saskprolife.com/ourblog/blog/index.stm?path=/~blog/blog&date=2009-10-21
Great. Wonder how all those who have relatives killed (and being killed) during the unjust war Bush started would feel about this “pro-life” award.
Which war are you talking about? Both? In any event, you’re assuming your premise; the latter being that “it” is an unjust war. If Iraq (which liberals claim is unjust while defending Afghanistan because Obama is expanding it; perhaps you don’t) then it’s possible the million people Saddam killed would dispute your premise, if they could speak. For them, of course, the “unjust war” came too late. Possibly you would think it more just if he had killed two million. Or would you perhaps have required three million?
He did quite a bit regarding abortion. He nominated pro-life judges consistently. He reinstated bans on foriegn aid money from being used for abortion. And never forget the speech he gave when he announced the prohibiting of federal funds for stem-cell research, it was one of the best reasoned arguments against stem-cell research that I have ever heard (our Bishops should have been taking notes).
Giving speeches and appointing judges has not advanced the pro-life (anti-abortion) situation in America since 1973 by any President.
It’s not only “liberals” (whoever they are) that claim the Iraq war is unjust, it clearly does not meet Catholic just war criteria.
He did do something about abortion. Remember the partial birth abortion ban?
He also pulled US support for birth control pills and abortion being imposed on 3rd world countries by the UN. There’s a lot Bush did–but his detractors don’t bother to find out these things for themselves when it’s all too easy to take armchair potshots based on personal bias/left wing propaganda instead of facts.
You still haven’t told me whether you also say the Afghanistan War is unjust. Is it? If not, why not? If you just avoid the question further, we will only have to conclude that, to you, the Afghan/Pakistan war is "just’ ONLY because Obama has escalated it and that, therefore, your position is political, not based on the teachings of the Church.
1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must
be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or
ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be
eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in
evaluating this condition.Well, you are wrong. First of all, a president is limited to what he can do by our constitution. Secondly, since the pro-abortion adgenda has been advanced in this country mainly through the courts and not the legislatures, appointing pro-life judges is a key way of stemming the tide. Most importantly, the abortion problem is going to be finally solved through a change in our culture. If we do not have national leaders on board, this is much more difficult. The president has a bully pulpit. It makes a difference when presidents are consistently outspoken against abortion. It is intangible, but I would hate to imagine the state of the pro-life cause in our country without the likes of Reagan and Bushes being president to help it being kept in the mind of the nation.
Any facts or statistics to back up your claim? How has the abortion rate been reduced by speeches, or appointing judges, or by President Bush?
You’re the one challenging the rightness of the award. It’s up to you to produce proof that Bush didn’t deserve it. And you know perfectly well that unless someone does a study on the topic, there’s no way to show how any action by Bush affected anything. However, that’s not the point, and you know it. The point is he got an award for his pro-life stance–one that is sadly lacking in the current administration or any other Democratic one before or since Bush was in office.
Of course they won’t; first because it’s a prolife award, and second because it is given to