Two Pro-Life Candidates

[On Pilgrimage]

Since the pro-choice Rep. Ted Strickland (D-OH) has decided to run for Ohio governor, he has left his seat in the 6th Congressional District open. St. Sen. Charlie Wilson (D-Bridgeport) and St. Rep. Chuck Blasdel (R-East Liverpool) are expected to emerge from the primaries as the contenders in this race. Both Wilson and Blasdel have been repeatedly endorsed by Ohio Right to Life.

Who should Catholics vote for, and why? (Although this will make a challenging debate, this does have some bearing on reality; I live in the 6th Congressional District).

[avemaria40]

it depends. Where do they stand on other things?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

By the way, let's hope Strickland doesn't win the governor's race. That would be a tragedy.

[On Pilgrimage]

[quote name='avemaria40']it depends. Where do they stand on other things?[/quote]
Good question. I think it's too early yet; since the primaries are still approaching, they're still kissing babies and telling everyone how much they love puppies. Maybe this question was a little premature.

[On Pilgrimage]

[quote name='thedude']By the way, let's hope Strickland doesn't win the governor's race. That would be a tragedy.[/quote]
Agreed. I like some of the things Rep. Strickland has done (for instance, he has a very good record with Bread for the World and other anti-poverty organizations), but his record on abortion is abominable. I think the fact that there are more and more pro-life Democrats running for higher offices speaks volumes about the way the abortion issue is going in this country; even the Democrats have begun to realize how uncomfortable Americans are with abortion and are responding to that.

[dspen2005]

theoreticall, you can then consider other peripheral issues (i stress, "THEORETICALLY"). you have to consider the effectiveness of one pro-life candidate versus the other, along with their other positions. if the GOP will be more effective in ensuring that measures are passed to protect the sanctity of life, then the GOP would be the choice... vice versa...

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='On Pilgrimage' date='Mar 26 2006, 08:05 PM'][quote name='thedude']By the way, let's hope Strickland doesn't win the governor's race. That would be a tragedy.[/quote]
Agreed. I like some of the things Rep. Strickland has done (for instance, he has a very good record with Bread for the World and other anti-poverty organizations), but his record on abortion is abominable. I think the fact that there are more and more pro-life Democrats running for higher offices speaks volumes about the way the abortion issue is going in this country; even the Democrats have begun to realize how uncomfortable Americans are with abortion and are responding to that.
[right][snapback]923051[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I saw recently in the newspaper he said something about how not allowing gay adoptions was mean or something. Apparantly, it keeps foster kids/orphans from having parents by taking homosexual couples out of the adoption pool.

Edited March 27, 2006 by thedude

[On Pilgrimage]

[quote name='dspen2005']if the GOP will be more effective in ensuring that measures are passed to protect the sanctity of life, then the GOP would be the choice... vice versa...[/quote]
I've never really understood this argument. If a Democrat would vote with Republicans on life issues, then wouldn't that be just as good as electing a Republican when it comes to life issues? But I've heard some people say that electing a Democrat, even a pro-life Democrat, gives Democrats enough power to stop support for life issues. I don't see how that's the case since a pro-life Democrat would be voting pro-life and thus would decrease the pro-choice majority.

[On Pilgrimage]

[quote name='thedude']I saw recently in the newspaper he said something about how not allowing gay adoptions was mean or something. Apparantly, it keeps foster kids/orphans from having parents by taking homosexual couples out of the adoption pool.[/quote]
Well, it's true that taking homosexual couples or individuals out of the pool does decrease the number of homes available to foster and adoptive children. In Ohio, a proposed measure would also take those who reside with any homosexual individual but who are not even homosexuals themselves from adopting or fostering children. This would further limit the pool of adoptive and foster homes.

I don't support gay adoption anymore, although I wonder if the Church's teaching also requires us to keep heterosexual people who live with any homosexual person from adopting or fostering children. But I think we still need to tell the truth about it. The truth is that preventing homosexuals from adopting and fostering will reduce the number of homes that adoptive and foster children will be placed in. If the Church is going to make an argument against gay adoption, the argument is going to have to focus on why preventing homosexuals from adopting and fostering is for the greater good of adoptive and foster children even though it will limit the number of homes they can be placed in.

I also think that it would be better to limit adoption and fostering to married heterosexual couples. In many states, the law is being applied against homosexuals but not against single heterosexuals. A major part of the Church's teaching against gay adoption is that children have a human right to have both a father and a mother; single heterosexuals adopting deprives them of this right just as homosexual individuals or couples deprives them of this right. It is inconsistent to make law against homosexuals adopting but not against single heterosexuals adopting, which is why I support laws which would establish adoption and fostering for married heterosexual couples only.

But I digress, and I apologize. This thread wasn't supposed to be about gay adoption.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

It does reduce the number of homes, but I don't think there will be any shortage. Plenty of people wanting to adopt. But back to the topic at hand...