Pelosi: Ardent, Practicing Catholic
John on August 24, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Ed at HotAir has video of Pelosi’s appearance on Meet the Press this morning (which I slept through). I just knew she would say something memorable, and I was not wrong. Here she is:
As Ed rightly notes, Pelosi has made a complete hash of Christian history. Granted I’m not Catholic, but prior to 1500 that distinction was moot. I do know that the early Christian church spoke out unequivocably about abortion and the practice of “exposure.” Ed notes a couple of examples which you can check at the link above. There are many more he could have used.
The most telling point of Pelosi’s spiel is this moment:
Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the chi…–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester.
If you listen to her again, you’ll notice that she actually chokes on the word “child.” Wait let’s rephrase that. The word “child” undergoes a partial-birth abortion, making it most of the way out of her mouth before having its denotative skull punctured and its connotative brain sucked out.
Pelosi then goes on a ramble about people making the choice between themselves and their god. If she wants to argue for freedom of conscience in this area that’s fine. But it wasn’t the question. The question was “What do you think?” Why can’t she answer that one? Not for everyone but for herself. Why can’t she say, “I’m pro-choice because I believe the government should not decide when human life begins, but personally I think the answer is 16 weeks.” What’s clear is that Pelosi is much more concerned with observing the verities of Planned Parenthood than she is with the historic witness of the church, Catholic or otherwise.
Category: Pro-Life |
Oh, that woman makes me want to vomit. It’s sacred ground????? What’s sacred here — the sacred human life which is about to be extinguished, or the sacred mother’s “right” to kill her children?
August 24, 2008 @ 7:32 pmTom Brokaw is no Tim Russert. I lost count of the number of follow-up questions that begged to be asked in view of Pelosi’s desire to have it both ways–to be an “ardent Catholic” and then reject its clear teachings on both abortion AND contraception.
August 25, 2008 @ 9:19 amIt is interesting how a Pelosi defends her position. She attempts to say Catholic teaching was not what it is today and cites ST. Augustine and she is correct that he did not view early abortion as “homicide”. He viewed it as sin but not as homicide. St. Thomas Aquinas had similar views. Note, however that both of these thinkers and philosophers regarded it as serious wrongs and did regard it as homicide when it was late term.
Pelosi and others regard this as a right. Note also, that even though it is a right we are supposed to keep it infrequent.
So, at the end of the day they treat it the same way they treat free speech and other rights so I guess we have to keep those rights in check or at a low level also.
What a pitiful bunch of losers and hypocrites.
August 25, 2008 @ 11:43 am[...] later term abortions, partial birth abortions, embryonic experimentation, etc, etc. She says “I personally think the answer is 16 weeks,”, but that’s just an opinion, like anyone else’s opinion, even mine – and if she [...]
August 25, 2008 @ 12:01 pmYou are critiquing the blindness of a woman who is blind. A blind person is expected to stumble over furniture she cannot see.
It is who they are, and who I was. :)
August 25, 2008 @ 12:53 pmTheir views were formed at a time when the basics of human biology as we know them today were just not known.
Pelosi and others regard this as a right. Note also, that even though it is a right we are supposed to keep it infrequent.
August 25, 2008 @ 1:14 pmHa ha – I guess I should have looked at the preview before posting. Could someone fix my accidental quote/bolding error?
August 25, 2008 @ 1:15 pmWhen it comes to “doublespeak” Pelosi and her compatriots are without peer. When they want to squash conservative talk shows on radio they invent the term “fairness doctrine”. Which ends with no talk radio because advertisers disappear and no one can define how many different views are to be allowed. When they want to make sure certain percents of the “minority de jour” get hired, promoted or any other free pass they call it affirmative action but never quotas. Of course, if an employer or school does not meet a certain “flexible” quota then contracts or government funding disappears. They refer to the constitution as a “living document” so their appointed Judges can amend it as they choose but if their is a citizens effort to amend it then it is filibustered or procedurally killed in congress. If it passes congress and they happen to have “one of theirs” in the oval office it is vetoed. Their “doublespeak” is the constitution should only be amended for very serious matters and that should occur rarely. What they really mean is only we can amend it through rogue Judges who really don’t give a dam about the contract with the people.
The list is endless because it is about power and appealing to the base envy of people, fear of the future and desire for license as opposed to liberty.
Rick, Pelosi’s “blindness” is a choice and it is wrong in my humble opinion. If her choice is not condemned then “right and wrong” are meaningless terms and free will does not exist.
August 25, 2008 @ 5:15 pmI said this in another part on this blog (I steal this from “The Unaborted Socrates”, Peter Kreeft). If you don’t know when life begins, and we assume you will never find the answer to that question, then the only logical recourse is to do nothing. How can you abort what may be an actual life?
Analogy: I’m out hunting for deer and see something moving in the bushes. Do I shoot “at will” or do I find out if a fellow hunter is in the bushes? What if I move closer to the bushes and whatever was there is now gone? I will never know whether the movement came from an animal or another human. The pro-abortion folks say, “We’ll never know the answer as to whose in the bushes, but shoot anyway.” {We’ll never know if it’s human or not, but kill it anyway}
Brokaw didn’t challenge Pelosi on this nor did Warren to Obama. Has anybody thought this thing through? We truly live in a pathetically secularized society. I guess that’s why our ultimate hope is in the Kingdom of God – it sure ain’t here in this toilet.
August 25, 2008 @ 5:15 pm