Bush Is Not Pro-life...

[AnomilE]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' date='Aug 5 2004, 05:11 PM'] hold the phones, you said you were faithful but yet you dont want to agree with the Bishops..just who is the one going against Church teachings here? If you dont want to agree with the Bishops of the Church, the Apostles appointed by the Shephard, Vicar of Christ, the Pope to guide us in Faith..then who exactly are you going to listen too?


Where exactly is this dude you're pushing for living at? I've never heard of him or seen him doing conferences.

Are you just playing pretend with us or what? This 'hey wouldnt it be nice to have a 100% moral President' imagination is good to talk about, but isnt reality.

This guy hasnt campaigned that I know of, hasnt been out trying to get elected or anything. So if you want to start living in real life then you must know that we only have two options as Americans. One is evil, the other isnt.

You are suggesting that we not vote at all. How dumb is that? That will assure Kerry to win.

If you dont vote, then dont gripe about not liking something the President does because its your fault he's in office.

Point is, the chance of this guy being President is nill, none, zilch, nanah! Even if we all agreed here that he would be a better pick.

As Catholics we only have one choice. I dont like Bush that much either, but our (note: OUR!) focus is on protecting the innocent and only one choice can do that and only one choice will further our cause.

God Bless [/quote]
You hold on-

My allegiance is to the Pope, Magesterium, and constant teaching of this Church.

Keep in mind, one of our USCCB Bishops made an official statement claiming that the Jew were allowed to live under the old covenenat law still and that it was still valid for them. Rome insisted that statement be taken back and changed.

We've had plenty of Bishops out of line as far as Chruch teaching goes (california- rainbow sashers?) So please do not question my allegiance becasue I question the backbone of our Bishops

[AnomilE]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 5 2004, 08:49 PM'] Not because of an intrinsically evil act.

War is not intrinsically evil. Abortion is. Huge difference. [/quote]
I believe he's referring to the thousands of Abortions that have taken place under the Bush administration.

[MorphRC]

[quote]picchick @ Aug 5 2004, 04:39 PM), Bush is not the greatest guy in the world. He has flaws just like everyone else. However, his past term, he has done pro-life actions. [/quote]

He has, but with that he has also ended up killing innocent people in other countries, while at the sametime as people here claim, trying to restrict abortion as much as possible. So it almost cancels itself out.

You cant support Pro-Life, Then Go Off to War and Kill 100's of Innocent Iraqis and Soldiers.

[AnomilE]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Aug 5 2004, 11:43 PM'] Settling for second best? We see no third party making an effort or just making themselves known.



I am voting for Bush and life. No one else stands a chance to win [i]at this time[/i].
+JMJ
Tina [/quote]
You are misquoting that teaching.

That teaching refers to voting for legislation that may not completely overturn abortion but moves it in the right direction. That teaching refers to a COMPLETELY pro-life candidate doing so- Bush is not.

[MorphRC]

To put that last comment in Context, I know people will rip that to bits. What im saying is, Its hard to trust a person who supports Pro-Life but has no problem attacking a soveign nation and killing its citizens.

[AnomilE]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 6 2004, 01:10 AM'] Okay, let's use some common sense here.

Anybody who votes for a candidate who has no chance of being elected is doing the equivalent of not voting. Period.

Seriously, what is the point? Someone please explain the reasoning behind it. What positives will come out of voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning? Why not just stay home? It will have the same effect as the exercise in futility you partake in by voting for someone who has no chance of being elected. [/quote]
What positives? Voting based on objective morality- same as the Church wants us to. THat's what.

[AnomilE]

[quote name='Anna' date='Aug 6 2004, 08:43 AM'] I'm dashing out the door to work, and haven't the time to read all these wonderful posts, though, JMJTina, I did see yours while scrolling down. Bravo!

I'm a member of my state's Right to Life political party. Most states don't even have a Right to Life party. Our party will only endorse 100% pro-life candidates. The guidelines are pretty dern rigid. Not sure if they've endorsed Bush yet or not...

But, may I just say that as a protestant, he's not got the fullness of Truth ~ yet, he is as close to the Truth about the Sacredness of Human Life that we are going to get in this election.

And his opponent, John Kerry, who should know, and has even been pressured by the Church which does possess the fullness of Truth, has rejected that Truth for the sake of garnering support from the pro-abort Democrat party, which has given him the opportunity to run for President of the United States. His voting record is also a reflection of his strong pro-abortion advocacy, as are his past speeches.

There simply is NO COMPARISON. To vote for John Kerry, is to advocate for the deliberate, tax-funded murder of innocent unborn children. (Innocent children may killed in a tax-funded war, but they are not the deliberate targets. In abortion, the child IS THE TARGET FOR DESTRUCTION.)
[b]
Can any of you live with that on your conscience??????!!!!!!![/b] [/quote]
Just so you know- your party has endorsed Bush officially and he is not 100% pro-life and neither are many other of the candidates endorsed by your party- especially in the state of Michigan. Ex: Barb Vanderveen (R- Representative)

[Aloysius]

i sympethize with your idealism, however i find it absurd to not take into account the chance a candidate has to win when voting, because if you're just gonna vote for the absolute best candidate regardless of whether or not they could win you should just write-in Pope John Paul II. he's got as much a chance to win as Peroutka does. well, maybe he has even less of a chance seeing as it'd be unconstitutional; but in your line of logic the chance of winning doesn't factor in right? vote JPII is '04.

[dUSt]

[quote name='AnomilE' date='Aug 6 2004, 09:07 AM'] I believe he's referring to the thousands of Abortions that have taken place under the Bush administration. [/quote]
Oh yeah, I forgot that Bush was the one responsible for legalizing abortion.

[dUSt]

[quote name='AnomilE' date='Aug 6 2004, 09:12 AM'] What positives? Voting based on objective morality- same as the Church wants us to. THat's what. [/quote]
So in other words, you can't name any actual physical positives (in terms of bettering the nation) that will come out of a thrown away third party vote?

[dUSt]

And just to remind AnomilE, most of the questions I've raised have been left unanswered. Thanks.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

[quote name='AnomilE' date='Aug 6 2004, 10:06 AM'] You hold on-

My allegiance is to the Pope, Magesterium, and constant teaching of this Church.

Keep in mind, one of our USCCB Bishops made an official statement claiming that the Jew were allowed to live under the old covenenat law still and that it was still valid for them. Rome insisted that statement be taken back and changed.

We've had plenty of Bishops out of line as far as Chruch teaching goes (california- rainbow sashers?) So please do not question my allegiance becasue I question the backbone of our Bishops [/quote]
Since you only commented on my first few sentences in my post, I will rehash the rest for you:

Where exactly is this dude you're pushing for living at? I've never heard of him or seen him doing conferences.

Are you just playing pretend with us or what? This 'hey wouldnt it be nice to have a 100% moral President' imagination is good to talk about, but isnt reality.

To add to this, your guy is not 100% perfect either, for one he's not Catholic. To use a Catholic standard to a president is to have a Catholic President only..no one else will do. And your guy isnt even Catholic..that takes him out of our beacon area all together.

This guy hasnt campaigned that I know of, hasnt been out trying to get elected or anything. So if you want to start living in real life then you must know that we only have two options as Americans. One is evil, the other isnt.

You are suggesting that we not vote at all. How dumb is that? That will assure Kerry to win.

If you dont vote, then dont gripe about not liking something the President does because its your fault he's in office.

Point is, the chance of this guy being President is nill, none, zilch, nanah! Even if we all agreed here that he would be a better pick (which since he's not Catholic, we wont agree he is better).

As Catholics we only have one choice. I dont like Bush that much either, but our (note: [b]OUR![/b]) focus is on protecting the innocent and only one choice can do that and only one choice will further our cause.


God Bless

[qfnol31]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 6 2004, 10:55 AM'] And just to remind AnomilE, most of the questions I've raised have been left unanswered. Thanks. [/quote]
Same here.

[AnomilE]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 6 2004, 10:51 AM'] Oh yeah, I forgot that Bush was the one responsible for legalizing abortion. [/quote]
That's a gross misinterpretation of what I said. It IS true that thousands of abortions have happened on Bush's watch and that was the point- that they not only happened on Clinton's watch but Bush's as well.

[AnomilE]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 6 2004, 10:53 AM'] So in other words, you can't name any actual physical positives (in terms of bettering the nation) that will come out of a thrown away third party vote? [/quote]
Explain to me what is more important than doing what is morally good all the time- no matter what...a political chess move? I hardly think so.