Bush Isn't Pro-Life and I have the numbers to prove it

[estesbob]

WRONG! You’ve been shown before where this was a lie - why do you continue to say it as truth?

He continunes to say it in a lame attempt to try and prove that those who oppose abortion are not as effective at limiting it than those who support it. oO course its nonsnes but as ive said before the mentalmastrubation required to claim to be pro-life yet support those who aid and abette the killing of our children is a terrble thing to behold.

 

[Ender]

I guess I was mistaken because abortions dropped sharply during the Clinton presidency and the trend has moved in the wrong directly under Bush

I hear this claim a lot but I haven’t seen any data to support it. More significantly I haven’t heard any argument made that policy X under Clinton was responsible for the decrease, only that a decrease occurred. There is no more reason to believe that Clinton’s policies were responsible for the decrease in abortions than they were for a decrease in hurricanes over the same period.

I did find this chart (supposedly based on Guttmacher data) that confirms a decrease in abortions in the 90’s but belies the claim that it has increased in the 00’s. (I was unable to paste it here but you can view it at this URL.)

mccl.org/abortion_statistics.htm

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

He continunes to say it in a lame attempt to try and prove that those who oppose abortion are not as effective at limiting it than those who support it. oO course its nonsnes but as ive said before the mentalmastrubation required to claim to be pro-life yet support those who aid and abette the killing of our children is a terrble thing to behold.

No, I’m saying it because it is true. Like the loud squawking and chest thumping surrounding Dan Rather and the Bush/National Guard story, the partisan quaking obscures the truth. Look closely at the ‘debunking’ here:

factcheck.org/article330.html

Notice that it acknowledges that the rate of decline has slowed overall under Bush and that the rates have gone up in some states. How does “trending in the wrong direction” (slower rate of decline, some increases) then become false?

Now, look at the dates on cited studies and go to the latest NIH reports, one of which was just released almost two years late…

As far as motives, let’s look closely. You now have company. Again I hear the claim that abortion trumps all. But what, exactly, does the Church teach?

Thankfully, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has given us a some notes:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Written by then Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II. Notice what it says immediately after the concept of “limiting the harm” of unjust secular laws in #4:

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

Elevating a single teaching at the expense of others is “incoherent” and is a “detriment”. Why, again, is my promoting the concept of wholly voting my faith “lame”? Do you have a Catholic foundation for such an argument, or do you simply struggle with the conflict of two masters?