people, as it was costly to keep them alive, and they contribute little if nothing to society. Singer’s answer was that he was providing employment for people.

Theoretically he can espouse the euthanizing of any one not “worthy of life” (that’s the phrase the Nazis used when they first started killing – it was their own, the handicapped and retarded who failed to live up to the Aryan ideal). But when faced with the actually killing of a helpless human, he couldn’t do it or even advocate it.

No wonder pro-abortion politicians oppose “informed choice” laws and sonograms as part of abortion counseling. It is difficult to look evil in the eye. So much better to talk about it in the abstract and have someone else do the dirty work behind clinic doors.

Wethal on August 24, 2008 at 3:16 PM

Her name was Nancy, but everybody knew her as batty.

Kini on August 24, 2008 at 3:17 PM

She’s an absolute wack job. Every time I see one of the leaders of the democrat party try to discuss any topic in a nuetral or even friendly setting with no pressure, I lose more and more respect for my liberal friends. The democrats are so overtly dishonest and disingenuous it is amazing that anyone can vote for a democrat. It mat really be a mental disorder.

peacenprosperity on August 24, 2008 at 3:18 PM

i’m a jew, but this sickens me beyond belief!

she proves that there is nothing that the left wouldn’t lie about.

they are absolutely shameless.

disgusting.

40 milion dead since roe v wade – in the usa alone.

and she defends it by LYING about Catholicism.

she is a vile and evil creature.

reliapundit on August 24, 2008 at 3:19 PM

“When the chi—”

When you have to stop yourself from using the word “child”, you have pretty much lost your humanity.

RushBaby on August 24, 2008 at 2:18 PM

Barack didn’t feel he had to stop himself in the Illinois Senate in 2002:

SENATOR OBAMA: So — and again, I’m — I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead , that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved . Is that correct?

Fetus, child, limp, dead — whatever, Mr. Messiah.

Nichevo on August 24, 2008 at 3:22 PM

It’s probably true that nobody debated it 50 years ago, for the same reason that nobody debated whether suicide was a sin 50 years ago. There was just nobody on the other side.

RBMN on August 24, 2008 at 2:58 PM

The clip was getting at the fact that you could go back 500 years and more to find a debate on when the soul enters the body–with Catholics on both sides.

dedalus on August 24, 2008 at 3:23 PM

Quite the bioethicist, don’t you agree?

DrMagnolias on August 24, 2008 at 3:06 PM

Thanks Doc !!! – I remember hearing about him and I have been googling like crazy but I couldn’t find it. I just wonder how we (or I should say “they”, Singer, etc) started down this road. I don’t think you even have to be a “religious” person to think that infanticide is a rather sick idea.

JonRoss on August 24, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Fetus, child, limp, dead — whatever, Mr. Messiah.

Nichevo on August 24, 2008 at 3:22 PM

This is what mobilized me to actively want his defeat….

the raw evil in “um uh y’know’s” answer

this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.

-the one

is horrifying

sven10077 on August 24, 2008 at 3:24 PM

newton on August 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM

Yay!!! Congrats.

Cindy Munford on August 24, 2008 at 3:26 PM

Chakra Hammer on August 24, 2008 at 2:39 PM

let me add an addendum to my previous post with all the scientific research that they have been doing on human life lately.. Life begins when the “ovum” receives enough Human DNA from an outside source.

Chakra Hammer on August 24, 2008 at 3:28 PM

Heck, Peggy Noonan made the point that even those who buy packs of condoms know when life begins!

newton on August 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM

Ha Ha. This is clearly above Nancy’s pay grade, and if Joe Biden said he has a higher I.Q. than she does, he’d get no argument from me (not that that’s saying much, mind you).

Buy Danish on August 24, 2008 at 3:28 PM

My Republican colleagues do not support tax payer funded contraception.”

???

exhelodrvr on August 24, 2008 at 2:02 PM

funny how they like to leave words out and it makes all the difference..

DaveC on August 24, 2008 at 3:32 PM

Pelosi is either a fool or a liar, or perhaps both.

As so many political discussions end up.

Is anyone concerned at all that Pelosi and Obama, in their historic breaking of the rhetorical “glass ceiling” are actually setting their respective identity groups back some decades?

Jaibones on August 24, 2008 at 3:33 PM

No surprise Nancy, purveyor of verbal brucellae, gaveling denunciation of doctrine, supplanting contagious abortion in lieu of life.

Abortion and eugenics have been hotly debated for a century now, not the mere 50 years or so that Nancy is willing to own up as personally recalling.

Abortion has been illegal as long as nations and wedding vows have existed. Until Roe v. Wade, a woman found aborting her husband’s unborn child was considered less than human herself for doing such a thing. It wouldn’t matter if the couple were Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim.

maverick muse on August 24, 2008 at 3:33 PM

newton on August 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM

That’s the first thing I thought of, too; and congratulations!

Life begins at conception. Anyone who says “Well, I’m against them, but won’t limit them” is morally repulsive; if you think it’s a murder, why allow it?

DrMagnolias on August 24, 2008 at 3:06 PM

Doesn’t he just revolt you more, the more he speaks? I’m pretty sure he’s one of the “FREE LOVE WITH ANIMALS!” guys.

emailnuevo on August 24, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Maverick Muse-

Indeed, we are living the “glory” of the boys and girls from Dearborn and Dachau’s dreams….

sven10077 on August 24, 2008 at 3:35 PM

That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception.

I noticed one other guy up above found this weird.

Aren’t the majority of Republicans protestant? I mean, what the hell is she talking about here? Or is it just more lies?

apollyonbob on August 24, 2008 at 3:37 PM

P.S. What Catholic beliefs does Pelosi ascribe to? How in the world do you get to pick-and-choose Christianity? I don’t care if you disagree with the Pope, but at least have the courage to be a Protestant.

She’s a visible symptom of a greater ill – the lack of the catholic faith (by which I mean Christianity, not Roman Catholicism) teaching and taking stands. I like the Muggeridge quote where he compares it to the Salvation Army, marching through town proclaiming the Good News and, on seeing the heavens roll back ‘like a scroll’ and the Lord’s return, throw down their instruments and run for cover.

emailnuevo on August 24, 2008 at 3:37 PM

If Nancy Pelosi can say this stuff while being an “ardent practicing Catholic,” then I believe Ms Pelosi needs to practice Catholicism much more ardently.

Candy Slice on August 24, 2008 at 3:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 5


You must be logged in to post a comment.