Vote For Kerry

[Carson Weber]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Mar 27 2004, 03:15 PM'] Bush isn't anymore pro life than Kerry. [/quote]
I disagree wholeheartedly, and I think that by taking this puritanical stance, you will do more harm than good for the Pro-Life cause.

That is both ironic and heartbreaking.

[Iacobus]

The only reason I have taken this stance was I was kind of forced into it and also I see WAY too many people who are "pro life" negelting anyone that is not small or cute. They refuse to work for the poor, the sick, the old. They won't attack assited suicide or the DP or un just wars. They focus soley on abortion. Doing this may bring an end to abortion but then we have other problems on our hands and just go back and forth. I am scared that people will hear about the "sacredness of life from conception to natural death" and edit it to say the "sacredness of life at conception untill brith." We have to be multi leveled and work in all areas.

[Carson Weber]

Iacobus,

That is why I believe your stance is ironic because the Bush Administration is Pro-Life in multiple areas, including stem cell research, cloning, pre-natal coverage for the poor, et cetera.

More than that, this administration is Pro-Marriage and Pro-Family.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Mar 27 2004, 05:15 PM'] Carson, don't get me wrong. Bush is pro life in the area of abortion and Kerry isn't. I know that. But what I am saying is that Bush isn't anymore pro life than Kerry. Supporting death under any unnatural forms makes you not pro life.

Ironmonk, any unnatural death is wrong. Numbers don't matter. In God's eyes seeing one of his creations die is just as bad as seeing 1000's or millions die. So there is a comprison it is VERY wrong for anything to die unnatural.

Thus by the logic you are using voting for Bush is a sin as well as voting for Kerry and voting at all is almost as sin and not voting is a sin. Bush supports DP and war. Kerry supports abortion. Voting forces you to vote for death in some way. And not voting just means you approve of it. [/quote]
Jesus says otherwise.

Numbers do matter.

Here is a correction brother. If you refuse to heed it, there is no blood on my hands.


[b]St. Mark 10:45[/b]
[color=red]For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom [b][u]for many[/u][/b]. [/color]

[b]St. John 11:49 [/b]
But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "[u][b]You know nothing, [/b][/u]
[b]50 [/b][u][b]nor do you consider that it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish[/b][/u]."
[b]51 [/b]He did not say this on his own, but since he was high priest for that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,
[b]52 [/b]and not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God.


Something to note: "He did not say this on his own, but since he was the high priest for that year, he prophesied" which means that the Word of God shows us that many are more important than one. St. John shows us that the Holy Spirit was speaking through him. At the time Caiaphas was infallible which is in regards to faith and morals.


I wish more Catholics would read the bible.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited March 27, 2004 by ironmonk

[Dave]

Look, Iacobus, the Church has spoken -- to knowingly vote for a pro-abortion candidate is a mortal sin. If you do so, then you put your soul in danger. Do you want that? Why not just submit to God's Church?

[Sinner]

Then Iacobus, does that mean you agree that voting for Bush is the lesser of the two evils? (not my viewpoint) Therefore, you will be voting the Bush ticket?

[PedroX]

Sorry to hijack this thread. Just needed to post two links


[url="http://www.democratsforlife.org/"]Democrats for Life[/url]

[url="http://www.sdgeagle.com/demolife.htm"]Texas Democrats for Life[/url]


Just needed to get a few things off my chest.

Carry on...

peace...

[ironmonk]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Mar 27 2004, 06:12 PM'] Sorry to hijack this thread. Just needed to post two links


[url="http://www.democratsforlife.org/"]Democrats for Life[/url]

[url="http://www.sdgeagle.com/demolife.htm"]Texas Democrats for Life[/url]


Just needed to get a few things off my chest.

Carry on...

peace... [/quote]
Hey, that's great... what is sad is that they are a minority in that party. What are their other stances in regards to things like marriage?


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Iacobus]

I havn't made up my mind who I am going to vote for this fall, yet. All I know is that I am going to vote.

Carson, I see your point about the Bush WH being pro-life. But I really don't like how gung ho they are about war. Like they said on M*A*S*H war is not hell because only sinners go to hell and their are no innconet bystanders. I am worried about North Korea and Iran and those "rouge" states' nuclear weapons programs. I fear that these nations are a large threat and need to be addressed. Just like abortion. As it stands today only a few 100,000 people have died from the use of nuclear weapons. But what if NK fires a rocket at Japan? or Russia? or South Korea? The response? Many more people would die in that than are deing from abortion today and like abortion many will be inncocent. We need to save the babys, and we need to save them when they are children, and we need to save them as adults, and we need to help them, not kill them, on their deathbed.

The Bush admin. does do a lot for the marrage and the family and the baby. However, you don't see them doing much about the children or the adults or the ones who are dieing (the last one I am not 100% about, I know Jeb Bush is good about that---just so you know I probly would vote for Jeb if he was running so I am not anti- GOP).

Granted Kerry probly isn't too much better. He doesn't save them as babys. Most likely would save them (to a large degree, he would probly increase funding for education which doesn't better the lives for them a lot) as children. He would probly be slower to use them as adults for war, as a vet he knows what war is and the nastyness of it unlike the 4-F and Natl Guard White House. I havn't heard much about end of life for some reason that has yet to be a large pres issue.

And Iron Monk

1
The tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to listen to him,
2
but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them."
3
So to them he addressed this parable.
4
"What man among you having a hundred sheep and losing one of them would not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after the lost one until he finds it?
5
And when he does find it, he sets it on his shoulders with great joy
6
and, upon his arrival home, he calls together his friends and neighbors and says to them, 'Rejoice with me because I have found my lost sheep.'
7
I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance.

8
"Or what woman having ten coins 2 and losing one would not light a lamp and sweep the house, searching carefully until she finds it?
9
And when she does find it, she calls together her friends and neighbors and says to them, 'Rejoice with me because I have found the coin that I lost.'
10
In just the same way, I tell you, there will be rejoicing among the angels of God over one sinner who repents."

11
Then he said, "A man had two sons,
12
and the younger son said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of your estate that should come to me.' So the father divided the property between them.
13
After a few days, the younger son collected all his belongings and set off to a distant country where he squandered his inheritance on a life of dissipation.
14
When he had freely spent everything, a severe famine struck that country, and he found himself in dire need.
15
So he hired himself out to one of the local citizens who sent him to his farm to tend the swine.
16
And he longed to eat his fill of the pods on which the swine fed, but nobody gave him any.
17
Coming to his senses he thought, 'How many of my father's hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger.
18
I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.
19
I no longer deserve to be called your son; treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers."'
20
So he got up and went back to his father. While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him, and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him.
21
His son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be called your son.'
22
But his father ordered his servants, 'Quickly bring the finest robe and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet.
23
Take the fattened calf and slaughter it. Then let us celebrate with a feast,
24
because this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.' Then the celebration began.
25
Now the older son had been out in the field and, on his way back, as he neared the house, he heard the sound of music and dancing.
26
He called one of the servants and asked what this might mean.
27
The servant said to him, 'Your brother has returned and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'
28
He became angry, and when he refused to enter the house, his father came out and pleaded with him.
29
He said to his father in reply, 'Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends.
30
But when your son returns who swallowed up your property with prostitutes, for him you slaughter the fattened calf.'
31
He said to him, 'My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours.
32
But now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.'"

As St. Luke points out numbers don't mean a lot to the One Who has everthing.

[jmjtina]

[quote]The only reason I have taken this stance was I was kind of forced into it and also I see WAY too many people who are "pro life" negelting anyone that is not small or cute. They refuse to work for the poor, the sick, the old. They won't attack assited suicide or the DP or un just wars. They focus soley on abortion.[/quote]

Being truly pro-life, is to stand for the unborn, poor, sick, old, prisonors, etc. Won't attack assisted suicide? I have to disagree with your persepective. Do you meet alot of ppl like that? I know many who work in the pro-life movement, and all areas are taken care of, yet there is more of an emphasis on abortion. Why? Because it needs to be defeated before we can move on to other issues. If a mother can kill her own child, and we allow it, how can we tell the state to not go kill an enemy? How can we tell the state not to kill a person in a coma? You can't if you can allow a mother to kill her own child.

I think it is very important to see that the abortion war is the foundation of life. If you can't respect life from the most innocent and inhumane way of murder by "choice" then how can you save the others? The poor? The innocent in the unjust wars? The sick and the old? You can't. It's like just cutting the weed, instead of uprooting the root. There are many injustices, but abortion will ultimately affect the others. Wanting for abortion to end vs. other life issues doesn't downplay the others. On the contrary, it shows that all life must be respected. [b]At all stages of life. [/b]

[quote]I am scared that people will hear about the "sacredness of life from conception to natural death" and edit it to say the "sacredness of life at conception untill brith." We have to be multi leveled and work in all areas. [/quote]

I truly believe that is unlikely for any true "pro-lifer" to make such a statement, catholic, or otherwise (however I won't rule out the possibility). abortion is the foundation of life, and if we can't protect our own children, then who can we protect?

I think the biggest problem is that we don't work together. As life is being more and more degraded, we are more and more divided. Things are happening slowly but surely. Abortion must come to an end. As well as other pro-death issues. We need to pray for all pro-lifers to stick together and fight for the culture of life vs. the culture of death we live in now.

[b][color=blue]But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.

Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about the all the violence in this great country of the United States. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today —abortion which brings people to such blindness.
[/color][/b]~Blessed Mother Teresa


Peace and God Bless.

the following from Catholic Answers: [url="http://www.catholic.com"]Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics[/url]

[quote]HOW THIS VOTER'S GUIDE HELPS YOU


This voter's guide helps you cast your vote in an informed manner consistent with Catholic moral teaching. It helps you eliminate from consideration candidates who endorse policies that cannot be reconciled with moral norms that used to be held by all Christians.

On most issues that come before voters or legislators, a Catholic can take one side or the other and not act contrary to his faith. Most matters do not have a "Catholic position."

But some issues are so key, so elemental, that only one position accords with the teaching of the Christian gospel. No one endorsing the wrong side of these subjects can be said to act in accord with the Church's moral norms.

This voter's guide identifies five "non-negotiable" issues and helps you narrow down the list of acceptable candidates, whether they are running for national, state, or local offices.

Candidates who endorse or promote any of the five non-negotiables should be considered to have disqualified themselves from holding public office, and you should not vote for them. You should make your choice from among the remaining candidates.


YOUR ROLE AS A CATHOLIC VOTER


Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges (cf. CCC 2240). It is not just civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. "Service of the common good require[s] citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community" (CCC 2239). This means citizens should participate in the political process at the ballot box.

But voting cannot be arbitrary. "A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals" (CPL 4).

Some things always are wrong, and no one may vote in favor of them, directly or indirectly. Citizens vote in favor of these evils if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them. Thus, Catholics should not vote for anyone who intends to push programs or laws that are intrinsically evil.


THE FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES


These five issues are called non-negotiable because they concern actions that are always morally wrong and must never be promoted by the law. It is a serious sin to endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any of the five non-negotiables.

1. Abortion

The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.

The child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins.

2. Euthanasia

Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No one has a right to take his own life (suicide), and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.

In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).

3. Fetal Stem Cell Research

Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b).

Recent scientific advances show that any medical cure that might arise from experimentation on fetal stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there no longer is a medical argument in favor of using fetal stem cells.

4. Human Cloning

"Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through 'twin fission,' cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL I:6).

Human cloning also ends up being a form of homicide because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.

5. Homosexual "Marriage"

True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other form of "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).


WHICH POLITICAL OFFICES SHOULD I WORRY ABOUT?


Laws are passed by the legislature, enforced by the executive branch, and interpreted by the judiciary. This means you should scrutinize any candidate for the legislature, anyone running for an executive office, and anyone nominated for the bench. This is true not only at the national level but also at the state and local levels.

True, the lesser the office, the less likely the office holder will take up certain issues. Your city council, for example, perhaps never will take up the issue of human cloning. But it is important that you evaluate every candidate, no matter what office is being sought.

Few people achieve high office without first holding low office. Some people become congressional representatives, senators, or presidents without having been elected to a lesser office. But most representatives, senators, and presidents started their political careers at the local level. The same is true for state lawmakers. Most of them began on city councils and school boards and worked their way up the political ladder.

Tomorrow's candidates for higher offices will come mainly from today's candidates for lower offices. It is therefore prudent to apply the same standards to local candidates as to state and national ones.

If candidates who are wrong on non-negotiable issues fail to be elected to lower offices, they might not become candidates for higher offices. This would make it easier to elect good candidates for the more influential offices at the state and national levels.


HOW TO DETERMINE A CANDIDATE'S POSITION


1. The higher the office, the easier this will be. Congressional representatives and senators, for example, repeatedly have seen these issues come before them and so have taken positions on them. Often the same can be said at the state level. In either case, learning a candidate's position can be as easy as reading newspaper or magazine articles, looking up his views on the Internet, or studying one of the many printed candidate surveys that are distributed at election time.

2. It often is more difficult to learn the views of candidates for local offices because few of them have an opportunity to consider legislation on such things as abortion, cloning, and the sanctity of marriage. But these candidates, being local, often can be contacted directly or have local campaign offices that will explain their positions.

3. If you cannot determine a candidate's views by other means, do not hesitate to write directly to him and ask how he stands on each of the non-negotiables.


HOW NOT TO VOTE


1. Do not base your vote on your political party affiliation, your earlier voting habits, or your family's voting tradition. Years ago, these may have been trustworthy ways to determine whom to vote for, but today they are not reliable. You need to look at each candidate as an individual. This means that you may end up casting votes for candidates from more than one party.

2. Do not cast your vote based on candidates' appearance, personality, or "media savvy." Some attractive, engaging, and "sound-bite-capable" candidates endorse intrinsic evils and so should be opposed, while other candidates, who may be plain-looking, uninspiring, and ill at ease in front of cameras, endorse legislation in accord with basic Christian principles.

3. Do not vote for candidates simply because they declare themselves to be Catholic. Unfortunately, many self-described Catholic candidates reject basic Catholic moral teaching. They are "Catholic" only when seeking votes from Catholics.

4. Do not choose among candidates based on "What's in it for me?" Make your decision based on which candidates seem most likely to promote the common good, even if you will not benefit directly or immediately from the legislation they propose.

5. Do not reward with your vote candidates who are right on lesser issues but who are wrong on key moral issues. One candidate may have a record of voting exactly as you wish, aside from voting also in favor of, say, euthanasia. Such a candidate should not get your vote. Candidates need to learn that being wrong on even one of the non-negotiable issues is enough to exclude them from consideration.


HOW TO VOTE


1. For each office, first determine how each candidate stands on each of the five non-negotiable issues.

2. Eliminate from consideration candidates who are wrong on any of the non-negotiable issues. No matter how right they may be on other issues, they should be considered disqualified if they are wrong on even one of the non-negotiables.

3. Choose from among the remaining candidates, based on your assessment of each candidate's views on other, lesser issues.


WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE


In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more of the five non-negotiables. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.


THE ROLE OF YOUR CONSCIENCE


Conscience is like an alarm. It warns you when you are about to do something wrong. It does not itself determine what is right or wrong. For your conscience to work properly, it must be properly informed-that is, you must inform yourself about what is right and what is wrong. Only then will your conscience be a trusted guide.

Unfortunately, today many Catholics have not formed their consciences adequately regarding key moral issues. The result is that their consciences do not "sound off" at appropriate times, including on election day.

A well-formed conscience never will contradict Catholic moral teaching. For that reason, if you are unsure where your conscience is leading you when at the ballot box, place your trust in the unwavering moral teachings of the Church. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an excellent source of authentic moral teaching.)


WHEN YOU ARE DONE WITH THIS VOTER'S GUIDE


Please do not keep this voter's guide to yourself. Read it, learn from it, and prepare your selection of candidates based on it. Then give this voter's guide to a friend, and ask your friend to read it and pass it on to others. The more people who vote in accord with basic moral principles, the better off our country will be.[/quote]



Our Lady of Guadulupe Pray for us!

[PhatPhred]

Under Clinton, the annual number of U.S. abortions decreased by 200,000. Under Bush (George W.), as far as I can tell, the annual number of U.S. abortions has remained constant.

Bush may talk a better game than the Democrats on pro-life, but is that enough to justify voting for him (against, e.g., his unjust aggressive tendencies) if that doesn't translate into actually saving unborn lives?

It reminds me of the old Wendy's slogan, "Where's the beef?" It would be heavenly to save the 1,300,000 unborn lives that are aborted each year, but quite frankly Bush has clearly demonstrated in his first term that he isn't the man to do that.

[jmjtina]

[quote name='PhatPhred' date='Mar 27 2004, 04:39 PM'] Under Clinton, the annual number of U.S. abortions decreased by 200,000.  Under Bush (George W.), as far as I can tell, the annual number of U.S. abortions has remained constant. [/quote]
I'm really interested in seeing the facts....I know I saw them once provided by a link by someone, but that was the first George Bush and Clinton........links and evidence please. :pc:


Peace and God Bless

[Carson Weber]

PhatPhred,

Here's Clinton's record with regard to issues surrounding Life:

[url="http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL01/clinton3.pdf"]http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL01/clinton3.pdf[/url]

Your post makes it sound like (the intentionality of which, I am hopefully doubting) Clinton took action to reduce abortions in the United States, which is [i]outright ridiculous[/i].

[PhatPhred]

[url="http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html"]THIS LINK[/url] covers the Clinton years (1992-2000).

I haven't been able to find anything more than estimates for George W. Bush's term, but since ironmonk is still quoting 1,300,000 per year (same as 2000), it looks like there haven't been any unborn lives saved in Bush's first term.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be nice to have a candidate that talked the talk [b]and[/b] walked the walk as far as pro-life is concerned, but I wonder what a good Catholic is supposed to do when you have to choose between one or the other.

[PhatPhred]

[quote name='Carson Weber' date='Mar 27 2004, 07:00 PM']Your post makes it sound like (the intentionality of which, I am hopefully doubting) Clinton took action to reduce abortions in the United States, which is [i]outright ridiculous[/i].[/quote]
Are you then saying that a president (Clinton) who had no interest in reducing the number of U.S. abortions still managed to save 200,000 unborn lives per year though social policies and economic improvements that resulted in fewer women choosing to have abortions.

If so, then imagine how many unborn lives could have been saved by a president who actually made that his [b]first[/b] priority in office.

And compare that with what we actually got in George W. Bush's first term.

It reminds me of another saying: "Fool me once (2000), shame on you. Fool me twice (2004), shame on me."