Bush Is Not Pro-life...

[amarkich]

AnomilE, I would like to apologize on behalf of everyone who posted a reply to your question without addressing the point in question or bothering to attempt to disprove it, i.e., those people who did not debate the issue of cooperating with evil in order to select the lesser of the two evils. I agree with your position on the issue, and I say to those who are stuck on Bush: The best that you can ever claim is that if you are in a swing state (or maybe a blue state) then you could vote for Bush in order to combat Kerry's possible (or probably victory), but for those of you in a state that will surely be won by Bush, it is your obligation as Catholics to support the candidate who best reflects the Church's position on all issues (regardless of whether or not he is a part of one of the two major parties). I agree with you, AnomilE, that Michael Peroutka is the best representative of Church teaching. This would be my vote (in the state of Georgia) if I were old enough (I am about six months too young). God bless.

[dUSt]

AnomilE,

You said in the title yourself that Bush was less pro-abortion. Combine this with the [b]fact[/b] that there are only two legitimate candidates with any realistic chance of winning. By not supporting the [b]less[/b] pro-abortion candidate you are doing [b]harm[/b] to the anti-abortion cause.

It was stated before--that's on your conscience, not mine. Please reconsider your vote so we can at least have a [b]chance[/b] of putting an end to this American Holocaust.

[amarkich]

DUst, see my post concerning the Catholic obligation in a state in which Bush will certainly win (this certainty is the same as the certainty that only two candidates have a chance).

[dUSt]

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. I will [b]guarantee[/b] you that I will make decisions 100% on Church teaching. Has Michael Peroutka made this promise?

So, therefore, according to your criteria, I expect you to write-in my name on your voting ballot.

God bless.

[dUSt]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 4 2004, 05:25 PM'] DUst, see my post concerning the Catholic obligation in a state in which Bush will certainly win (this certainty is the same as the certainty that only two candidates have a chance). [/quote]
See my hypothetical above.

[Aloysius]

i contest the idea that bush is an evil. as a president: his policies on abortion are in line with Church Teaching. comments that the country isn't ready for Roe v Wade to be overturned do not affect the fact that all his actions in regards to the abortion issue are pro-life. he appoints pro-life judges and cuts US funding for abortion. name one action of Bush that supports abortion, and I might consider calling him the lesser of two evils. until then, i consider him an imperfect good.

[Paladin D]

[b]amarkich[/b], please read this slowly.

There are two kingdoms which declared war on each other. The leader of Kingdom 1 claims to be a loyal Frank, yet would establish laws and regulations that would hurt the Franks and the common good. Leader of Kingdom 2 claims to be of the Britons, he would establish laws and regulations that would not only help the Britons, but also the Franks. The minor set back would be the Franks will pay slightly higher taxes than the Britons. But both peoples would be treated equal, have the same benefits, and so on except for the taxes issue.

Then there is Kingdom 3, a very minor kingdom which has absolutely no chance of conquering both of them, yet has almost has the perfect set of laws and regulations it proposes. Resources are low, supporters are low, and those outside of Kingdom 3 are afraid to chose Kingdom 3 in fear Kingdom 1 or 2 would win.

Which one would you be part of? I would say Kingdom 2. Even though Kingdom 3 is somewhat like paradise, it has no chance to win. The only way it will, is if almost EVERYONE pledge it's alliegance to Kingdom 3, which is highly unlikely to happen. The few that do, waste their votes.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 4 2004, 07:19 PM'] AnomilE, I would like to apologize on behalf of everyone who posted a reply to your question without addressing the point in question or bothering to attempt to disprove it, i.e., those people who did not debate the issue of cooperating with evil in order to select the lesser of the two evils. I agree with your position on the issue, and I say to those who are stuck on Bush: The best that you can ever claim is that if you are in a swing state (or maybe a blue state) then you could vote for Bush in order to combat Kerry's possible (or probably victory), but for those of you in a state that will surely be won by Bush, it is your obligation as Catholics to support the candidate who best reflects the Church's position on all issues (regardless of whether or not he is a part of one of the two major parties). I agree with you, AnomilE, that Michael Peroutka is the best representative of Church teaching. This would be my vote (in the state of Georgia) if I were old enough (I am about six months too young). God bless. [/quote]
Nope.
Nobody can guarentee any state for anybody, so you vote for a pro-life candidate who can win.

[White Knight]

[quote name='AnomilE' date='Aug 4 2004, 03:14 PM'] Catholics, and all who are Pro-Life,

In the attatched emial that I sent out to all of my family, colleagues, and friends, I have built a strong case for why we as faithful Catholics should truly consider not voting for George W. Bush, as well as John F. Kerry.

Bush claims to stand on a Pro-Life platform, but does not back this well with action.

Please read the attached email file and comment if you wish, but for myself, there is more than enough reasonable doubt cast in the direction of this president to steer me clear on election day.

For those who are looking for a candidate very much in line with the moral teachings of the faith, please see more on Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka at www.constitutionparty.com

Peace to all

AnomilE [/quote]
Bush is Pro-life to a certian degree and his actions have been pretty well considered as "Justice" he past a bill not to long ago, I think back in in the timline of November 2003 - Febuary 2004, he past a bill forbiddening 3 Trimester Abortions. meaning they've become illegal, so if your saying Bush is doing his best.

Give him more creditablity, Sure hes not completely for Pro-life, it depends on the outcome.


He would only support abortion if the Woman would surely die if she had the child, thats the only time, I think Bush acually supports Abortion, the rest of the time hes Anti-Abortion, and Pro-Life. Hes doing his hardest to try to change things for the better, reguardless of what Anti- Bush people think.

Edited August 5, 2004 by White Knight

[littleflower+JMJ]

our vote in Nov. 2004 may very well be the difference between life and death for millions of unborn children.

literally.

[Joseph]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Aug 4 2004, 03:57 PM'] President Bush does not support abortion.

If you want to waste your vote on somebody who cannot win, and help the culture of death, that is your sin, not mine. [/quote]
I agree that President Bush is not pro-choice....however I must disagree about that quote.

Why is he wasting his vote if he chooses to vote for the Constitution Party candidate who is 100% pro-life? Is it his fault that the rest of the nation chooses to vote for Bush or Kerry only? I suppose it would take a miracle for a third-party to win, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that it is a sin by voting for who you believe would make the best candidate.

I really wish Bush has tried to do more to stop abortion. Even though I am not for same-sex marriage, I really wish that the effort being done to stop that was being done to stop abortion at the moment.

I think we really need more than 2 major parties. If only there could be true Catholic candidate whose stances are in line with all Church teaching......they would have my vote in an instant. I suppose if I had to choose from Bush or Kerry, then it would be Bush....but only for the hope that abortion would end. I don't like either candidate.

[Aloysius]

what more do you think Bush COULD HAVE done?

[Aloysius]

i still challenge anyone to cite one thing Bush has done contrary to the ProLife cause as it is defined by the Catholic Church.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Joseph' date='Aug 4 2004, 09:02 PM'] I agree that President Bush is not pro-choice....however I must disagree about that quote.

Why is he wasting his vote if he chooses to vote for the Constitution Party candidate who is 100% pro-life? Is it his fault that the rest of the nation chooses to vote for Bush or Kerry only? I suppose it would take a miracle for a third-party to win, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that it is a sin by voting for who you believe would make the best candidate.

I really wish Bush has tried to do more to stop abortion. Even though I am not for same-sex marriage, I really wish that the effort being done to stop that was being done to stop abortion at the moment.

I think we really need more than 2 major parties. If only there could be true Catholic candidate whose stances are in line with all Church teaching......they would have my vote in an instant. I suppose if I had to choose from Bush or Kerry, then it would be Bush....but only for the hope that abortion would end. I don't like either candidate. [/quote]
Because what are the chances that the Constitution candidate will win? Not very good, the closest someone came from a third party in the last 100 years was Teddy Roosevelt, who only won 25% of the vote, and everyone loved him!

I disagree with amarkich in the fact that I live in Texas, but am somewhat worried that Kerry could win here as well. There is no guarantee this year in my opinion.

[RemnantRules]

I find it Ironic that the Last election was suppose to be the closest it has ever been but it seems that it's going to be even closer this Nov.

However, There is a clear cut response from me, When i went to March for Life in last Jan. President Bush wrote a letter for us in full support of our March and we had his full support.

Sooo imagine if you will, Kerry being President. You think we will have that type of Support? I think not!

It's clear cut. Someone who fully believes that a child is a child, That the child's heart beats withing 21 DAYS! and that all children have a right to live, rather than another person who says he believes in that as well, but will go against it! It's his Concience, and yours too for whoever votes for him. Church and State is not written in the Constitiution ANYWHERE. So Kerry's place on this is total Carp. I would say more but most of everything has been said and i wanted to keep this as short as possible.

God Bless
Jason Gregory