 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27th, 2008 06:44 pm |
|
Denver, Aug 27, 2008 / 01:19 am (CNA).- Barack Obama’s message of healing our cultural wounds and stressing all men’s duty to their brothers gives him a stronger appeal to Catholics than any recent Democratic nominee for President. But in the eyes of some conservative Catholics and pro-lifers, Obama’s extreme position on abortion makes him the most objectionable recent major party nominee.
As with John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000, Obama has the firm backing of liberal Catholic Democratic politicians. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), a hero to the abortion lobby and homosexual activist groups, gave Obama a boost in the primary with his endorsement and his speech at the Pepsi Center Monday was the highlight of the convention’s first night. Every Catholic Democrat in the House and Senate, as well as every Catholic governor, has endorsed Obama, in keeping with party loyalty.
Catholic delegates to the Democratic National Committee, including those who pledged to Hillary Clinton, also are lining up behind Obama.
Surprising, however, are conservative pro-life Catholics who are backing Obama. The most notable of them is constitutional law expert Doug Kmiec, a professor at the Pepperdine University School of Law.
Kmiec, a pro-lifer and an alumnus of the Reagan administration, in March endorsed Obama over McCain.
Kmiec, in Denver to speak at interfaith panels supporting Obama, spoke with Catholic News Agency Tuesday at breakfast. Kmiec openly states that Obama’s full support for legal abortion is “morally unacceptable,” but he argues that there are proportionate reasons to vote for Obama.
Pointing out that McCain has voted to use taxpayer money on embryo-destroying stem-cell research, and arguing that McCain’s pro-life efforts would end at nominating a judge who would overturn Roe v. Wade, Kmiec summed up his choices: “I’ve got an imperfect McCain and an imperfect Obama.”
Most impressive to Kmiec, Obama struck him as a sincere “bridge-builder,” trying to find common ground with those with whom he disagreed. “He’s not afraid to borrow a good idea” from conservatives and Catholics, Kmiec said, pointing to Obama’s appreciation of subsidiarity—the notion that local governments, parishes, or families—rather than the central government—are often the appropriate level at which to address problems.
For Kmiec, Obama’s disposition towards diplomacy and peace compares favorably to McCain’s general bellicosity. “Between the two candidates, I think Senator Obama is closer to the Church’s teaching than Senator McCain is.
In line with the Holy See, Barack Obama opposed U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2002 and 2003, while John McCain has long been a supporter. Democratic delegate Deborah Langhoff of New Orleans is a Catholic who favors keeping abortion legal, and she, too, points to foreign policy as a reason for Catholics to support Obama. Suggesting Obama’s foreign policy—and his notion of a fairly rapid withdrawal from Iraq—is a part of a culture of life, she told Catholic News Agency “we need to talk about the lives lost in Iraq war.’
Joshua Mercer, spokesman for the conservative Catholic advocacy group Fidelis doesn’t believe the Iraq war can outweigh abortion in this election. “When you compare the 4,000 soldiers who lost their lives fighting valiantly in Iraq to the 4,000 babies who died today, it becomes clear…. Barack Obama has admirable qualities, but he advocates legal abortion for all nine months.”
Polls and recent election results present a mixed picture of Obama’s chances among Catholic voters. On the question of party loyalty, Catholics have moved towards the GOP in recent presidential elections. According to CNN’s exit polls, Bush defeated Kerry by five points, 52% to 47% in 2004; among Catholics who attend Mass at least weekly, (11% of the electorate), Bush won by 13 points.
In 2006, however, Catholics aided Democrats in their sweep to control Congress: 55% of Catholics voted for the Democratic House candidate.
While winning the Democratic primaries this year, Obama performed poorly among Catholics. In the most crucial state with a large Catholic population—Pennsylvania—Obama pulled in only 30% of Catholic voters (26% of regular Mass attendees), despite the endorsement of pro-life Catholic Sen. Bob Casey (D).
The above article is reposted with permission from the Catholic News Agency.
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 1001 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27th, 2008 08:06 pm |
|
I read stuff like this about Kmiec and all I can do is shake my head..... What is that man THINKING???? if anything.....
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
Christine Ann
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | An Hours' Drive From Cincinnati, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 189 |
| First Name: | Christine Ann | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Lutheran, Baptist, now Catholic. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27th, 2008 09:03 pm |
|
Dear Jill,
I agree with you. I'm thankful to God that I was unable to go to college in 1968 as I desired. Otherwise, I believe I might have had respect for the opinions of the majority of academia who support Obama. Instead the Lord waited for my education until my conscience was formed properly. Abortion is the heinous crime of murder. I believe we will answer to God for our vote this November. Despite Mr. McCain's shortcomings (and they are there) I must give him my vote and my prayers.
Thank you, Jill, for your steadfast support of the right to life.
In His Love,
Christine Ann
|
|
|
kersca
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 148 |
| First Name: | Adam | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lutheran-Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28th, 2008 01:19 pm |
|
Now,
I am no republican puppet. I agree that McCain has done many questionable things through the years. I admit that if it weren't for abortion, sanctity of marriage, and gun control I would probably vote with the donkeys. However, when I vote republican I do so hesitantly.
I know that many would disagree, but I have taken to voting for independent candidates. I have a hard time compromising my morals either way. I figure, I send a message to both parties that neither is in line with my thinking. I want to feed the poor as well as protect the unborn. I support any effort towards peace (coming from a Marine Corps vet) as well as protecting marriage and family. I like the idea of health care reform and also go hunting on the weekends.
So, will I vote for McCain... maybe. will vote for Obama... definitely not. Abortion does not have me vote for McCain but it definitely prevents me from voting for Obama.
Adam
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Absurdistan, AKA , Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 1566 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29th, 2008 07:02 am |
|
 Obama gave a very good speech, excellent except on abortion. (Why can't they just say, "okay, this is the law and unfortunately, one of the downsides to being the executive is having to uphold the law ... but that doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to support the damn thing if I find it smelling like rotten eggs?") But no, they've gotta get on their soap boxes and defend Roe with slavish unctious remarks, sonorous seriousness and kowtow to the likes of NARAL, PPF and NOW. 
Obama came as close as he ever could tonight to trying to brush it aside, which I thought was significant for him. But more likely it was a "this is not popular, so let's if we have to mention it, do so in a short sentence and race along" sort of deal.
Perhaps both Obama and his running mate saw how deeper Pelosi stepped into it, moreso than Biden and Casey combined, that they want as little to do with abortion as possible. That's a good sign for them and the country. But for Pelosi, it's time to start retaking CCD and Church History 101.
As for Kmiec, he's probably thinking he can't get rid of his "Potomac Fever" while teaching law out at Pepperdine. So it's sell out time.
At least Judas was contrite unto death at the end of a noose.
____________________
James Michael Curley to a young Thomas “Tip” O’Neill -- “Son, it’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 849 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29th, 2008 11:02 am |
|
I think I will never understand the position of the Church regarding politicians who are openly against the teachings of the Church. Also, I do not understand the members of the Church who vote for those politicians.
So, what do you all think of Bob Barr, relative to Catholic issues?
Last edited on Fri Aug 29th, 2008 11:04 am by BodRod
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
beachmoss
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Simpsonville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 298 |
| First Name: | Beth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic (raised Baptist) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29th, 2008 02:21 pm |
|
Cliff,
I am curious about Barr too. I have been researching him, and so far I like what I have seen. But I could not find anything on his stand on abortion. I even emailed his campaign with the question and have not received a reply. That really makes me wonder. It seems to me that if you're a third party candidate then you would make sure any questions are answered. So does anyone out there know about him?
Also I read a little bit on the Constitution party candidate. I can't remember his name. Does anyone know about him?
Beth
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 105 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29th, 2008 07:50 pm |
|
Oh man, I never talk about politics, but I feel the need to just this one time.
These will be sincere questions and observations, which I believe are in accord with the Catholic Church's teaching on deciding who to vote for.
Ok, why is it so many Christians cannot understand in any way, why a fellow Christian (particularly Catholic because they are the most outspoken) would vote for Obama? I hate abortion. I think it is awful, but I also hate the death penalty, but I see very few Christians of any sort saying Mccain is a murder, or creating cleaver names for him about wars, or the death penalty, or saying he is for publically funded murder of adults....("felonicide?") because he supports the death penalty. I thought we are suppose to be pro-life, from conception to the grave, not from conception to birth, and then to heck with you.
I base my decision on who to vote for on all the issues and try not to inflate one or the other. I get the impression from some Catholics that they'd vote for a "pro-life" candidate, (really anti-abortion) regardless of any other heinous acts or policies the candidate might support. I know that's not the reality, but it is my impression.
Look, I agree abortion is wrong, and a sin, and horrible.....but some religions require an abortion if the mother's life is in danger. (Judaism comes to mind) So do we take away their religious freedom? Or force them to have one in a back alley somewhere?
Second, I'm not sure there is any scientific evidence that life begins literally at conception, although by faith, I most certainly believe it does. But is it a belief that we are mistaking for science? This is an honest question, as my personal belief is of course life begins at conception, but is this science or faith? Not that they are mutually exclusive, because it can be both, but it could also not be science, yet still be true metaphysically or whatever. And if it is faith not science, are we trying to superimpose our beliefs (no matter how true we believe them to be) upon public policy that should be based on science? (like creationism) So are we mixing politics too closely with religion? What if Judaism controlled the public policies and they required EVERYONE including Catholics to have an abortion if the mother's life was in danger? How would we feel? (I believe the RCC teaches in such a case an abortion would be allowed, but it Judaism it is a requirment, because the infant is only a "potential life") But what if a Catholic mother wanted to choose to give her life for the child's, but because of public policy, based on religion, they were not allowed to make that choice? We'd be shouting about the seperation of politics and religion, but when it suits our needs, we're all for it? That just doesn't seem right.
I know, it's hypothetical, but it's still a valid question in my mind......
You see, I find the mixing of politics and religion, church and state, abhorant. The Eastern Roman Empire did this on and off for centuries, and in fact this is one of the reasons I've decided to study the Western Church more, because Rome seemed to be more consistent with keeping those barriers between the two things, even during the "Holy Roman Empire" there appeared to be a line, no matter how fuzzy it was, that wasn't crossed....while the Eastern Churches willy nilly merged the Church and the Empire into one entity. This is one of the causes of all the schisms in the East because the Emperor was literally head of the Church, and not the Bishop of Rome, (heck not even the Bishop of Constantinople, who was always second to the Emperor) which of course Rome fought against. So I find any hints of imposing religious belief into public policy very problematic. Even though I think MY religion is the right one, I stil don't think we should impose it's beliefs onto the governments of the world...lovingly convince them, yes...but not imposing.
Because, well, we wouldn't like it, if it was another religion being imposed on us. (for example in Egypt where we DON'T like the merging of religion and state)
Yes, I hate abortion, and yes I despise and think many policies around it are disgusting....but I find many of Mccain's policies disgusting as well. Not all of them are individually as bad as abortion, however I see just as much over all harm to society, people, and our country coming from right winged policies as I do from left wing policies. This is the problem of the two party dictatorship, but until the day comes when people realize we need more than communism + 1 party, these are our choices. 
I fear the damage to human life in general will be less by an Obama presidency than a McCain presidency. So I'm sort of "forced" to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Am I happy about it. No, but I truly fear for America and the world under a McCain presidency, and so I must do my part in preventing it by my vote.
I've also wondered about the gay marriage issue....and debated it with fellow EO. Why do we care what happens in the civil gov't when it comes to this issue? Other than stating our position, which I understand, we SHOULD do that. Just like we should preach against stuff like contraception, as well as judging others, fighting others, hate, violence, etc.... but actually fighting against gay marriage....it seems like a waste of time and resources to me. Is it wrong? yes. Is it a sin? yes. But isn't a gov't issued civil union or "marriage" totally different than the SACRAMENT of Holy Matrimony in the Church? Just because the government allows civil unions, doesn't mean we have to accept or recognize it as a valid Sacrament. So what's the problem? By all the screaming about how evil gay marriage is, we're only harming our cause. At least in my view. We come off as religious nuts who hate gays and don't want them to have civil rights of any kind. That's how we are seen.
I guess I'm asking is can we really LEGISLATE morality? Which is what it seems like many American Christians want to do. And I just don't think we CAN do it, nor SHOULD we do it. Rather we need to change people's hearts...rather Christ does, and we should allow the Holy Spirit to work through us....but attempting to legislate morality never works.
Anyway, I guess these are really seperate topics from the abortion issue...which I was really just trying to explain how a Catholic (or any Christian) could come voting for Obama over McCain...I understand if people disagree with that position. As I can understand how people can come to the conclusion they couldn't vote for him. But just because a Catholic votes for Obama doesn't make them stupid, or evil, or even breaking the Church's canons (or whatever the West calls them)....because my understanding is a Catholic cannot go and vote for a politician BECAUSE they are pro-abortion, but if they weigh the options and out of concience feel like they must vote for a politician despite them being pro-abortion, then it is ok. (This is how it was explained on EWTN)
Like I said, I never talk about politics, and this will be the only time I do so....but I feel like it's important to give the opposite opinion. I'm not saying you have to agree with my conclusion, only hoping it can be understood how someone who hates abortion could vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
Flame away......
Chuck
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 105 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29th, 2008 07:52 pm |
|
oh yeah, my man, Ron Paul dropped out the race, so there are no 3rd party candidates who I'd vote for!
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 12:38 am |
|
NorthStar wrote: I hate abortion. I think it is awful, but I also hate the death penalty
But there is a significant difference. Abortion kills an innocent. The death penalty does not.
The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is always a moral evil. It also teaches that the death penalty should be avoided at nearly all costs, but recognizes society's right to defend itself. We have had other discussions on the death penalty so I won't go into it here, but the fact is that they are not morally equivalent simply because the death penalty involves judges, juries, and years of deliberation and appeals, while abortion does not. A woman in the United States is the only person involved in that decision, and she can make it on the spur of the moment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time a person who commits a capital crime is put to death, at least a decade has elapsed. Would you be willing to impose a waiting period of a decade before an innocent unborn child can be put to death? The fact is that the convicted criminal has more rights under the law than that innocent, unborn infant. There is no moral equivalence. (BTW, I am against the death penalty as well, except in the most extreme circumstances when necessary to protect society, such as when a person already serving a life sentence escapes and kills again. To me, that person has proven that society needs to do whatever is necessary to protect innocent life, including putting him to death.)
I get the impression from some Catholics that they'd vote for a "pro-life" candidate, (really anti-abortion) regardless of any other heinous acts or policies the candidate might support.
Some pro-life voters feel that way. I don't, and I have posted a particular instance where I voted against a pro-life racist. I don't think religion necessarily has anything to do with it. An anti-abortion candidate who calls for a nuclear attack on another nation, for example, would not get my vote.
some religions require an abortion if the mother's life is in danger. (Judaism comes to mind)
The Catholic Church permits abortion as an unintended, secondary consequence when necessary to save the life of the mother. After all, an unborn child early in the pregnancy cannot survive if the mother dies, so the child is doomed regardless of whether the mother lives or not. If I were a politician, I would be willing to accept a law that banned abortion but made exceptions for the life of the mother if that was the only way to get it passed. Our Church also recognizes the political reality of voting for a bill that bans the majority of abortions but grants a few exceptions. The fact is it is rarely necessary to kill the child to save the mother's life. It is better to stop 99% of abortions than none of them.
Second, I'm not sure there is any scientific evidence that life begins literally at conception,
Then what is it? A fetus has DNA different from its mother. By the time it is aborted, it has a beating heart. It's circulatory system is separate from its mother. Except in the case of identical twins (which are the result of a single conception), each individual fetus is a unique individual literally from the moment of conception. That DNA has never existed before, and will never exist again. That individual cannot live alone, but neither can a person on a respirator. Should we kill them, too? When I had my open heart surgery, I was placed on a heart-lung machine for five hours and would not have survived without it. While I worked with hospice I encountered hundreds of individuals who were intelligent, productive, and dying. Some required medical devices to keep them alive. Should they have been allowed to die? My wife is a Type I diabetic who would die without insulin. Should we have the legal right to withhold her insulin so she will die? Should we kill Alzheimer's patients? How about children with Down's Syndrome? I can name a dozen or more right now who had Down's or cerebral palsey who are working and earning a living. Should we have killed them, too? A comatose person is no less human than an unborn child, and neither can live on their own. Why should the law treat them differently? Why should it be legal to kill one and not the other?
What makes "life"? A corpse has unique DNA, but its life has reached its natural end. That is not the case with an unborn child, except in the case of stillbirth or spontaneous abortion. But then again, there is no disagreement when life has ended naturally. The disagreement is when a living, growing fetus or embryo or whatever else you want to call it has its life ended unnaturally. That is taking God's role into our own hands, and ending the life of an innocent.
I fear the damage to human life in general will be less by an Obama presidency than a McCain presidency.
I completely disagree. Adding together all the deaths in war, all the condemned criminals put to death, and all the other deaths that might result from a McCain presidency would likely not equal the number of abortions performed in a single year in an Obama presidency. And you will be paying for them with your taxes. Insurance companies will quickly be required to pay for abortions, doctors will be required to perform them, and pharmacists will be required to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, including the "morning after" pill. Euthanasia will not be far behind.
In 1994, the second year of the Clinton presidency, there were 1,267,415 registered abortions (who knows how many were not reported?). Add together all the deaths you can think of to blame on Bush (war, death penalty, and whatever else you can imagine) and it probably will not equal the number of abortions in that one, single year of a Democratic presidency. And Clinton claimed to be against abortion and in favor of the death penalty! Obama makes no such claims.
I've also wondered about the gay marriage issue....and debated it with fellow EO. Why do we care what happens in the civil gov't when it comes to this issue?
The purpose of marriage is the protection of the family. Specifically, the family promotes the conception, birth, and raising of children. That is impossible in a "gay marriage" and granting the same legal protections to homosexual couples cheapens the very term.
The Catholic Church supports legal protections for committed couples who are not legally married. Specifically, the Church supports health care, the right to participate in medical decisions, the right to own property jointly, etc. Those rights are already available. To call it "marriage" removes the God-given purpose, and that is procreation. It says we as a society now consider recreational sex the only purpose of marriage. We'll give you the same tax deductions and legal protections as a heterosexual married couple, including the "right" to spousal health care and social security benefits, even though the entire purpose of spousal benefits was to provide for stay-at-home parents.
Isn't it amazing that heterosexual couples want legal protection for cohabitation without marriage, while homosexual couples who are cohabitating want to be able to get married? Why not just abolish marriage completely? That is in fact what we would be doing when we provide full legal protection to every couple who wants it whether they are married or not. What protection will be left for those who commit their lives to raising children? None. So the only protection women will have will be to have a job and to refuse to bear children. That's already happening in Europe, where the death rate will exceed the birth rate in 2015, and as a result, a Muslim majority is on the horizon.
I guess I'm asking is can we really LEGISLATE morality?
We have always legislated morality, and we still do. We call rape illegal. We prevent adults from marrying children. We call polygamy illegal. We say it's illegal to plant a bomb and kill everyone in a football stadium, or an office building in Oklahoma. We say that flying a plane into a skyscraper and taking three thousand lives is wrong.
If a woman who has sex can reject the consequences by killing her child, why can't the rapist decide after he's commited the rape that he didn't want to do it so he's not responsible? Why can't I hold a gun to your head and pull the trigger?
Or are rape and murder not what you consider moral issues?
Flame away......
Flames are not allowed on this forum, but we certainly can disagree on issues, especially involving politics. And based on what you have said, I strongly disagree with your politics.
For example, I see a real difference between killing an innocent unborn and killing an elderly Alzheimer's patient. The unborn child has the potential to save the world. The elderly Alzheimer's patient has little use except to be a burden on society and a drain on the family. But if we are truly pro-life, we must do all we can to protect the life of all innocents, including both the unborn and the elderly, as well as the defective handicapped individuals. Did you know that today in the Netherlands, it is legal to "abort" defective children up to age 12? Did you know it is legal to euthanize the unproductive elderly? You can pull the plug on people who are not plugged into life supporting devices! Do you truly not see the difference between killing innocents and killing convicted criminals (which I also oppose in nearly all cases)?
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 105 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 06:36 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote: NorthStar wrote: I hate abortion. I think it is awful, but I also hate the death penalty
But there is a significant difference. Abortion kills an innocent. The death penalty does not.
Sure, the death penalty does, and has in some cases killed innocent people. (Jesus for example) No, not the same numbers by an measure, but it does happen. Besides, I wasn't trying to compare equally abortion vs. the death penalty, but was trying to show that I cannot decide on who to vote for based on this one issue.
. A woman in the United States is the only person involved in that decision, and she can make it on the spur of the moment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time a person who commits a capital crime is put to death, at least a decade has elapsed. Would you be willing to impose a waiting period of a decade before an innocent unborn child can be put to death?
What I would be willing to do isn't the point. I totally agree with you and the Church that abortion is a moral evil. It seems like, and I may be wrong, but it seems like you think I am pro abortion, which I'm not.
Some pro-life voters feel that way. I don't, and I have posted a particular instance where I voted against a pro-life racist. I don't think religion necessarily has anything to do with it. An anti-abortion candidate who calls for a nuclear attack on another nation, for example, would not get my vote.
Well, IMO, McCain has come awfully close to that very thing, and I believe he would do it, if given the chance call for a "strategic nuclear strike" against Iran. Anyone who sings about bombing another country and then laughs about it, is not someone I can vote for.
Then what is it? A fetus has DNA different from its mother. By the time it is aborted, it has a beating heart. It's circulatory system is separate from its mother. Except in the case of identical twins (which are the result of a single conception), each individual fetus is a unique individual literally from the moment of conception. That DNA has never existed before, and will never exist again. That individual cannot live alone, but neither can a person on a respirator. Should we kill them, too? When I had my open heart surgery, I was placed on a heart-lung machine for five hours and would not have survived without it. While I worked with hospice I encountered hundreds of individuals who were intelligent, productive, and dying. Some required medical devices to keep them alive. Should they have been allowed to die? My wife is a Type I diabetic who would die without insulin. Should we have the legal right to withhold her insulin so she will die? Should we kill Alzheimer's patients? How about children with Down's Syndrome? I can name a dozen or more right now who had Down's or cerebral palsey who are working and earning a living. Should we have killed them, too? A comatose person is no less human than an unborn child, and neither can live on their own. Why should the law treat them differently? Why should it be legal to kill one and not the other?
Hold on, you're superimposing all the stereotypes of the pro-choice crowd right upon me as if I believe all these things. This is exactly why I posted the questions I did, because this is always the reaction I and others get...."oh you're for a pro-choice candidate, you are for abortion, and you also MUST be for suicide, and killing people on life support, and killing Alsheimer's patients...how terrible"....obviously my lack of communication skills caused you to miss the very point of my questions. I have a hypercoagulation problem, and would die without blood thinners medication....so yes, lets do away with meds so I can die as well...of course, that's exactly what I want. 
My Grandmother had Alzeheimer's LONG BEFORE people even knew what it was...all these people who have some relative with it and write books about it, (of course they had like 5 nurses to help them) know NOTHING. My mom took care of her for 10 yrs (it was my dad's mother), and gave everything she had to that woman and she lived in OUR house...not some nursing home, but was there 24/7....this was long before all the books came out, and all the doctors came out about it, and before there was any help.....so I don't care for being lumped in with all the assisted suicide crowd. I was young, just a kid, but I remember and see the toll it took on my mother physically and emotionally.....
What makes "life"? A corpse has unique DNA, but its life has reached its natural end. That is not the case with an unborn child, except in the case of stillbirth or spontaneous abortion. But then again, there is no disagreement when life has ended naturally. The disagreement is when a living, growing fetus or embryo or whatever else you want to call it has its life ended unnaturally. That is taking God's role into our own hands, and ending the life of an innocent.
My point was simply is this a scientific fact, or a religious belief? And if it is a religious belief, then what gives us the right to impose it upon everyone else? Simply because we think and believe we are right? So does everyone in every other religion! Jews do NOT believe a fetus is a life, rather a petential life. So who is right? We cannot create laws based on religion....simply because some day we might not be the dominant religion....in a country where it was pretty much at one time illegal to be Catholic, I'd think American Catholics would keep these things in mind. That's all........
I fear the damage to human life in general will be less by an Obama presidency than a McCain presidency.
I completely disagree. Adding together all the deaths in war, all the condemned criminals put to death, and all the other deaths that might result from a McCain presidency would likely not equal the number of abortions performed in a single year in an Obama presidency. And you will be paying for them with your taxes.
Well, you're free to disagree. But your taxes have payed for all sorts of other atrocities you might not even think of....it payed for the Israeli military killing fellow Catholic and Orthodox Christians in Lebanon 2 summers ago...(I suppose since it was only a few thousand it's not as bad) and some of the other not so down right, "I kill you this very moment" type stuff....but your taxes help the underground Mexican slave trade (ie: the so called illegal immigration issue), your taxes help China take away religious freedom from fellow Christians, which BTW is a country that albeit secretly probably kills untold more children than any thing that happens here. But we don't protest that. Our taxes help pay for the drug trade, and and the gun lobby, and the environmental lobby, and it helps pay for some diamond mines in Africa where people are well, slaves, our taxes pay for a lot of things that we have no control over, untold suffering around the world that never gets reported on the news . . . . our taxes help the Saudis create a totalitarian religious Empire where its lillegal for a Christian to make the sign of the cross, and rape of women IS legal in some cases...and our taxes are responsible for all of these things too. I'm not going to play the numbers game, because first, way to many things have to be "just right" for roe v wade to be overturned, even in a McCain presidency. And then, if it is overturned, the authority will only be handed back to the states, (it will not be outlawed)....in the mean time untold amounts of hidden death, suffering and despair will continue as a direct cause of all his other policies, if not increase throughout the world and we easily forget that because it's out of sight and out of mind. I think all of these other things, (and I only named a few) will greatly improve with an Obama presidency (although I disagree with him on many issues), and I think the LONG TERM outcome will be beneficial, even for the abortion issue. If McCain becomes president, and if, for instance it was outlawed (which it cannot be, but lets pretend) it's only going to build up more hostiility to our position that abortion is wrong....I think coming together as ONE country is far better than this partisan stuff that we've gotten into...so I believe Obama, in the short and long term, will help even on the abortion issue. (long term on that issue of course)
You're free to disagree, and that's fine with me. I just don't like being seen as some sort of moral inferior because we disagree, that's all. No that you were doing that specifically, but that it is done in a general sense by some pro-lifers.
In 1994, the second year of the Clinton presidency, there were 1,267,415 registered abortions (who knows how many were not reported?). Add together all the deaths you can think of to blame on Bush (war, death penalty, and whatever else you can imagine) and it probably will not equal the number of abortions in that one, single year of a Democratic presidency.
I see and understand your point, I do get it. But I'm just frustrated that anyone who might vote for Obama is automatically seen as some amoral who is not only accused of being pro-abortion, but wants to see the sick, elderly, mentally disabled, and physically handicapped killed as well.
I've also wondered about the gay marriage issue....and debated it with fellow EO. Why do we care what happens in the civil gov't when it comes to this issue?
The purpose of marriage is the protection of the family. Specifically, the family promotes the conception, birth, and raising of children. That is impossible in a "gay marriage" and granting the same legal protections to homosexual couples cheapens the very term.
I know what marriage is, it's a Church Sacrament. Someone getting "married" in a court, is not a Church Sacrament. I don't care if they call it marriage, or tying the knot, or the boogyman agreement, or anything else...because it's not marriage. They can call it that, but it isn't a marriage, it's a civil union. What does it matter what it's called?
Unless the Catholic Church accepts non Christian marriages as real Sacramental marriages, in that case I can see the problem and the outrage. (remember Orthodox do not accept non Christian marriages as legitimate, and even a Protestant marriage must be "blessed" by a priest, so to me a "marriage" in a court is the same thing as not being married at all, I only see the civil rights)
The Catholic Church supports legal protections for committed couples who are not legally married. Specifically, the Church supports health care, the right to participate in medical decisions, the right to own property jointly, etc. Those rights are already available. To call it "marriage" removes the God-given purpose, and that is procreation.
I honestly don't know if those rights already exist or not. If they do, then I agree with you 100%. My understanding is that they do not exist as a single law, but must be patch worked together from dozens of obscure laws. My understanding could certainly be wrong on this issue though.
Second I thought the Catholic Church taught procreation was NOT the only reason for marriage?
What about a woman who had hysterectomy? Can she not get married or continue marital relations any longer?
Isn't it amazing that heterosexual couples want legal protection for cohabitation without marriage, while homosexual couples who are cohabitating want to be able to get married? Why not just abolish marriage completely? That is in fact what we would be doing when we provide full legal protection to every couple who wants it whether they are married or not. What protection will be left for those who commit their lives to raising children? None. So the only protection women will have will be to have a job and to refuse to bear children. That's already happening in Europe, where the death rate will exceed the birth rate in 2015, and as a result, a Muslim majority is on the horizon.
What does a Muslim majority have to do with anything?
I guess I'm asking is can we really LEGISLATE morality?
We have always legislated morality, and we still do. We call rape illegal. We prevent adults from marrying children. We call polygamy illegal. We say it's illegal to plant a bomb and kill everyone in a football stadium, or an office building in Oklahoma. We say that flying a plane into a skyscraper and taking three thousand lives is wrong.
Those things cannot be compared to gay marriage in any way. Which is what I was refering to about legislating morality, and not about abortion, which I think should be illegal except in a few rare circumstances. (saving the mother's life) The point is, laws in the U.S. are meant to protect the innocent from outside harm, they are not meant to enforce our religious beliefs. Gays freely choose to do what they do, a rape victim does not, and is in need of protection. See the difference? One needs protection and justice, another doesn't.
Or are rape and murder not what you consider moral issues?
Yes of course, I think rape is ok, and murder is just fine! Of course anyone who votes for Obama believes this too, we're all for anarchy and chaos and are moral wimps and, yes, we all hate God, the Church, and think gays deserve to get married in the Church...... good grief, of course I don't think that, or ANY of the things you assume I'm for.
This is exactly why I posted in hopes people would understand that just because someone votes for a pro-life candidate doesn't make them morally evil, or even for abortion or in contradiction with the Church. I realize my communication skills are poor, but good grief, they can't be THIS bad? lol!
For example, I see a real difference between killing an innocent unborn and killing an elderly Alzheimer's patient. The unborn child has the potential to save the world. The elderly Alzheimer's patient has little use except to be a burden on society and a drain on the family. But if we are truly pro-life, we must do all we can to protect the life of all innocents, including both the unborn and the elderly, as well as the defective handicapped individuals. Did you know that today in the Netherlands, it is legal to "abort" defective children up to age 12? Did you know it is legal to euthanize the unproductive elderly? You can pull the plug on people who are not plugged into life supporting devices!
Exactly how do you abort a 12 yr old child? Are you saying it's legal to kill a 12 yr kid? Certainly this has got to be some sort of urban legend?
Of course if true, this really proves the point I was attempting to make about legislating morality....we cannot legislate morality...because it's putting the cart before the horse. laws don't make people moral, people do. if there is such a place where you can kill a 9 year kid, do you really think doing away with the law will change the society itself? . . . or just drive the killing underground? Out of sight out of mind? That's not good enough for me.
The problem I see is some pro-lifers believe by making abortion illegal all our woes will be cured over night...but this is not so.
The U.S. did not lose it's moral compass AFTER roe v wade, it lost it BEFORE, and roe v wade is a consequence of that lost compass. We cannot legislate morality (ie: gay marriage, or any of the other things we human beings are not killed) because then you're only forcing something on society it does not want, and Christians are not supposed to be into forced conversions....rather we have to work to change the hearts of the individual, and as a consequence, society as a whole will be transformed....THEN once society sees where it went astray, these crazy laws will drop out of existance. I just think we're going about all this in reverse, because we, as Christians let it get out of control, and now we're trying to put the car into reverse on the freeway, (which if anyone watches MythBusters knows, actually cannot be done, even in a manual transmission )
I totally agree with you, in principle on almost all these issues. In fact I think we can agree on what the final goals for 99% of all this needs to be. I just see the "getting there" in a totally different perspective. We have the same goal (even if you don't think we do, and think I'm some pro-abortion nut), but I think another road needs to be taken because what we've been doing hasn't seemed to have helped much.
PS: edited to clarify a few statements.....
Last edited on Sat Aug 30th, 2008 07:11 pm by NorthStar
|
|
|
hpj0828
Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 168 |
| First Name: | Henry | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Messianic Jewish believer, Hebrew Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 02:30 pm |
|
On War and the "Culture of Life"
My son is a proud Marine who risked his life daily in service of his country in the Iraq War.
Consider Romans 13:3-4
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.
The state has a function to protect it citizens from evil. Islamic terrorism is evil. Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator.
Pope John Paul II did not consider the invasion of Iraq to have been the right thing to do under the circumstances. This is a decision regarding the wisdom of the use of the sword of war in a particular situation. It is not a decision against the user of the sword of war in all situations. Since he did not speak this ex cathedra, it is a position about which Catholic faithful may respectfully disagree with him.
I have friends who are of Muslim background who have become Christians. Their lives have been threatened by Muslim fundamentalists here in the United States of America. The President of Iran, Ahmanadinijad, has publicly declared it is his intention to wipe the state of Israel off of the face of the earth. As a Hebrew Catholic, I heartily support the use of the force of war against any nation that has declared its intent to destroy the People of God.
Perhaps you think that Israeli incursions into Lebanon, from which constant attacks by missile have come onto Israeli soil, is "morally" equivalent to the position of Hezbollah that Israel has no right to exist as a nation and should be destroyed?
No one likes war. Especially the families of our servicemen and women who daily risk their lives. All of us prefer a path of peace and diplomacy to the use of force. But, the state has the moral obligation to use force and to go to war to protect its citizens against evil. It should do so with strength of will and purpose and the sure moral sense that it is fulfilling its duty under God.
Shalom!
H.
____________________
HPJ
|
|
|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 292 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 07:49 pm |
|
Chuck wrote:
"We cannot legislate morality (i.e. gay marriage or any of the other things...) because then you're only forcing something on society it does not want..."
Yes, Chuck. We do legislate morality. Thank God we do. That's why we have laws against things like murder and rape and for protection of children.
"Rather we have to work to change the hearts of the individual and as a consequence society as a whole will be changed."
That's a worthwhile goal. Obviously, we have not done our job as we should. But it seems rather naive to think we can change society completely if only we do our job as Christians. There is evil in the world that is beyond our ability to change and that is something that will remain until Christ returns.
Bishop Chaput of Denver recently wrote that while separation of Church and State is a good thing, none of us should separate our faith from our politis. To me that means we should do our best to see that legislation and court decisions favor things like; respect for life vs. abortion and euthnasia; God's plan for marriage and family vs. other arrangements; peace vs. war (unless we and our allies are in danger in which case we have the moral right to defend them and ourselves). There are many people im the world that will work against those good things and no amount of Christian convincing will change their hearts.
Best Regards,
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 849 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 08:00 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote: NorthStar wrote: I hate abortion. I think it is awful, but I also hate the death penalty
But there is a significant difference. Abortion kills an innocent. The death penalty does not.
Not always, Rick. It is a matter of public record that innocent people have been sent to death row, and in some cases, have killed by way of the death penalty.
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2445 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 08:55 pm |
|
One always hears this charge about pro-lifers being "one-issue" voters, as if this is a negative, undesirable, immediately discounting, disqualifying thing.
The fact is, that there are many individual issues -- not just support for legal childkilling - that are deal-breakers, and rightfully so. Abortion is often not considered to be one of these, but the moral logic is thoroughly flawed.
Consider some analogies: how about a candidate who has wonderful opinions on many or all issues except one small detail: he is a member of the Ku Klux Klan?
Would that not be a deal-breaker? Would one then be fully justified to not vote for him based on that one consideration alone, no matter what else he or she says? I say that it is self-evident that it is justified to think in such a fashion.
Abortion is an issue like that; indeed far worse than that. The wanton destruction of some 4000+ human beings a day by this abominable practice, and the upholding of it by politicians and judges, who are primarily responsible for its existence in the first place, legally-speaking, is altogether relevant, because we the voters who put such men and women in office and on judicial benches also directly bear responsibility for the holocaust. It's the old thing about evil prevailing when good men do nothing. If a person can't even see the intrinsic value of any human life, and the duty of government to protect that, why should we trust he or she to uphold any other lesser right?
How about another candidate who seems pretty neat except that he is an anti-Semite and believes in the worlwide Jewish banking conspiracy; that all Jews are filthy "Christ-killers" and so forth? Is that a deal-breaker? I think so. If that isn't, then what if he took the additional step of favoring the Final Solution and killing of Jews (as a literal Neo-Nazi)? That's certainly a deal-breaker, no? I can't imagine an American voting for a guy whose policies about Jews resembles Adolf Hitler.
Perhaps one might reply that my analogies are extreme? Not at all; not in the least; quite the contrary, in fact! Six million Jews were "legally" murdered by Hitler's policies. We passed that figure by 1977 with legal abortion in the US. We're now up to more than 50 million legal abortions.
One wants to distinguish abortion from races or ethnic groups being singled out, as if it were more morally defensible? That won't fly either, because we know that some women kill their children for reasons as monstrous as their being the "wrong" sex. Or they are killed for reasons like financial difficulty, as if that is more important in the scheme of things than an eternal soul and the life of a human being.
Hitler also had groups like the handicapped and retarded and mentally ill and Catholics and Communists and Slavs and Gypsies murdered; in fact, this was the precursor to the Final Solution. We're not far from that mentality at all (lest we look down our nose at Hitler and the Nazis and think we are so morally superior). We now have states that have legalized assisted suicide. We murdered Terri Schiavo against her parents' and many friends' wishes. We murder children simply because they are diagnosed with Downs Syndrome. Recently, while reading about VP candidate Sarah Palin, who decided to bear such a child, I learned (though I haven't confirmed how accurate this is) that nine out of ten women who get this information, decide to kill their child.
So we're not that different at all from Hitler. He murdered Jews because he believed the usual ridiculous conspiracy theories about them. passed down for hundreds of years in European anti-Semitic myths, fables, and old wives' tales. We murder children because they have a genetic deficiency and are not as "intelligent" as the rest of us, or because they are inconvenient or a financial burden or embarrassing or the wrong sex, or will disrupt our social standing as upright Christians (because folks would know we are sexually active and that would wreck our "good Christian" image), and so are best disposed of.
Until recently, partial-birth infanticide was perfectly legal, right up to term. Babies were partially delivered and then scissors were inserted into their skulls to remove their brains; then their skulls were crushed. Then five men on the Supreme Court declared that this should be illegal. Thankfully, they figured out (legally) what was patently obvious to any person with the most rudimentary humane and compassionate sensibility.
Which is morally worse? I think a solid moral argument could be made that our mentality and "morality" with legal abortion is even worse than Hitler and the Nazis. At least they didn't maintain the pretense of being Christians in good standing, whereas we do.
So I ask those who use the "one-issue" canard: if you would vote for a pro-abortion politician, on what grounds would you not vote for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis? What is the huge moral difference? You'd vote for a person who would uphold and maintain the murder of some one and a half million preborn children a year, but not for a man who caused roughly the same number of murders in about four years time? In fact, Hitler was more pro-life than pro-death Democrats and Republicans, because he was opposed to the abortion of Germans. Hitler the politician was evil but Democratic candidates who sanction murder of helpless, innocent children are not when they take that stand? On what grounds?
We can overlook that "small flaw" based on their positions on other issues? I don't think so. It is moral and intellectual suicide to do so, and the death of Christian culture.
Any number of similar issues are also deal-breakers: how about a candidate who favors sex between adults and infant children? Or one who sees nothing wrong with rape or wife-beating? Or one who wants to kill everyone over 80? Or one who wants to kick all Native Americans / Indians out of the country (Jews have often been kicked out of nations, such as in Spain and England), or to kill all American Indians (as some generals in the late 19th century actually favored)? Or one who wants to re-institute slavery or deny the vote to women or black people, or bring back child labor? These are all deal-breakers, and in my opinion, abortion is a bigger deal-breaker than any of them, by far: more than all of them put together, because of the monstrous evil involved. It's the defining moral issue of our time, just as slavery and the "Indian problem" and civil rights were in their time. It's no morally better than the ancient Carthaginians sacrificing their babies regularly to Moloch in big ovens.
If any issue qualifies as "one issue" that disqualifies a candidate, it is societally-sanctioned murder of innocents. And if anyone challenges you, my fellow pro-lifers reading this, as some sort of troglodyte "one-issue voter", immediately ask them if they would vote for Hitler, or Stalin (who starved ten million Ukrainians, among other delightful activities), or Mao (responsible for about 60 million deaths), or Pol Pot, and then challenge them to make the moral distinction between those Holocausts and the abortion Holocaust.
They cannot, I assure anyone.
And, by the way, I happen to like Obama personally and think he has many admirable qualities (something that I think of no Democratic presidential candidate going all the way back to JFK), but I would never vote for him in a million years, because he is for the culture of death and the death of innocents. Christians don't vote for Herod, do they?
Last edited on Sun Sep 7th, 2008 01:56 am by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| | |
