I agree that republican does not equal prolife, BUT it is a whole lot better than the party that has pro abortion written in their platform.Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed by the US Senate vote 96 to 3. The three negative votes came from conservative Republicans Don Nickles (OK), Robert C. Smith (NH), and Jesse Helms (NC).
She is only the second most liberal member of the Court, Justice Stevens appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford has the dubious honor of being the most liberal. The other liberal on the bench would be Souter, also appointed by Republican President G.H.W. Bush (Sr.). So not just ANY Republican will do when it comes to appointing conservative justices.
Republican does not equal Prolife!
I agree for the most part. There are Prolife Democrats, but it would be nearly impossible for them to get the party’s nomination. I pray we don’t have the same situation come about with the Republican’s and that’s why I think it’s so important to make a stand now, as you say, before it’s too late.I agree that republican does not equal prolife, BUT it is a whole lot better than the party that has pro abortion written in their platform.
I feel the republican party can be sent a message and would listen. Such a message would fall on deaf ears for the democrats, they are too far gone.
Except that we are talking about pro life vs pro abortion. Many people try to find a way to ease their guilt for voting for a pro abortion person. Abortion is murder and simply is more important than anything else. The other things you say above about the GOP are all debatable, abortion is black and white.Whenever I hear people argue that one political party is more ‘pro God’ than another, I cannot help but think of a museum exhibit on WWI I saw as a kid. Sister Mary Kate pointing out that the belt buckles on the German uniforms read “Gott mit unds” (God with us). She then asked, “Who do you think would wear a belt buckle like that - Jesus, or one of the Pharisees?”
I also find it interesting to see our US political system through the eyes of other Catholics. I spent a number of years working with a fellow Catholic from Switzerland. She found it amazing that US Catholics could support candidates from either party. It wasn’t just abortion, she found Democrats objectionable on other issues, like radical feminism, gay marriage, etc. And, to her, making the right noises about abortion was not enough for her to ignore what she considered extremely pro-death and pro-poverty policies from the GOP.
Several times she would ask me about some odd ball, lower tier candidate. I would explain, well, basically what I hear a lot of here. I am pragmatic, if I vote for someone flawed, but who can win, some of what I want may come to pass… It was a concept she really couldn’t ‘get’. To her, pragmatism and faith were/are opposites. You vote and live your faith. No earthly goal is so important that you compromise any of your obligations to God. Then she would invitably rattle off a list of very bad people that the US has supported around the world because of our pragmatic interests, and how many times folks like Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc. come back to haunt us.
I’m not saying she was/is right or wrong, but it is interesting to see how ‘conservative Catholic’ has different meanings around the world.
Planned Parenthood’s view of the Bush record:What about contraceptives?
Just because *some of *the other issues are debateable (ESCR, and Euthanasia are not) does not mean that we are to blindly follow like sheep the campaign promises of one or the other candidate. We know politicians lie. We know that campaign promises are rarely kept. We have to look at a candidates character, voting record, sources of campaign contributions, and ethics before voting for them. Otherwise, we have no right to cry “foul” when they let us down because we’re too lazy to do our homework.Except that we are talking about pro life vs pro abortion. Many people try to find a way to ease their guilt for voting for a pro abortion person. Abortion is murder and simply is more important than anything else. The other things you say above about the GOP are all debatable, abortion is black and white.
First of all, please be careful in assigning reports of others words and thoughts directly to me. I was passing on the point of view of another and I specifically stated I was taking no stand.Except that we are talking about pro life vs pro abortion. Many people try to find a way to ease their guilt for voting for a pro abortion person. Abortion is murder and simply is more important than anything else. The other things you say above about the GOP are all debatable, abortion is black and white.
Nobody said the Republican Party was more pro-God. It is obvious however that they are light years ahead of the Democrat party as far as opposing abortion goes. There simply is no comparison.Whenever I hear people argue that one political party is more ‘pro God’ than another
what numbers are going up??I get what you are saying, but at the same time one would think if anything else, the numbers would be going down instead of going up like they have under Bush (2006 not withstanding, and even then it didn’t go down very much).
They are not going up. They have went down. The Democrats tried to muddy the water by claiming Bush was not pro-life becuase abortions were declining slower than they had in the years immediately before he took office!what numbers are going up??
I beg to differ. Abortion is ALWAYS murder. ALWAYS.…abortion is always a grave moral disorder (infallible teaching), but it is not always murder. The distinction is actually kind of important from a theological perspective, but I mention it here because I think that always equating abortion with murder can be counterproductive.
Yeah, I thought that’s what ajk19 was referring to but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt before I argued the point.They are not going up. They have went down. The Democrats tried to muddy the water by claiming Bush was not pro-life becuase abortions were declining slower than they had in the years immediately before he took office!
We should be careful when making accusations. The original ‘bad’ statistic comes from an article in Sojourners, a Christian magazine, and was written by Glen Harold Stassen, a self described “pro life advocate” and ethics professor at Fuller Theological Seminary. The article claimed to use data from 16 states and was given some exposure in the National media. Some politicians did point to it.Yeah, I thought that’s what ajk19 was referring to but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt before I argued the point.
The Democrats didn’t just try to muddy the waters. They took figures from a couple of states for a short period of time that showed some increase and tried to pass those off as statistics proving an increase for the country for the year. They are lying liars and have to be watched every second. Nothing they say is to be accepted at face value ever.
I understand your feelings, but I am only noting that Church teaching makes a distinction. Some Catholics are under the impression that the Church embraced ‘simultaneous animation’. However, that is not true. Pope Pius IX rejected it, even as he removed the distinction of ‘animated fetus’ in Canon law.I beg to differ. Abortion is ALWAYS murder. ALWAYS.
Nothing dishonest or unfair about Dean running with partial statistics and making them out to be as though they gave the story of the trend in the nation. It was picked up and run with by both H. Clinton and Kerry. It was all over CNN at the time and when they were informed of the truth all of a sudden we heard nothing else.But, my main point is that blaming liberals for being dishonest when the falsehood started in a Christian magazine and was debunked by secular abortionists seems a bit dishonest and unfair.
Thus, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion “is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the **deliberate killing **of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church” (Evangelium Vitae 62).I understand your feelings, but I am only noting that Church teaching makes a distinction. Some Catholics are under the impression that the Church embraced ‘simultaneous animation’. However, that is not true. Pope Pius IX rejected it, even as he removed the distinction of ‘animated fetus’ in Canon law.
When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published its DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION nearly a century later (1974), it expressly made its arguments independant of ensoulment. And again, in DONUM VITAE (1987) the theological issue was excluded.
Best Regards
Well, you started with a broad generalization about the truthfullness of “liberals”, not specific instances by individuals. I thought it worth noting that the bad statistic did not originate with ‘liberals’ and was actually debunked by liberals.Nothing dishonest or unfair about Dean running with partial statistics and making them out to be as though they gave the story of the trend in the nation.
Again, it is helpful to be accurate. Kerry took the bad statistic and repeated it. Dean did, in fact, exaggerate it. However, Clinton qualified it, indicating only that abortions were up in some states, something which is, in fact, true.It was picked up and run with by both H. Clinton and Kerry. It was all over CNN at the time and when they were informed of the truth all of a sudden we heard nothing else.
That is what I said, though, technically, Guttmacher founded the institute. I just provided the actual report instead of an article about it.Planned Parenthood Founded Institute Admits Abortion Rates Down Under Bush Administration
The fact that clearly states the difference is thatWell, you started with a broad generalization about the truthfullness of “liberals”, not specific instances by individuals. I thought it worth noting that the bad statistic did not originate with ‘liberals’ and was actually debunked by liberals.
Again, it is helpful to be accurate. Kerry took the bad statistic and repeated it. Dean did, in fact, exaggerate it. However, Clinton qualified it, indicating only that abortions were up in some states, something which is, in fact, true.
factcheck.org/article330.html
If you wish to contend that one political party is ‘truthful’ and the other ‘liars’, that is certainly your perogative, but spin and hyperbole seem to be the norm from all political players to me. Even in gravely important matters.
Take, for example, General Petraeus’ recent testimony to Congress. During it, he presented several graphs and statistics about violence in Iraq. However, in the days immediately following the testimony we learned that certain types of violence, like car bombings, were excluded from the reported numbers.
Similiarly, the General asserted that we are not providing weapons to Sunni militants, particularly those that have been aggressively persecuting Iraq’s Christians. “We have never given weapons to tribals,” he said. “What we have done is applaud when they ask if they can point their guns at al-Qaeda.” However, we learned from subsequent military testimony that we are giving the tribals money and then facilitating the use of that money in arms purchases.
Spin is what people do in the political arena. Sometimes they branch out into hyperbole and outright deceit. That is why I think that people concerned about being good Catholics and good citizens needs to take responsibility and dig beneath rhetoric and propaganda.
That is what I said, though, technically, Guttmacher founded the institute. I just provided the actual report instead of an article about it.
Yes, EVANGELIUM VITAE (vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM) asserts 3 teachings as infallible (via the oridinary Magesterium): Murder, direct abortion, and direct euthanesia. Notice that abortion and murder are identified as two seperate things.Thus, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . .