Vote For Kerry

[Carson Weber]

Here are some examples of the Pro-Life activity of the Bush Administration, to narrow the long list (which I've already provided above) down, since it appears that Iacobus and PhatPhred are not reading it and taking it to heart.

Within the Bush Administration, the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revised the regulations governing the State Children's Insurance Health Program (SCHIP) program (September of 2002), which provides medical assistance for a low-income "child" under age 19. The new regulation clarifies that states may include coverage for children from [b]conception[/b] to age 19, making pregnant women eligible to receive prenatal and delivery care.

Pro-abortion groups condemned this action as establishing the recognition of the unborn child as a person.

In August of 2002, Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

Soon, he will sign The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (originally H.R. 503 - has now passed through both the House and the Senate), an act that recognizes as a legal victim any unborn child who is injured or killed during commission of a federal crime

Then, we have the abstinence grants awarded by Bush, his firm principles with regard to the nature of marriage and opposition to gay pride, and his numerous Pro-Life appointments.

And we all should consider the wisdom contained in this interview Zenit News Agency had with Deal Hudson, the editor of CRISIS Magazine (of which I am a subscriber), in May of 2002:

[b]Q:[/b] President Bush has made many efforts to reach out to Catholics since he took office just over a year ago. What have been some of the gains for Catholics, and Christians in general, of the Bush presidency?

[b]Hudson:[/b] The benefits to all Christians of the Bush administration have been tremendous. Most people tend to focus only on the specific pieces of legislation or high-profile decisions, such as the stem cell case, but they miss the influence of all the Bush appointees throughout the different branches of the administration.

For example, those who attend United Nations conferences reported an immediate change in U.S. policy after Jan. 1, 2002: Suddenly the United States was no longer cooperating with the population-control crowd of the European Union. I could relate story after story of left-wing, anti-life initiatives supported by the Clinton administration being reversed by Bush's appointees.

[b]Q:[/b] Some organizations have been critical of President Bush because he has not taken a position that is 100% pro-life, for example over the cloning issue. Others defend the president, pointing to what John Paul II said in "Evangelium Vitae," No. 73, namely, that it is possible to vote in favor of a law that limits evil, while not completely abolishing it. How can Catholics approach the political process, which often requires making compromises, without losing sight of important principles?

[b]Hudson:[/b] Many Catholic and Christian pro-life groups do not understand, and therefore do not engage, in the political process. The teaching on incrementalism in "Evangelium Vitae" was extremely important because of its political realism, namely, that political compromise is not a moral compromise seen in the democratic context.

In other words, Catholics can support in-between steps toward the total protection of life from the womb to natural death without being guilty of moral cowardice or complicity with evil. Some pro-life leaders think that the affirmation of a moral principle can and must lead only to an identical political conclusion without any incremental steps.

Leaders of Catholic apostolates will become more effective politically when they accept Church teaching on participation in the democratic process instead of standing on the sidelines lobbing bombs at those who are getting their hands dirty.

[PhatPhred]

[quote name='Carson Weber' date='Mar 27 2004, 10:24 PM']I have shown above an assorted and rather lengthy [i]CV[/i] of Bush's pro-life activity, and the proper response on your part should not be a coninuation of pressing your initial agenda but rather one that fairly acknowledges that you are incorrect with regard to the principles and efficacy of the Bush Administration.[/quote]
I acknowledge that President Bush and his administration have been very effective at generating a lengthy pro-life [i]Curriculum Vitae[/i]. My question relates to how effective they actually are at saving the lives of the unborn.

There isn't any doubt how effective they have been in killing American soldiers and Iraqi citizens.

[Dave]

PhatPhred, if the Church has instructed its members on which issues are non-negotiable when determining who to vote for, then don't you think you should obey rather than take an "I know better" attitude?

[Iacobus]

Okay. Bush may be pro life in regards to abortion. Your CV proves that he is or the White House Press pool thinks he is at least.

Taking step by step is great. Every trek strats with a single step. But what I am saying is that we need to address all the issues. Take them all step but step. Like trying to stregenth the UN and get a International Ban on Cloning (we would need the UN to do that and we would need an internation criminal court to regulate it, but that court was refused by the Bush admin last year) while we are working to overturn Roe v. Wade and getting laws like the Unborn Viticms on the books for REAL crimes. (I love the idea behind the bill, but it only applies to violent federal crimes, which are very limited, murder, assult etc are state offense and only the state can pass a law on them so work to get that on the books) Alas though Bush may have a steller record on abortion, which appears to be a social norm not attached to the political process, the has been no real impact, yet. But Bush still supports the DP and abuses the UN, which we will need to get anything done on an international level and to be more effect than Lincoln freeing all the slaves in the states in active rebellion. Bush needs to start to respect the UN and use it. Much can be done there but if we keep up our uni liteal policies we won't make any progress. None of that would be much harder to do than what we are doing now.

Plus just think if the 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut was cut down to say 500 billion dollars. That leaves 1 trillion dollars to spend. Just think what $1,000,000,000,000 could do in say federal funding of adoption services. In the last 10 or so years 10 MILLION women have thought about adopting a child but ONLY 500,000 started to look. We need to increase the avability of centers for couples to go to look for a child. Say that a building and all the work to open it and fill everything costs 750,000 we could have opened 1333 centers!! Increasing the avibility of such centers for people who are thinking of aborting and those are looking to adopt would take a massive bite out of abortion. Oh and don't forget to add in the 8,000 dollars John Ashcroft spent to cover the breast of the statue of the Spirit of Justice.

To end abortion we are going to need to work together. And there are dems out there that don't support abortion, the links someone posted ealiar, though they are a minority. To end abortion we need to get the indeptents and the dems and the reps all to work together. The Bush admin has polorized the nation to such a degree it is scary.

[Iacobus]

PhatPhred, Dave is right. We need to vote for whom every will progress the movment the most. Saddly the movement is muti fronted and it appears that the most readily changing one will be abortion thus Bush might be a better choice. Carson's sumed up CV is better than the orginal, both of which I have read. I don't like Bush on welll every issue except abortion. When I say every issue I do mean EVERY issue. However, it does come down to the lesser of two very bad evils. And again, I ask how can there be a lesser, evil is evil. I am praying that Bush takes a 180* turn in many areas or Kerry takes a 180* turn in his areas of need. If the repbulicans would have nomed some one more moderate and prolife he or she would get my vote. I fear that Bush may be pushing us farther from an end to abortion with his admin, not from policies but from his abiltiy to polorize the nation. I still don't know who I am voting for but I will say I like how this thread is avoiding any atttacks on a person but more focused on the policies.

[Iacobus]

PhatPhred, does have a point though. My fellow students in Stillman Valley High School have shown that you can really have the talk but have an extremly minor walk. The list of Bush's pro life documents could be easily made with the few things he has done, Mexico City policy, unborn viticms (which won't do much, the federal violent crime clause really limits it to about a show piece), and Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. However the numbers don't show a large decrase in abortions resulting from these policies.

Dave, the DP
[quote]From Para. 56 of Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), an encyclical letter on various threats to human life which Pope John Paul II issued on March 25, 1995.

"This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence."(46) Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.(47)

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: 'If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.'"[/quote]

Sounds NN to me. Last I checked Bush supports the DP but we can control society with bloodless means. Thus you are taking the "I know better than Mother Church" additude as well.

[PhatPhred]

[quote name='Dave' date='Mar 28 2004, 12:11 AM']PhatPhred, if the Church has instructed its members on which issues are non-negotiable when determining who to vote for, then don't you think you should obey rather than take an "I know better" attitude?[/quote]
Dave,

The U.S. Catholic Bishops have put out a voter's guide ([url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html"]http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/b...pStatement.html[/url]) that doesn't use the term "non-negotiable" anywhere, and includes the important issues of unjust war and social justice in its guidance.

Another web site ([url="http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp[/url]) has put out a quite different voter's guide (without even an Imprimatur) claiming to reduce the complex issue of whom to vote for to which candidate has the better campaign plank on five "non-negotiable" issues, deeming all issues related to unjust war and social justice irrelevant.

Don't you think that a faithful Catholic should follow the authentic magisterium of the Church rather than taking a "you can't trust some of those liberal Bishops anyway" attitude?

[peach_cube]

I will not vote for Bush, republicans hide behind pro-life to win votes, nor will I vote for Kerry, the so-called Catholic, nor will I vote for Nader. For whom should I cast my vote. There are certain issues that must be taken into consideration; sanctity of marriage, abortion, stem cells, euthanasia, death penalty, child labor, etc.

I have looked and have yet to find a candidate affiliated with any party that meets all these requirements.

I am still left with a choice. I can still make my voice heard, there is always a write in option. If I find someone who meets these guidelines then I can simply write them in.

Many will say that that is a "waste" of a vote. I disagree, the only way to build momentum for a truly Catholic candidate is to show my country that I am not willing to bend on these important issues. If I want true representation then I will not accept partial representation. These are not issues that I feel I can compromise on.

[Iacobus]

peach_cube, I love the way you said that. It basicly sums up what I feel and is very well stated. God bless!

[megamattman1]

I can't believe Iacobus thinks that any issue can trump abortion etc. I can't believe he thinks you can't choose the lesser of two evils either.


[QUOTE]claiming to reduce the complex issue of whom to vote for to which candidate has the better campaign plank on five "non-negotiable" issues, deeming all issues related to unjust war and social justice irrelevant.
[/QUOTE]

But I do agree with PhatPhred. But thought I'd just add a point. Even if those are non-negotiable issues declared by the magisterium, (I think they are non negotiable) it also says to consider issues critically. So considering that they also stress health care, poor, etc, PhatPhred's point would still remain that the Bush campaign is only talking the talk.

Dave can only make his argument if the magisterium explicitly said something like "even if you don't think a candidate will do nothing for abortion, it's still the principle to vote for the pro-life candidate". Of course that would mean that the Church is teaching error because they wouldn't teach that.


[/QUOTE]I have shown above an assorted and rather lengthy CV of Bush's pro-life activity, and the proper response on your part should not be a coninuation of pressing your initial agenda but rather one that fairly acknowledges that you are incorrect with regard to the principles and efficacy of the Bush Administration.[QUOTE]

And you should fairly acknowledge that all you have shown is possibly much ado over simply talking the talk with the walk for show and nothing more.

Right now I am looking into the RU-486 and partial birth restrictions to see if they are what they are cracked up to be. Something like, if the baby is being aborted en uterous instead of partial birth, or if RU is restricted to just, "in cases of women's health" or then it's probably talking the talk. I say this because it's "women's health" that allows ridiculous uses for the constitutional amendment could be applied here. Or if the courts are just going to overturn him these cases is an issue.

I'm not sure who I will vote for. I've been thinking about reluctantly voting for Bush for abortion, but not really sure. If you could better illustrate that the steps being taken are truly going to change anything, or illustrate that lives are truly being saved, I may vote for him wholeheartedly for abortion. (though nothing else)

If a candidate is going to convince me to vote for him solely for abortion, he's going to have to earn it.

Edited March 28, 2004 by megamattman1

[Iacobus]

megamattman1, I am not saying that any issues trumps abortion but I am saying that the pro-life movement is a lot bigger than just abortion. You have unjust war, euthanisa, abortion, death penelty all under the pro-life title. We need to vote pro-life in all aspects not just abortion. Let's put it this way. The Insane People of America party nomes Dr. Death for the pres. Say Dr. Death wants to work to end abortion but says that the DP, assited suicide, and gun ho war is okay. Can you, in good faith, vote for him? He wants to end abortion but his platform involes hurting all the other areas of the movment. And the person running aganist him is nomed by the Crazy American party. Mr. McDeath wants to end the DP, stop assisted suicide, and try to avoid war but supports abortion. The question is than who adavnces the pro life movment the most? Both help and harm the movment. Will you vote for Dr. Death and push for an end to abortion but allow war to spread, men to be killed (See today's Gospel!), or doctors to grant "mercy" to their terminal patients? Or do you vote for Mr. McDeath who will avoid war, ban "mercy" kills, and abolish the DP yet support abortion? It isn't black and white.

And about the lesser of two evils. Can there really be one? Think about. To have to make a choice between evil one and evil two you had to make a bad choice to start with. Evil is always evil. If I commit a sin by lieing to my parents than I go and steal is one sin "lesser" than another? Both are sins. Both break one of the 10 commandments. So is one truly lesser? Will God say to me, "Jacob lieing to your parents was a lesser sin than stealing so I will overlook it"? How does one measure evil? To have to make a choice between two evils, there is evil and evil. There is no lesser evil.

[Sinner]

One measures evil through prayer and the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Please...... this is easy, the Nazi asks you where the Jews are hiding.... you answer: A-In the closet. (The truth that results in the death of your friends.) B-Not here. (A lie that saves the lives of your friends.) Please Iacobus, this is a no brainer.

[Iacobus]

Yeh the Nazi were evil. You had a choice between evil and good. But now you are facing a choice between evil and evil. It is a little more complex.

[XIX]

Thrid party?

I don't like the idea of supporting the war, or Bush's adgenda that seems so say "Pollution is good for you!"

[Iacobus]

LOL! XIX polluntion went down under Bush by 25%. Never mind the fact that we used to count 4 gases and now count 3. And than compere them. LOL!