Bush Is Not Pro-life...

[MorphRC]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 7 2004, 04:44 AM'] He is working hard not to kill innocent people. How many people can claim that when they went to war?

And I don't think that the soldiers are all that innocent. [/quote]
Maybe not going to war on lies, would have been the smart thing to do eh?

[qfnol31]

The day we know for sure if he lied or not is the day I'm in Heaven.

[qfnol31]

After hours of searching, this is what [url="http://www.ewtn.com/vote/voting_faq.htm"]EWTN[/url] has to say (yes, I know some of this has been posted already):


[quote]Who We Must Vote For

As noted by Fathers Jone and Davis, a Catholic can have an obligation to vote so as to prevent an unworthy candidate, an enemy of religion, liberty and morals, from coming into office.

[quote]205. Voting is a civic duty which would seem to bind at least under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. It might even be a mortal sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate. [Jone, Moral Theology (Dublin: Mercier Press, 1929, 1955)]
[/quote]Davis states it differently, but with the same implications, one may even vote for an enemy of religion or liberty in order to exclude an even greater enemy of religion, liberty and morals. Indeed, one can be obliged to in certain circumstances.

[quote]It is sinful to vote for the enemies of religion or liberty, except to exclude a worse candidate, or unless compelled by fear of great personal harm, relatively greater than the public harm at stake. [Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 2, p. 90 ][/quote]
Thus, both authors are suggesting the strong obligation (even until the pain of mortal sin) to vote so as to exclude the electing of the candidate who would injure religion, liberty and morals the most. For such a purpose one may vote even for someone who is an enemy of religion and liberty, as long as he is less of any enemy than the candidate one is voting to preclude being elected.

The Holy Father enunciated this principle of the lesser evil with respect to legislation,  which while not obtaining the goals which Catholic principles would demand, nonetheless, excludes even worse legislation, or corrects, in part, legislation already in force that is even more opposed to Catholic principles.

[quote]A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. ... In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. [Gospel of Life 73]
This same principle has immediate bearing on choosing among candidates, some or even all of whom may be anti-life and anti-family. [b]Voters should try to minimize the damage done to society by the outcome of an election, even if that outcome is not wholly satisfactory by Catholic principles.[/b][/quote][/quote]

And:

[quote]The Conscience Vote

Many Catholics are troubled by the idea of a lesser of two evils or material cooperation with evil. They conclude that they can only vote for a person whose position on the gravest issues, such as abortion, coincides exactly with Catholic teaching. To do otherwise is to betray their conscience and God.

Sometimes this view is based on ignorance of Catholic teaching, a sincere doubt that it is morally permissible to vote for someone who would allow abortion in some circumstances, even if otherwise generally pro-life. It is also perhaps the confusing expression "lesser of two evils," which suggests the choice of evil. As I have explained above, the motive is really the choice of a good, the limitation of evil by a worse candidate.

Sometimes this view is motivated by scrupulosity - bad judgment on moral matters as to what is sin or not sin. The resulting fear of moral complicity in the defective pro-life position of a politician makes voting for him morally impossible. This situation is different than ignorance, however, in that the person simply can't get past the fear of sinning, even when they know the truth.

However, I think it is most frequently motivated by a sincere desire to elect someone whose views they believe coincide best with Church teaching. This is certainly praiseworthy. Yet, human judgments in order to be prudent must take into account all the circumstances. Voting, like politics, involves a practical judgment about how to achieve the desired ends - in this case the end of abortion as soon as possible, the end of partial-birth abortion immediately if possible, and other pro-life political objectives. A conscience vote of this type could be justified if the voter reasonably felt that it could achieve the ends of voting. The question must be asked and answered, however, whether it will bring about the opposite of the goal of voting (the common good) through the election of the worst candidate. That, too, is part of the prudential judgment. In the end every voter must weigh all the factors and vote according to their well-informed conscience, their knowledge of the candidates and the foreseeable consequences of the election of each.[/quote]

Cooperation in evil:

[quote]Formal versus Material Cooperation in Evil

Voters are rightly concerned about the degree to which their vote represents cooperation in the evil which a candidate embraces. Obviously, voting for a candidate whose principles exactly coincide with Catholic teaching would eliminate that worry. However, that is a rare, if not non-existent, situation. Even those who embrace Catholic principles may not always apply them correctly. The fact is that most candidates will imperfectly embrace Catholic principles and voting for ANY candidate contains many unknowns about what that candidate believes and will do.
 
The moral distinction between formal and material cooperation allows Catholics to choose imperfect candidates as the means of limiting evil or preventing the election of a worse candidate. The justification of doing that is described above. Formal cooperation is that degree of cooperation in which my will embraces the evil object of another 's will. Thus, to vote for a candidate because he favors abortion is formal cooperation in his evil political acts. However, to vote for someone in order to limit a greater evil, that is, to restrict in so far as possible the evil that another candidate might do if elected, is to have a good purpose in voting. The voter's will has as its object this limitation of evil and not the evil which the imperfect politician might do in his less than perfect adherence to Catholic moral principles. Such cooperation is called material, and is permitted for a serious reason, such as preventing the election of a worse candidate. [cf. Gospel of Life 74] [/quote]

Edited August 7, 2004 by qfnol31

[MorphRC]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 7 2004, 05:16 PM'] The day we know for sure if he lied or not is the day I'm in Heaven. [/quote]
he did lie. The CIA and FBI have testified, he went in on shoty evidence.

anyways im sick of talking about this [color=red]Edited by Kilroy the Ninja[/color]guy.

Edited August 7, 2004 by Kilroy the Ninja

[drewmeister2]

I would like to see more on that document you put up. Where did the National Catholic Register get this information? Did they get it from AP or Reuters? If so, those, I am pretty sure, are the same people who give info to CNN and NBC, which are pretty liberal channels, and support Kerry. I wouldn't trust info from these sources. Bush has tried to stop Partial Birth Abortion, even when he probably knew much of the American Population would oppose it. He stands for what is right when it comes to abortion.

The other candidate of the Constitutional Party is interesting. I think that Party is a joke. At most, that guy probably has 2-3% of the votes. There is no way, except for a miracle, that he would have enough votes to win. I think if we are to vote, we must at least vote for someone who has a decent chance of winning. Bush violates none of the five non-negotiables. Read the document here: www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp The Church says that if a candidate violates one or more of the five non-negotiables, we dont have to vote, or we vote for the candidate who supports the the fewer of the five non-negotiables, in this case, Bush. But Bush violates none of them. He doesn't support abortion. Even if he did support condoms in Africa, that isn't part of the five non-negotiables. God bless.

Edited August 7, 2004 by drewmeister2

[Aloysius]

according to the 9.11 Commision, bush did not lie. sorry.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Yea the commision did say Bush was just giving information that was not completly true.

If you say Bush was lying, then you must say Kerry was lying and so was the UN when they voted on it based off of the same evidence Bush seen.

Kerry voted to go into War just like the rest of the of them. They seen the exact same evidence Bush seen. Its not like Bush put one over on them or anything.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 4 2004, 05:27 PM'] Also, I'd like to run for president. In fact, I'm declaring that right now. I am running for president of the United States. [/quote]
Unfortunately, according to your profile, you're not old enough to take the oath of office (you must be 35).

AnomilE,

A word to the wise: those who cry "all or nothing" often end up with nothing. Do you want that?

Look. This moral battle, barring a miracle, will not be won overnight. Look at how WW2 was won in the Pacific. It was not won on December 8, 1941. It took almost 4 years of battles and "island hopping" before the mainland could be effectively attacked. That's what I view this political situation as. If we cannot defeat evil right away, we must fight to get to that point, no matter how slowly it takes. Yeah, I'd like to have an amendment banning all abortions yesterday, but that isn't the case. But in the meantime, we take our small victories and keep on pressing on to the next front and hold the ground we have. (With Kerry, I know we will lose ground; he has all but promised expanded stem cell research at the DNC).

[Anna]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 6 2004, 11:12 AM'] 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. [/quote]
What?!

No problem attacking a soveriegn nation and killing it's citizens? That's a doozy.

Firstly, Kerry had no problem with it either. Look how he brags about Viet Nam, and he voted for war in Iraq.

But that's not the real point.

Look back to a day we affectionately refer to as 9-11.
Do you remember what you were doing when you first heard the news?
Do you remember how you felt when you saw the images, over and over and over, of the planes crashing into the twin towers, the people falling to their death, the buildings toppling upon masses of people running for their lives?
The subsequent days of searching for signs of life beneath the rubble?
Has the memory faded so quickly for you?

[b][color=red]Iraq, far from being a sovereign nation, was a nation ruled by tyranny. Its leader was harboring and training terrorists to invade and destroy American life as we know it, beginning with our financial institutions and center of power and intelligence.[/b] [i]In other words, the terrorists were seeking out the heartbeat of America, as well as it's brainpower, for destruction.[/i][/color]

Terrorists don't just kid around.
And we didn't just kid back.

Bush gave them ample time to turn over their terrorists, and he did promise that if they didn't, he'd hunt them down and punish those who gave them safe harbor.

We didn't charge into Iraq without due consideration.

But in the end, if you give in to a terrorist, you become a victim nation. Just as Iraq was as victim nation, its people living in constant fear.

[b]Did we go in with the intent to kill its citizens?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
We went in, as with any war, knowing that some innocent would die, not by our intent, but as an accidental consequence of war.

Can you same the about ABORTION?
The baby dies by ACCIDENT?[/b]
Stop comparing the Iraq war to Abortion. It's a no brainer here.

[b][color=red]When a health care professional who's been trained to save life turns to deliberately seeking the little heartbeat and squelching it for money, he becomes just another terrorist. A bloody, immoral, cowardly, killer for hire.[/color]
George W is opposed to terrorism within and without our borders.
As such, he has defended this nation against the terrorists here and in Iraq.
This actually demonstrates his consistant balance, where you, because of twisted logic, see a contradiction.[/b]

I hope this argument helps you to see the situation more clearly.

Pax Christi. <><

Edited August 8, 2004 by Anna

[MorphRC]

[quote]Iraq, far from being a sovereign nation, was a nation ruled by tyranny. Its leader was harboring and training terrorists to invade and destroy American life as we know it, beginning with our financial institutions and center of power and intelligence. In other words, the terrorists were seeking out the heartbeat of America, as well as it's brainpower, for destruction.[/quote]

America had no evidence of that, nor of WMDS, or any connection to al qaeda. And if they did, could you blame him? You installed him, then tried to kill hiM!

Like you do with most governments, you install the dictator, then try and kill him, when he doesnt agree with you.

Typical US Gov Imperialism.

[jasJis]

Morph, you are ignoring reason. There were lot's of concrete evidence that created reasonable question that Iraq has WMD. Are you forgetting about the UN Weapons inspectors? The UN Inspectors said they could not say that Iraq did not have WMD after over a year of inspections because they were so hampered by Sadaam's government.

As far as putting Sadaam in power, things changed. He changed. Other goverments changed. The world changed. That was then, this is now. It wasn't the same situation when he was supported, and when his government was overthrown.

Yes, we can blam Sadaam for lot's of things.


In my opinion, the US should be sending troops to Sudan NOW! We should take over that Country to provide means of getting aid to the hundreds of thousands that are starving to death as political pawns.

[MorphRC]

[quote]There were lot's of concrete evidence that created reasonable question that Iraq has WMD.[/quote]

Reasonable Question, still doesnt make it valid. This is like me saying I have a reasonable feeling your going to attack me, someday, so Ill kill you now, so that 'reasonable' feeling goes away.

Also in 2001, Bush and Powell said Saddam had no weapons and were not a threat.

[i]Documentaries: [/i]

'The World According to Bush, Part I, and also stated in part II' Shown August, 7:30pm->8:30pm. ACST. - [u]Video Clip Proof[/u]

'Fanrenheit 9/11' - Cinema. [u]Video Clip Proof[/u]

[b]Lie #1: Iraq retained biological and chemical weapons after 1998.[/b]

A central claim of those advocating an attack on Iraq is that — after almost seven years of the most intrusive inspections regime in history, following Iraq's defeat in the 1990-91 Gulf War — Hussein's regime still retains chemical and biological weapons and the facilities to produce more.

While the Western press and the likes of Bush, Blair, Howard and Rudd continually claim that everybody “agrees” that there is “no doubt” about this, the simple fact is that there is not a trace of evidence that Iraq retained these weapons, can produce more or is attempting to.

Blair's September 24 dossier states: “Iraq has claimed that all its biological agents have been destroyed. No convincing proof of any kind has been produced to support this claim.”

US vice-president Johnsonville brat Cheney told the national convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville on August 26 that “even as [UN] inspectors were conducting the most intrusive system of arms control in history, the inspectors missed a great deal”.

Bush, in his September 12 speech to the UN General Assembly, stated: “In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to prove this to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge85 Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents.”

However, contrary to these assertions, the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspectors between 1991 and 1998 successfully disarmed Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and destroyed its facilities to produce them.

According to Scott Ritter, who as head weapons inspector until 1998 led the inspections and the subsequent destruction of what was found, 90-95% of Iraq's biological and chemical weapons, its research facilities and factories used to produce them, and the means to deliver them had been destroyed by mid 1996. These included the massive Muthanna State Establishment, Iraq's main production site for chemical warfare agents, and al Hakem, Iraq's main biological weapons facility.

UNSCOM found that Iraq had not mass-produced VX nerve agent. The equipment purchased for its mass production was found still packed in crates and was destroyed in 1996. Tests showed the equipment had never been used.

UNSCOM destroyed 12,747 of Iraq's 13,500 mustard gas shells; Baghdad reported that the remaining shells were destroyed by US and British warplanes in the Gulf War.

In 1992, UNSCOM certified the destruction of 817 of Iraq's 819 long-range Scud missiles. The oft-repeated “fact” that Iraq still has a dozen of these missiles is based on a claim that they could have been rebuilt from parts salvaged from the destroyed missiles. But there is no evidence that this has taken place and the chances of building workable missiles from the debris must be considered highly unlikely.

Blair's dossier claims that Iraq has 20 Scuds, without offering any proof.

Likewise, the Blair dossier's main headline-grabber was that Iraq has developed missiles that can take out British bases in Cyprus. This claim is based on unspecified “intelligence” that Iraq's UN-permitted short-range missiles have been modified. The claim that Iraq is developing a 1000km-range missile is based solely on a grainy photo that purports to show a new rocket engine test bed that is larger than the others.

Washington and London base their charge that Iraq has “hidden” biological and chemical weapons (BCW) on the fact that some chemical agents, biological ingredients, munitions and missiles remained “unaccounted for” when the inspectors left in 1998. This assumption is based on the difference between the quantity the UN estimated Iraq had produced during the 1980s and what UNSCOM was able to verify as having been destroyed.

As British Labour MP Alan Simpson and Glen Rangwala, lecturer in politics at Cambridge University, point out in their informative “counter-dossier” (available at [url="http://traprockpeace.org/counter-dossier.html)"]http://traprockpeace.org/counter-dossier.html)[/url], “the fact that these quantities are unaccounted for does not mean they still exist”. This is because it is not known how accurate UN estimates were in the first place, how much of Iraq's BCW stockpile was expended during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war or how much of it was destroyed in US bombing raids during the Gulf War.

US bombing also destroyed documents and killed officials with knowledge of the true size of Iraq's stocks.

Ritter has stated that for these reasons, it is impossible to achieve 100% verification of Iraq's complete disarmament.

[url="http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/511/511p12.htm"]COVER STORY: Bush's Iraq war threat based on lies[/url]

[b]Lie #2: Since 1998, Iraq has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.[/b]

According to Bush on September 12: “It has been almost four years since the last UN inspectors set foot in the country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left?”

In the foreword to his government's dossier, Blair states: “I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.”

However, the dossier fails to deliver a single scrap of evidence that such weapons have continued to be produced. Instead, the document's writers use all their literary skills to imply sinister motives to Iraq's legitimate and legal pursuit of a civilian chemical industry. Here are some examples:

“Although the main chemical weapon production facility at al Muthanna was completely destroyed by UNSCOM and has not been rebuilt, other plants formerly associated with the chemical warfare program have been rebuilt. These include the chlorine and phenol plant at Fallujah 285 In addition to their civilian uses, chlorine and phenol are used for precursor chemicals which contribute to the production of chemical agents85

“Parts of the al Qaqa chemical complex damaged in the Gulf War have also been repaired and are operational. Of particular concern are elements of the phosgene production plant at al Qaqa85 While phosgene does have industrial uses it can also be used by itself as a chemical agent or as a precursor for nerve agent85 The Castor Oil Plant at Fallujah 85 was damaged in UK/US air attacks in 1998 but has been rebuilt. The residue from the castor bean can be used in the production of the biological agent ricin.” (Emphasis added.)

Similar attempts to link rebuilt or repaired factories to the production of banned weapons have been made previously by US and British officials. However, Western journalists who have visited the plants within hours of them being named have found no suspicious activities (and in some cases no activity of any kind, just empty buildings used for storage of foodstuffs).

One of the favourite excuses used by Cheney and US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld for why the resumption of UN weapons inspections cannot succeed is the claim that Iraq has “mobile” laboratories for the production of chemical and biological weapons. This unprovable charge is based on the claims of a single Iraqi “defector”.

However, even the September report of the conservative, pro-war International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) — edited by Gary Samore, who was a senior member of President Bill Clinton's staff — concluded that claims of mobile laboratories were “hard to confirm”.

[url="http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/511/511p12.htm"]COVER STORY: Bush's Iraq war threat based on lies[/url]

Edited August 8, 2004 by MorphRC

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Anna' date='Aug 8 2004, 09:21 AM'] What?!

No problem attacking a soveriegn nation and killing it's citizens? That's a doozy.

Firstly, Kerry had no problem with it either. Look how he brags about Viet Nam, and he voted for war in Iraq.

But that's not the real point.

Look back to a day we affectionately refer to as 9-11.
Do you remember what you were doing when you first heard the news?
Do you remember how you felt when you saw the images, over and over and over, of the planes crashing into the twin towers, the people falling to their death, the buildings toppling upon masses of people running for their lives?
The subsequent days of searching for signs of life beneath the rubble?
Has the memory faded so quickly for you?

[b][color=red]Iraq, far from being a sovereign nation, was a nation ruled by tyranny. Its leader was harboring and training terrorists to invade and destroy American life as we know it, beginning with our financial institutions and center of power and intelligence.[/b] [i]In other words, the terrorists were seeking out the heartbeat of America, as well as it's brainpower, for destruction.[/i][/color]

Terrorists don't just kid around.
And we didn't just kid back.

Bush gave them ample time to turn over their terrorists, and he did promise that if they didn't, he'd hunt them down and punish those who gave them safe harbor.

We didn't charge into Iraq without due consideration.

But in the end, if you give in to a terrorist, you become a victim nation. Just as Iraq was as victim nation, its people living in constant fear.

[b]Did we go in with the intent to kill its citizens?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
We went in, as with any war, knowing that some innocent would die, not by our intent, but as an accidental consequence of war.

Can you same the about ABORTION?
The baby dies by ACCIDENT?[/b]
Stop comparing the Iraq war to Abortion. It's a no brainer here.

[b][color=red]When a health care professional who's been trained to save life turns to deliberately seeking the little heartbeat and squelching it for money, he becomes just another terrorist. A bloody, immoral, cowardly, killer for hire.[/color]
George W is opposed to terrorism within and without our borders.
As such, he has defended this nation against the terrorists here and in Iraq.
This actually demonstrates his consistant balance, where you, because of twisted logic, see a contradiction.[/b]

I hope this argument helps you to see the situation more clearly.

Pax Christi. <>< [/quote]
[color=red]WERD!![/color]

[MorphRC]

Btw. Has terrorism increased or decreased due to Bush's imperialistic war?

[littleflower+JMJ]

i love anna :wub: