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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
rotorhead,
When the King Jimmy bible wrote, “Thou shalt not kill”, that was a mistranslation.
Murder is more correct.
MarkTheGreat on August 25, 2008 at 10:07 AM
If you go back to the original text in the original language, the phraseology used means era, not day. With era having no defined length.
Interestingly enough, the first 6 days are denoted as having a beginning and an end. The 7th day only has a beginnning, so it is continuing to this day.
MarkTheGreat on August 25, 2008 at 10:10 AM
King David pre-dated Christ by quite a few years.
MarkTheGreat on August 25, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Catholicism is a convenient religion if you’re a politician it would seem.
blankminde on August 25, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Part of Pelosi’s statement, narrowly considered, is correct. The Church has moved its definition on when a fetus becomes a human being. There were hundreds of years in the Middle Ages where the church taught that abortion for the first few weeks wasn’t murder.
Part of Ed’s assertion above (at least the part relating to Catholic history) seems to be more off base than Pelosi’s.
dedalus on August 25, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Interestingly enough, every time the Catholic church threatens to stop giving communion to pro-choice politicians, much less excommunicating them, liberal politicians around the country start screaming about the church trying to mix church and state.
When in fact, it’s the other way around. It’s the state dictating to the church, what church doctrine must be.
Reminds me of that Canadian pastor who was jailed for reading from Paul’s letters regarding homosexuality.
MarkTheGreat on August 25, 2008 at 10:15 AM
I read this last night.
She’s on a crusade (no pun intended) to redefine Catholicism.
She will fail. The Church will never bow to the political pressures of those who would intentionally destroy life.
madmonkphotog on August 25, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Someone ought to tell Skeletor that the Church is also against contraception.
Maybe if she actually went to Church she might understand that one too. I highly doubt it, but hey, in order to train a dog, you have to pop it on the butt until it gets the message.
TheHat on August 25, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Didn’t I read a while back that Nancy Pelosi made up scripture about the environment?
Maybe she should just do the same thing about abortion. At least that will clarify the issue of God’s will.
CinC on August 25, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Well, she is running around now saying that God sent Barack Obama to lead us, so nothing she says would surprise me.
If she were a man everyone would say she is senile.
rockmom on August 25, 2008 at 10:49 AM
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” Psalm 139 v 13
“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah 1 v 5
You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb.
Didache (an early Christian document c100AD)
“Nancy Pelosi is a moron” SAbbott 2008
sabbott on August 25, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Abortion has always been condemned by the Catholic Church
dedalus, you might be thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas, a medieval theologian, who thought that an unborn child might receive it’s immortal soul at some point after conception. He still taught that abortion at any time was gravely evil.
Mulligan on August 25, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I’m a cradle-Catholic, and I have watched Liberalism weaken the Church. The recent Priest/molestation scandles go back 30-40 years when the the seminaries no longer vetted homosexuals. Thank God Pope Benedict reversed that practice. Now the Church needs to publicly call out these politicians who are CINO (Catholic In Name Only).
FiveWays on August 25, 2008 at 11:03 AM
1. You’re wrong
2. You don’t have a copy of the original text in the original language.
fossten on August 25, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Both Obamas ‘above my pay grade’ comment and Pelosis nonsense clearly demonstrate that they are using crazy reasoning – in O’s case if it is above his pay grade now, why promote a bill that so definitively shuts the door. A virtue (meekness) is detached from another (truth). On the other hand, Pelosi clearly exhibits the dangers of uninhibited vices – in this case arrogance. If these people are our best and brightest, we have a lot to pray for.
Fuquay Steve on August 25, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Pelosi refers to Augustine. But Aquinas had similar views on delayed ensoulment. Both saw abortion as wrong for reasons similar to the Church’s current teaching on birth control.
Essentially, Augustine and Aquinas (as well as Popes, councils, and canon law) didn’t see murder as a possibility until the fetus was ensouled.
The question Brokaw asked was “when does life begin”. To say that Augustine and Aquinas had different views than the Vatican today would be a true statement.
As I mentioned above, Pelosi is using a little bit of deception–to say that the Church had metaphysical views a thousand years ago and implying that therefore Catholics get to decide whatever they want today, is misleading. Maybe it would be like someone saying “The U.S. hasn’t always allowed women to vote so I think it is something that we should continue to debate.”
However, I think it is also misleading to say that the Church has had a consistent view for 2,000 years on when killing a fetus constitutes murder.
dedalus on August 25, 2008 at 11:23 AM
That supposedly “Catholic” politicians promote pro-abortion positions is bad enough, there is another practice they follow that is, to me, (if possible) worse.
It is the practice of demonizing, suppressing, attacking, slandering and doing all possible to humiliate those who actually try to defend life.
It is one thing to hold a personal opinion on the subject; it is quite another to prevent the Church’s position from being heard. Rather than honouring the Church’s point of view, they seek to delegitimize it. In this sense they, as much as any abortionist, are responsible for the procuring of millions of abortions.
It is for this reason that I deny that Pelosi, Kennedy (or, for that matter, Chretien, and Martin) are Catholics. They are not, for it is impossible to be a Catholic and to act as they do.
Blaise on August 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM
1) I’m right
2) Neither do you. (since you insist on being asinine about this, obviously I did not mean the first written copy, I’m refering to the text as written in aramaic.)
MarkTheGreat on August 25, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Apparently Nan is a little bible ignorant. Bible is clear when life starts. Jeremiah chapter one verse five states “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,and before you were bornI consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations”. Nan says catholic leaders don’t know when really life begins but all they have to do is study the scriptures and find out when. Can imagine Nan arguing this point when she meets Jesus face to face?
garydt on August 25, 2008 at 11:55 AM
The Speaker is fervently Pro-Choice… so long as the “choices” don’t include use of birth control, abstinence, adoption, or other responsible measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy/ parenthood to begin with. Reminds me of the cartoon of the car with a bumper sticker reading “Save The Whales… Kill The Babies.”
VastRightWingConspirator on August 25, 2008 at 11:56 AM
And the name calling begins. What you call asinine, I call pointing out a sophomoric flaw. You cannot refer to original text without meaning it. Sorry it frustrates you, but you’re incorrect anyway, as the original text was written in Hebrew.
Aramaic is more modern, street or everyday spoken language that is only about 3,000 years old. So you don’t even know the difference, and that’s telling. You’re referring to aramaic copies, which aren’t even as reliable as the extant Masoretic text.
Even the shoddy septuagint would prove you to be wrong, however, as even that text translates “was” as “was,” not “became.” Furthermore, Exodus 20:9-11 shoots holes in the gap theory, as each example of the word “day” is the exact same word in Hebrew.
This isn’t the thread to discuss this, so I’m not going to any further, never mind the fact that you wouldn’t bother to read any link I posted.
fossten on August 25, 2008 at 11:59 AM
I’m sympathetic to the earlier granting of human rights to the unborn, but I understand that something like two-thirds of fertilized embryos don’t implant in the womb, and die (thus the only 1-in-3 chances of pregnancy). If you believe life (and rights) begin at conception, you are going to have to deal with allowing two-thirds of humanity to die naturally before abortions even come into the picture (provided I have that probability correct–I’ve had a hard time checking it).
Count to 10 on August 25, 2008 at 12:03 PM
fossten,
Words mean many things, depending on the context.
The context here is that day is included with the phrasing the sun rose, and the sun set.
Every place such phraseology is used in ancient Hebrew literature, it means era, not day.
MarkTheGreat on August 25, 2008 at 12:10 PM
1. We’re both off topic
2. You’re not going to change your mind
3. I’m not going to change my mind
4. I can make a very strong case against the gap theory
5. I’m sure you feel that you can make a strong case for the gap theory as well
6. Nobody else will care
7. Did I mention this is off topic?
Let’s drop this.
fossten on August 25, 2008 at 12:17 PM
It’s like me saying “as an ardent practicing vegan” while munching on a big fat cheeseburger.
Scrappy on August 25, 2008 at 12:48 PM
I like that, Scrappy!
I’m well aware that Jesus is the foundation of the Church. Any Christian would be. I know that Peter is not what the Church is based upon, but he was the one that Jesus established as the authority over his growing Church, following the crucifixion. Simon was made Kipha/Peter, the rock, by Jesus because the Holy Spirit had revealed to Simon the Truth about Jesus being the Christ. I don’t see why I should refrain from using the passages in Scripture, showing this. I imagine many non-Catholics chose to dismiss them as they evidence the primacy of Saint Peter as ordained by Jesus, and thus allow them to dismiss the Papacy as well. Regardless, I was merely answering a comment about the Church not having the right or authority to decide what is sin and what isn’t. Matthew 16:18-19 clearly shows that Christ himself gave the authority to Peter, and in turn his successors (unless one believes Jesus didn’t care what went on after Peter’s death).
Regarding the dispute about the Church having a clear and consistent teaching on abortion, I feel that just because a single person, even a Saint, might have written something that didn’t completely agree with what was taught at a different time, it doesn’t negate the Churches official teaching, that abortion has always been considered wrong. Does it really make a difference if it was called murder or just killing hundreds of years ago? As St. Thomas Aquinas said, “…if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.” I think that is why he is a Saint and Pelosi, probably not. I say probably, because I do not wish to judge, as it is not my place.
I suppose Pelosi only brought up the Republicans not supporting contraception to try to deflect attention from the abortion issue, which won’t work. But while Republicans may support it, Catholics do not (at least those who accept Church teaching don’t.) and it is apparent from the documentation provided here that that position is consistent as well. Here, in my ignorance, I thought that was one of the things the Church didn’t really need to address until the advent of the Pill. Learn something new every day. Thanks again.
pannw on August 25, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Why do people bother listening to anything this woman says? She’s nuts. Is it possible that I know more about being a Catholic than she knows? Because I’m certainly not a Catholic and she does not know what she’s talking about.
MrsWeebork on August 25, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Big Shout out from Rush to Ed on his research with this topic
Well done !
Son of Sam Kinison on August 25, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Excellent mention of you and this article by Rush, Ed.
Congrats.
wise_man on August 25, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Wow, Rush Limbaugh just cited you Ed!
1:18 pm August 25th on his radio show.
chansen9 on August 25, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Yes indeed, all that research paid off this time for sure. I am not sure if this happens all the time but Congrats on the mention by the man.
kahall on August 25, 2008 at 1:20 PM
More than a few times, as I recall, kahall.
And Rush is also tearing this up as well.
wise_man on August 25, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Hey Ed, Good job! Rush just read from this very post. Wow! How cool is that!
JohnnyD on August 25, 2008 at 1:22 PM
I agree with you regarding the saintly theologians, but it goes beyond that. Their view on delayed ensoulment was endorsed by the church establishment including Popes, ecumenical councils, and early canon law.
dedalus on August 25, 2008 at 1:23 PM
We must first understand the perspective from which Ms. Pelosi comes- a Democrat. The writings and basis of the Catholic church must be “living” documents, and therefore, open to modern interpretation! This would include the Bible and the teaching of the mentioned St. Augustine. They (dems) do not conform to rules, but conform the rules!
UkiddenMe on August 25, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Blankeminde-a politician can can use any rationalization he/she wants-the devil can supply them with all his followers articulating them in the main stream media and in academia (seminaries as well) for free readily available for political use. Don’t lay the blame on Catholicism. Protestants & Jews have many politicians who are fond of pious posing and fervently pro-abortion at the same time. Muslims are just as bad if not worse-they’d vote for Paris Hilton if they thought it would advance sharia law.
wgm23 on August 25, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Congrats Ed.
You just made it on Rush with this story!
Kudos.
TheHat on August 25, 2008 at 1:43 PM
But that is God’s decision if an embryo does not implant or a fetus is miscarried. An abortion is Man replacing God’s decision with his own.
rockmom on August 25, 2008 at 2:03 PM
.
Most of us don’t have a problem with that. Dying naturally is ‘natural’. Having someone actively try to kill a baby in the womb, or birthing it and leaving the baby to die a slow, cold, hungry death in a linen closet is where we draw the line.
Think_b4_speaking on August 25, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Rush show prep = Hot Air.
Akzed on August 25, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Democrats that venture into religion are always at risk of making fools of themselves. With such an anti-Christian base, its hard to understand why they would even broach the subject.
Can someone please ask Reverend Wright what he thinks about Obama’s position on abortion? Oh wait, nevermind.
Geministorm on August 25, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Democrats, The Party of Firsts:
First Black President
First Female Pope
BitterClinger on August 25, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Rush destroyed Pelosi today. She is such a fool.
marklmail on August 25, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Pelosi is an Episcopalian-wannabe Catholic, the kind that goes to a “Jesus would have been a hippie and smoked dope!” parish, where Sr. Dolphin Debbie strums her guitar and everybody sings kumbayah. We have one right across the street (”We don’t have any kneelers, and our holy water fonts represent the Womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary!”) I call it St. Josef Stalin, have ever since I saw the crayon drawings to, and I quote, St. Cindy Sheehan in the vestibule.
I attend the conservative parish on the other side of town.
rightwingprof on August 25, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Please join me in forwarding the Youtube and the HotAir link to the Archbishop in Denver along with a nice note nudging him to respond to Pelosi. As a proud obedient Catholic, I’m outraged over SanFran Nan’s lies and pray that she be
smacked downcorrected on national TV by Archbishop Chaput.Most Reverend Charles Joseph Chaput, OFM Cap,
Archbishop of Denver
Contact Information
303-715-3129
shepherd@archden.org
Vicar for Clergy
Father Bernard Schmitz
303-715-3197
Father.Schmitz@archden.org
mick on August 25, 2008 at 3:00 PM
oops, should read “pray that she is …”
mick on August 25, 2008 at 3:09 PM
I pray that she gains a conscience!
TheTruth on August 25, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Pelosi’s “Devout Catholic” lies are nothing new. The Catholic Church is to blame. When a candidate is introduced as a Catholic, that’s all the Church needs to know. It doesn’t matter that they spout lies about Catholic doctrine. Look at Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, or Joe Biden, or the Kennedys for that matter. Catholics, led by MOST bishops, go starry-eyed and ga-ga over having “Catholic” politicians representing them, even if they are Catholics In Name Only, a.k.a. pro-choice Democrats.
jay12 on August 25, 2008 at 3:49 PM
It will be interesting to see how long it takes the Catholic church to respond to Pelosi’s comments.
Her lack of an energy policy(saving the planet, etc.) and now this.
Gulf Coast on August 25, 2008 at 4:08 PM
I think it’s also fair to point out Pelosi’s interview on MTP was perhaps the worst performance I’ve ever seen by a major political figure. She made even less sense than usual and appeared to be on some type of stimulant.
MajorKong on August 25, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Why do people bother listening to anything this woman says? She’s nuts. Is it possible that I know more about being a Catholic than she knows? Because I’m certainly not a Catholic and she does not know what she’s talking about.
MrsWeebork on August 25, 2008 at 1:05 PM
You should here her daughter…
DfDeportation on August 25, 2008 at 4:36 PM
hear her daughter…
DfDeportation on August 25, 2008 at 4:37 PM
I’m not a Catholic, I’m a Lutheran. I do respect the stance the Catholic Church has taken on the issue of Life, however! I wish that my church were this strong! Although formerly LCMS I currently belong to Mt Olivet Lutheran Church in Minneapolis because…well…because they preach The Cross of Christ and Christ Crucified as the way to salvation and they do more for the poor and disadvantaged than any organization I’ve ever seen..
sabbott on August 25, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Bkennedy:
Because independent consciousness marks the point when the foetus stops being simply a part of the mother and begins to be a being within the mother.
Yet there are several observable milestones in development that indicate the development of a consciousness apart from the mother. One such is the ability to feel pain, which develops around week 26, and which has been used before as a milestone for consciousness.
Already stated that. But my arm is alive, and it is human. Do you mean human in a different sense?
Again, we must be using different versions of the term “human life”, since by my definition (”alive, and belonging to a human”) you could include gametes and so on, and so every ejaculation is mass murder. In my view, you’ve already drawn such a line, with human organs and suchlike on one side and human foetuses and babies on the other. Your line is drawn by the criteria of the potential for independent consciousness. Everything that has an independent consciousness or that, if left alone, will develop such, has the same value to you as a living human. To me, only that with an independent consciousness already has that value. This is completely different from any value system regarding euthanasia, eugenics, or genocide, so please don’t try to pin those on my line (though I do very cautiously support euthanasia at the patient’s request).
But the government’s job is not to legislate morality. The government’s job, in this case, is really to determine the boundaries of murder. Simply being alive and human isn’t enough, because amputation would then be considered murder due to cell death. So the government’s job is to determine whether it is murder to kill something with the potential for consciousness, or if it is only murder to kill something that actually possesses an independent consciousness, and legislate accordingly.
But again, you’ve already chosen a “desired trait”, that being the potential for independent consciousness. That being the case, you don’t grant liberty to gametes, arms, or tumors.
Think_b4_speaking:
I think you misunderstand the term “independent consciousness”. I do not mean that the foetus must be awake, or that it be self-sufficient. I mean that it must have a self that is separate from the mother. Patients undergoing surgery and patients on life support still have selves, they’re just not awake to express them. I’d gladly accept your “brain waves” criteria; it seems a better one than the “ability to feel pain” criteria that is the only one I’d seen up to this point.
Back to BKennedy:
Function is different, but the structure is the same. And the point of using cancer cells instead of skin cells or nerve cells is to establish that merely being genetically unique is not enough. Obviously the cancer cell and the human foetus differ in other ways; the point is not to say that they are the same, but merely that they are both accepted under a certain criterion (genetic uniqueness) and therefore to disqualify that criterion as a tool for judging where murder ends. I’ll emphasize that: the point is NOT that cancer cell = zygote but that cancer cells and zygotes are both subsets of the set of alive, human, and genetically unique cells.
Math_Mage on August 25, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Obama said that the answer was above his pay grade – The fact that Pelosi took a stab at the answer is a clear message to the candidate that she is above his pay grade. Of course the implied idea is that he will never, even if elected, reach her lofty height. Nevermind the gibberish that followed the important fact here seems to have been missed.
InTheBellyoftheBeast on August 25, 2008 at 4:54 PM
John Kerry had to do it, Howard Dean had to do it, Now Barack Obama is going to have to do it,,,
Someone call Nancy Pelosi and tell her to shut her darn mouth until after the election, otherwise they will lock her and Harry Reid in their rooms until after the election, just like they did in 2006.
It’s a hard pill to swallow, they put her into that position, now they have to deal with her.
Delta Wild Man on August 25, 2008 at 5:06 PM
1. A baby’s genetic code differs from its mother’s.
2. While this baby resides in the mother’s womb, biologically this individual person is not a part or organ belonging to the mother. Her right to “do what she wants with her own body” ends at the edge of the womb.
3. The Latin word “fetus” means “little child.”
4. The question isn’t whether or not the mother has the right to end the life in her womb, it is whether or not doing so is morally and ethically wrong. Just because abortion is legal doesn’t make it moral. Slavery used to be legal.
5. If every woman should have the right over her own body, then the 750,000 female babies aborted every year are having their rights violated.
6. If the fetus is male, surely he can’t be part of his mother’s body because then she would be both female and male, genetically.
fossten on August 25, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Very nice work Ed on citing back to the Didache. San Francisco has always been an alternate reality haven. It’s remarkable that Speaker Pelosi presumes to be powerful enough to spin on sin.
Mark Groves on August 25, 2008 at 5:32 PM
fossten:
As does a tumor’s. It’s already been established that genetic uniqueness is insufficient.
But this “individual person” has no individuality or personhood until independent consciousness is established.
Irrelevant.
You’ll note I made no justification of abortion based on current law. But you’re slightly wrong as well: the question is not whether abortion is morally wrong, it’s if and when abortion is murder. As I said before, the government doesn’t legislate morality.
Facetious. If I argue one and not the other, are we going to say it’s ok to abort female babies but not male ones, or vice versa? Don’t make gender-specific arguments. As gender-neutral arguments, these equate to your second and first points, respectively.
Math_Mage on August 25, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Yes, quite different.
However, I think the action/inaction distinction is a bit of a flimsy line to decide life and death.
Count to 10 on August 25, 2008 at 5:51 PM
A separate note, perhaps a better question to ask than “does a woman have a right to an abortion?” is “does a doctor have a right to perform one?”
I find it difficult to view as a right anything that requires a fairly high level of technology to do.
Count to 10 on August 25, 2008 at 5:56 PM
I haven’t read all four pages of comments, so perhaps someone has already pointed this out.
Pelosi hasn’t read the text of Roe v. Wade. I quote Justice Blackmun:
“The Aristotelian theory of “mediate animation,” that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this “ensoulment” theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from the moment of conception. 61 The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians.”
CourtZero on August 25, 2008 at 6:11 PM
It would seem that she’d have a right to a C-section if required. You could argue the state didn’t have an obligation to pay for her C-section, but clearly people have a right to seek private medical treatment even though most of it involves technology.
dedalus on August 25, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Interesting quote, but it seems to support some of what Pelosi is saying. It does seem to show that what Ed wrote and Rush read today regarding the Catholic church’s consistency on life beginning at conception is not accurate.
dedalus on August 25, 2008 at 6:19 PM
dedalus on August 25, 2008 at 6:19 PM
I believe the Speaker was not only talking about the past, but the present doctrine of the Catholic Church. All I know is that the SCOTUS declared rather clearly (for what it’s worth), that “life at the moment of conception…is…of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church.”
That puts her comments outside of official doctrine (I’m not Catholic, but I think I’m clear on their position in the matter), but also outside of the canonical status that Roe v. Wade seems to hold for liberals.
CourtZero on August 25, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Catholics are taught that any sinner can get into Heaven if they confess their sins and are truly repentant. I wonder how many pro-choice Catholics confess that sin, and for the very [I'm certain] few who do, are they truly repentant?
I’ve seen both lightning bolts and rainbows. From that I’ve leanred that God doesn’t do things half
assedway. :o)DannoJyd on August 25, 2008 at 6:27 PM
The gaul of Pelosi and “I have a huge IQ”, Biden to distort the teachings of the Catholic Church, is surpassed only by the gaul of “O” thinking the Am. People are gullible.
pegreal on August 25, 2008 at 6:36 PM
She is wrong to imply that the teaching of the Church today provides flexibility on the issue of abortion. It doesn’t and it is unambiguous about that.
Rush is wrong to convey on his show that Pelosi was lying about St. Agustine, or that the position of the Church has always been exactly the same as it is now.
dedalus on August 25, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Hugh Hewitt has a nice response from two Bishops in Denver who destroy Pelosi’s argument that Catholics are free to choose whether killing a baby is ok or not.
davenp35 on August 25, 2008 at 7:30 PM
The Archdiocese of Denver has answered my e-mail:
http://www.archden.org/images/ArchbishopCorner/ByTopic/onseparationofsense%26state_openlettercjc8.25.08.pdf
jay12 on August 25, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Not only that but doctors take a Hippocratic oath(classical version) that’s in contradiction with abortion.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html
as you can see pro-abortion liberals have changed it
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html
here is article telling some of the differences and statistics of how Doctors use Classical vs. Modern.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_today.html
Chakra Hammer on August 25, 2008 at 7:37 PM
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
Chakra Hammer on August 25, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Statement of Bishops Chaput and Conley On Speaker Pelosi’s Abortion Whopper
davenp35 on August 25, 2008 at 7:42 PM
What are you talking about? Government legislates morality all the time. Passing law by it’s very definition is legislating morality.
apacalyps on August 25, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Comparing a human being to a cancerous tumor?? That is sickening.
apacalyps on August 25, 2008 at 7:49 PM
MM must be a new troll.. sheesh..
Chakra Hammer on August 25, 2008 at 7:53 PM
I’m Catholic, and Pelosi is just flat out evil because she councils sin and Christ especially warned us not to lead others to sin.
I noticed that this is going to play in the Presidential Election this year. Obama is on record as supporting infanticide and there is no way he can win if the news gets out to voters.
Also, I noted a McCain add on TV that mentioned Hillary getting dissed by Obama. Well, that means McCain is picking a woman (he’ll look like a moron if he picks a guy after that add).
What if McCain picks Sarah Palin? She’s a mother of a baby with downs syndrome. His name is Trig, and he is just the kind of child that Obama and Biden would not let live, if he survived an abortion.
I’d love to see Biden debate Palin on the abortion issue. Biden will just bring up the whole can of worms on those supposed Catholics who vote for abortion including: Pelosi, Sebelius, Kennedy, etc.
If McCain picks Sarah Palin or Kay Bailey Hutchison (mostly pro-life, although not as much as Palin), he’ll sieze the initiative and win this election hands down.
Sapwolf on August 25, 2008 at 7:59 PM
I read this and I thought, man, that’s a cold person … little scary too … when people say stuff like this I wonder do they know what they are saying or how they sound? I mean, re-read that. Does anybody else notice the elephant in the living room?
apacalyps on August 25, 2008 at 8:00 PM
One thing about nanny Peloser, she makes things up as she goes. And those liberals listening see her as brilliant, others call her really dumb.
tarpon on August 25, 2008 at 8:31 PM
A few messages ago this person said they were an atheist. Folks, this is a prime example of atheistic, evolutionary, thinking. A worldview is the way you view the world. The atheistic worldview ultimately culminates into this. They’ve replaced the foundation that God is Creator, with a foundation that says, man decides truth for himself. Even though science has proven as far back as 1874 that U.S. embryos are Microscopic Americans they say, “Well, it is not viable. It can’t live on its own.” Give your head a shake, neither are you viable stark naked on the North Pole. I mean really, is the baby viable after it is born? I’ve got family members, and I thank God you were not my mom or dad, cuz no one would be listening to me now because you would have killed your kid.
apacalyps on August 25, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Is the very 69 year old Nancy Pelosi exhibiting the 1st stages of senile dementia?
I had been thinking that she is the most STUPID person in Congress. A Speakatard, so to speaker?
But maybe the very 69 year old lady is having a SENIOR MOMENT. She’s very forgetful. Senator Augustine, I mean Saint.
Just when you think the effortlessly silly woman cannot be any more ignorant, this “ardent Catholic” starts making stuff up about the Catholic Church and abortion.
Saints alive, she doesn’t know the difference between St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, whom she called a “Senator” at first try. While at the same time lecturing the Pope on Catholic doctrine, by the sound of it.
She babbles about the “doctors” of the Catholic Church not being able to say when “life begins.” Huh?
Maybe the very 69 year old lady is having a SENIOR MOMENT. She’s very forgetful. Senator Augustine, I mean Saint.
Jack Bauer on August 25, 2008 at 8:35 PM
Specious. There is a difference between a tumor and an unborn child. Too bad you don’t recognize the difference.
You’ve no medical or biological basis on which to make that determination.
Totally relevant. A Latin term is used to dehumanize the child. Most people don’t know what the word actually means.
But the government already legislates morality, with the drug laws, porn laws, and prostitution laws. So you’re wrong again.
Facetious? Don’t you mean specious?
Don’t mischaracterize my argument. I didn’t argue that it was okay to abort one gender and not the other. I simply pointed out the logical flaw of saying that abortion should be legal because a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body, as well as pointing out the logical flaw of the argument that an unborn baby is part of the mother.
Your deliberate attempt at a straw man notwithstanding.
fossten on August 25, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Pelosi misleads the audience when she says
Apparently Pelosi doesn’t want the viewers to know that, practically speaking, Doe v Bolton made the trimester distinctions of Roe v Wade irrelevant.
elgar on August 25, 2008 at 9:06 PM
I wonder, where does nanny Pelosi get her alternative fuel natural gas?
tarpon on August 25, 2008 at 9:23 PM
The Meaning of “Day” in Genesis
by James Stambaugh, M.DIV.
davidk on August 25, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Thanks for the link. I’d read it before, but lost the article.
fossten on August 25, 2008 at 9:37 PM
I have to say that cancer patients had better hope they don’t have Math Mage as their oncologist. He seems to be unable to tell cancer cells from non-cancer cells.
A fetus (or small baby) in the womb is a developing human being, created equal with unalienable rights (to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) by his Creator. This is not only a religious statement, but part of the establishment of the American people in the Declaration of Independence. If a fetus is an American, then the abortion of that fetus kills an American. Sure that American can’t vote yet, but we don’t tie the people’s rights to voting, or serving in the military, or any other pre-requisite. Every fetus in the womb is created equal by the Creator, so who judges in favor of one and against another?
As Peggy Noonan wrote, if life doesn’t start at conception then why bother with condoms? The distinction is clear where the rubber meets the road (ahem).
And as Chaput and Conley quoted Bonhoeffer in their letter on the Separation of Sense and State:
“Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.”
wolfpangloss on August 25, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »