Catholic Pro-life Senator Casey endorses pro-abortion Democrat for president

[BOBKAT]

This pro-abortion canidate mentioned that he didn’t want his daughters punished for a mistake they may make concerning pre marital relations and abortion and or contraception. Being the mother of a child with Down Syndrome I find this really sad because my thought is this person may think that my child is a punishment for something my husband or I did. I really don’t take offense so easily, but this one really is offensive. I never thought of a child as punishment maybe a mistake in the timing of a pregnancy, but never a punishment. Also that STD’s are punishment, that would like saying AIDS is punishment and I think that we already went through that. We need to start holding our representatives accountable for their public stances on such moral issues.

God Bless
Kathleen

 

[TMGallyon85]

I know what you are Talking about Bobkat. I have heard everybodys favorite cafeteria catholic sean hannity speak on this topic and he made the Remark that he was all for the miracle of birth, but things like Rape and incest are another issue. So We have even hardcore republican conservatives that claim that We can kill babies concieved by rapes but the rest we have to save. Wow, now thats blatant hypocrisy. Needless to say I am ashamed to Have bob casey as my senator and I am ashamed that I was an avid listener in Sean Hannity. The great american and lousy catholic.

 

[saylo]

I know what you are Talking about Bobkat. I have heard everybodys favorite cafeteria catholic sean hannity speak on this topic and he made the Remark that he was all for the miracle of birth, but things like Rape and incest are another issue. So We have even hardcore republican conservatives that claim that We can kill babies concieved by rapes but the rest we have to save. Wow, now thats blatant hypocrisy. Needless to say I am ashamed to Have bob casey as my senator and I am ashamed that I was an avid listener in Sean Hannity. The great american and lousy catholic.

I am asking…ONLY ASKING… because I truly do not know. Here goes:

If a woman is raped and checks into a hospital and has a (don’t know the word for the procedure) sanitization of the rapist’s sperm (which has NOT reached the egg for conception) then it is OK to intervene. Right? Since conception does NOT occur immediately (it can take many hours) then is it a sin for a woman to block an eventual conception from the seed of a rapist while the sperm is still “running loose”?

Somehow I do not believe a woman is bound to allow the travel of a sperm to ultimately make contact and thereby result in conception. The sperm by itself is NOT a conception and is allowed to be stopped. Right? Is the victim of the rape obliged to allow herself to eventually impregnated against her will? That is my understanding of this.

It is not “contraception” in this case since it is an intrusion by a force and not consensual. And the sperm is still a sperm. Conception has NOT yet taken place. Right? I hope I am making this clear.

I have a boatload of other scenarios in this regard which could be very disconcerting.

 

[childofmary1143]

Pres. Bush, Senior did little to seat pro-life judges (Judge Souter comes to mind) and to take a position of pro-life for a presidential candidate is waging an uphill campaign.

Pres. Bush senior, seated Clarence Thomas, who is pro life. Pres. Bush jr., appointed 2 more Catholic Pro life Supreme Court justices in Roberts and Alito.

This is why the current presidential race is VERY important as Kennedy who represents the swing vote (Pro-Choice 5, Pro Life 4) is Pro-Choice is in his 80s and could be replaced during the next Presidency.

 

[mary_bobo]

Pres. Bush senior, seated Clarence Thomas, who is pro life. Pres. Bush jr., appointed 2 more Catholic Pro life Supreme Court justices in Roberts and Alito.

This is why the current presidential race is VERY important as Kennedy who represents the swing vote (Pro-Choice 5, Pro Life 4) is Pro-Choice is in his 80s and could be replaced during the next Presidency.

And Ruth Bader Ginsberg is not well. And there is another ancient one, whose name escapes me at the moment, who is waiting for a Dem to take office to retire.

 

[saylo]

Pres. Bush senior, seated Clarence Thomas, who is pro life. Pres. Bush jr., appointed 2 more Catholic Pro life Supreme Court justices in Roberts and Alito.

True. Mr. Bush nominated Alito. But he did so after much pressure from the pro-life faction in the Republican Party.

If I recall correctly, Bush nominated Harriet Meirs BEFORE Sam Alito. Harriet is a feminist and suspected pro-choicer. The nomination of her by Mr. Bush was clearly a “waivering” for want of a better word.

As for John Roberts it was UNCLEAR that he was pro-life. He was nebulous, at best. The only suspicion that he was pro-life is he is a Catholic. During his Hearing he never unambiguously state that he was pro-life. No one knew for sure.

What bothered me most was Haqrriet Miers was Mr. Bush’s FIRST CHOICE. All the Democrats liked her.

This is why the current presidential race is VERY important as Kennedy who represents the swing vote (Pro-Choice 5, Pro Life 4) is Pro-Choice is in his 80s and could be replaced during the next Presidency.

 

[TMGallyon85]

Yes but currently at this time saylo, we have no method of determinign whether that sperm has already reached the egg and life has begun. What i am talking about is aborting children concieved of rape or giving women abortificants that kill a concieved child. Stopping the sperm from fertilizing the egg is an entirely different thing alltogether. Yes it is OK for a doctor to flush the womans body of the fluid and provide antibiotics etc. What is not ok at this time is to give the woman a morning after pill because you dont know if conception has taken place. If we did, then maybe the church would provide another alternative.

 

[saylo]

Yes but currently at this time saylo, we have no method of determinign whether that sperm has already reached the egg and life has begun. What i am talking about is aborting children concieved of rape or giving women abortificants that kill a concieved child. Stopping the sperm from fertilizing the egg is an entirely different thing alltogether. Yes it is OK for a doctor to flush the womans body of the fluid and provide antibiotics etc. What is not ok at this time is to give the woman a morning after pill because you dont know if conception has taken place. If we did, then maybe the church would provide another alternative.

Thank you, thank you. I was struggling with the notion that a victim of rape was obligated to allow herself to be impregnated. My mind is a lot more at ease. Thank you.

I just could not, in my heart of hearts, accept the notion that a rape should result in a forced conception.

Thanks again. Truly. :extrahappy:

 

[Ridgerunner]

Pres. Bush senior, seated Clarence Thomas, who is pro life. Pres. Bush jr., appointed 2 more Catholic Pro life Supreme Court justices in Roberts and Alito.

This is why the current presidential race is VERY important as Kennedy who represents the swing vote (Pro-Choice 5, Pro Life 4) is Pro-Choice is in his 80s and could be replaced during the next Presidency.

And that’s why a vote for a third party is also a vote for abortion. If the third party candidate has no chance, and it’s obvious that’s so, then that’s what voting for a third party candidate amounts to.

 

[Andy_K]

I agree with you, gam. Casey is not a beacon for the unborn either. Had Pat Toomey won the primary we wouldn’t have either Casey or Specter. That was my basic premise.

Sorry for my redundancy. Santorum would have been reelected had he not stumped for Specter. and we would have Toomey and Santorum.

Too bad the unborn cannot vote…things would be different.

This needs to be reiterated: Santorum, for all his rhetoric, not only endorsed pro-abortion politicians like Specter, but went directly against Catholic teaching himself by supporting abortion in cases of rape and incest.

You are absolutely right that these factors are what culminated in his downfall. He betrayed himself and suffered the consequences.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Similarly, I think Casey is going to see this endorsement along with his 65 percent Naral Rating come back to bite him. He has, IMO, betrayed his father’s legacy, and he is either going to be usurped by another even more pro-choice dem (or even “moderate” Republican) who will make Casey’s betrayal seem like nothing.

Santorum and Casey, who are both supposedly political bright spots for Catholics, have brought this upon themselves. They are both doomed to a political death because of what they have wrought.

It can’t be said enough: in all areas of Catholic teaching (abortion and all others), both parties have failed us all miserably.

Catholics need to abandon their party lines - both Democrats and Republican - if this is ever going to change. I’m sick of voting for party hacks!

 

[saylo]

And that’s why a vote for a third party is also a vote for abortion. If the third party candidate has no chance, and it’s obvious that’s so, then that’s what voting for a third party candidate amounts to.

Just a little logic, if I may:

No matter who might be nominated for Supreme Court he/she will never be confirmed if he/she is pro-life. The Party that is the majority Party will not allow a pro-life nominee to even be voted on.

The Party that has better pro-life credentials is a minority Party and will become even more so after November.

Also, the pro-lifers are disappearing from power; it is the way this Country has gone, unfortunately.

A politician cannot be pro-life but endorse a pro-abortion pol at the same time. This is even worse than hypocritical . I wonder if Santorum actually was aware of who he was stumping for…I think he did. Now, he is gone and he won’t be back anytime soon.

Had he backed Pat Toomey he would still be a senator from Pennsy and so would Toomey.

A Third Party will represent the unborn…unflinchingly. It is a vote well cast. It says "we are here for the unborn…no, “ands,” “ifs” or “buts” about it.

 

[Andy_K]

And that’s why a vote for a third party is also a vote for abortion. If the third party candidate has no chance, and it’s obvious that’s so, then that’s what voting for a third party candidate amounts to.

In my situation, the Democratic candidate is bound to win anyway in my state, and my vote for the “lesser of two evils” won’t mean anything, either/

Why am I obligated to vote for such a candidate when it does absolutely nothing?

 

[valient_Lucy]

This is why I will never join a political party. Once you’re in, it’s all about power, and not about the issues. Santorum seems to be a case in point for that. If he was truly pro-life, why on earth would he campaign for a candidate who was pro-abortion? By doing so, he was saying, “I’m a Republican first, and pro-life when it is convenient.” People tend not to compromise on things that are important to them.

 

[gam197]

originally posted** by Andy K.**
This needs to be reiterated: Santorum, for all his rhetoric, not only endorsed pro-abortion politicians like Specter, but went directly against Catholic teaching himself by supporting abortion in cases of rape and incest.

Whoa. Rick Santorium was never in favor of abortion in cases of rape and incest. He was opposed to all abortion.

Would he vote for an expansion of the Hyde amendment that was proposed in 1993? The Hyde amendment could only get passed if it included rape and life of mother in 1976. I think that is what they are talking about.

Exception for rape & incest ok, even though they take a life
Q: Are you in favor of Plan B, the morning-after pill?

CASEY: I’m in favor. I think what emergency contraception is contraception, not abortion.

SANTORUM: It is an abortifacient in certain circumstances. If the egg has been fertilized and the pill is taken, it does cause an abortion. It’s inconsistent with his previous position and violated his principles. Q: If you believe that life begins at conception, then why do you support exceptions for rape, incest, and life of mother?

SANTORUM: Yeah, I would vote for things like that.

Q: But it’s the taking of a life.

SANTORUM: The Hyde Amendment allows rape, incest, life of the mother. That is the common ground we could get, and I would support that.

Q: But by your standards, it’s the taking of a life.

SANTORUM: It is, there’s no question it’s the taking of a life. But it is an attempt for me to try to see if we can find common ground to actually make progress in limiting the other abortions. So yes, that’s what I would do.

Santorium Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education &** contraceptives.**

ontheissues.org/Social/Rick_Santorum_Abortion.htm
Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Just a little logic, if I may:

No matter who might be nominated for Supreme Court he/she will never be confirmed if he/she is pro-life. The Party that is the majority Party will not allow a pro-life nominee to even be voted on. But Alito and Roberts were, weren’t they?

The Party that has better pro-life credentials is a minority Party and will become even more so after November. More likely than not. But it can, and will, turn again.

Also, the pro-lifers are disappearing from power; it is the way this Country has gone, unfortunately. At times, yes. But I can also remember hearing eulogies on the Repub party after the Nixon debacle. Then came Reagan. These things change.

A politician cannot be pro-life but endorse a pro-abortion pol at the same time. This is even worse than hypocritical . I wonder if Santorum actually was aware of who he was stumping for…I think he did. Now, he is gone and he won’t be back anytime soon. I think Santorum can point to the appointment of Roberts and Alito as the result of his otherwise curious support of Specter. Whether he properly assessed Toomey’s real chances and took what he could for the prolife cause is not known to me.

Had he backed Pat Toomey he would still be a senator from Pennsy and so would Toomey. Maybe. Maybe not. But for sure, Roberts and Alito would not be on the court had he done so and if Toomey lost.

A Third Party will represent the unborn…unflinchingly. It is a vote well cast. It says "we are here for the unborn…no, “ands,” “ifs” or “buts” about it.

I understand the urge many have to throw up their hands and opt for some third party candidate. I do. But the history of third party candidates in the U.S. is dismal at best. Right now, a vote by a prolifer for a “pure” third party candidate is tantamount to a vote for the abortion candidates. No question at all about that. Might make a person feel emotionally vindicated, but it’s extremely poor prolife strategy.

A few years ago, we witnessed what seemed to be a prolife “high water mark”. Bush was strong. Repubs controlled both houses of Congress. But the enemies did not give up. They bided their time, gathered their strength and came roaring back at a time when people feel insecure in their lives, and promised a bogus material Nirvana. That happens in human history, and populations always live to regret making choices like that. But even if the abortion party controls the presidency for the next four years, and both houses of Congress for the next two, that does not mean it will be abortionists in power forever. And, there is no certainty, even now, that the abortion party will win the White House. Sometimes voters, like people who have had too much to drink at a party, wake up to the cold light of dawn and shrink back from drinking some more. That could easily happen in this presidential race. Easily. If so, any appointments to the Supreme Court may well be stalemated for a time.

 

[saylo]

So,where we have two candidates (one from either Party) who are not pro-lifers we choose the lessed pro-abortion one?

The unborn will be just as dead either way and that vote says absolutely nothing.

I’ll take my Third party vote with me when I am judged after my death. I feel OK with that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So,where we have two candidates (one from either Party) who are not pro-lifers we choose the lessed pro-abortion one?

The unborn will be just as dead either way and that vote says absolutely nothing.

I’ll take my Third party vote with me when I am judged after my death. I feel OK with that.

The Repub candidate, at one time, but perhaps not now, supported embryonic research. He always opposed abortion. Both Dems support both. Yes, and gay marriage too.

If you feel okay with supporting the abortion candidate by throwing away your vote, and taking that to your judgment after death, it’s your call. I personally have a greater fear of judgment than that.

 

[saylo]

The Repub candidate, at one time, but perhaps not now, supported embryonic research. He always opposed abortion. Both Dems support both. Yes, and gay marriage too.

If you feel okay with supporting the abortion candidate by throwing away your vote, and taking that to your judgment after death, it’s your call. I personally have a greater fear of judgment than that.

A Third Party that has, as its paramount precept, protecting the unborn is not a vote for an abortionist. How can you twist it to make it sound as such?

The Republican Party has excluded the “Right to Life” mantra from its national platform. It no longer underscores a pro-life stance. It no longer is a priority.

A syphoning off of votes from that kind of drifting away is the best thing that could happen to them.

Arlen Specter is as pro-abortion as any in Congress and he is a Republican.

Tell us: if he was running for Senator in YOUR State would YOU vote for him even if you had a pro-life Third Party candidate with zero chance of winning? Just curious.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A Third Party that has, as its paramount precept, protecting the unborn is not a vote for an abortionist. How can you twist it to make it sound as such?

The Republican Party has excluded the “Right to Life” mantra from its national platform. It no longer underscores a pro-life stance. It no longer is a priority.

A syphoning off of votes from that kind of drifting away is the best thing that could happen to them.

Arlen Specter is as pro-abortion as any in Congress and he is a Republican.

Tell us: if he was running for Senator in YOUR State would YOU vote for him even if you had a pro-life Third Party candidate with zero chance of winning? Just curious.

Are you really trying to say that every Republican in office is just like Arlen Specter? Please respond. I would just like to see you say it.

As to the party platform, it gets written at the convention. Seems you are stretching for reasons to do what you want to do.

A vote for some prolife third party that can’t possibly win is a prolife vote wasted…deliberately wasted in order to show one’s pique because the only party that has any prolife candidates at all doesn’t please one in some way. That’s like a little kid hitting his mother because she won’t let him eat candy before dinner.

A prolife vote wasted is one that does not cancel out a pro-abortion vote and is, therefore, a pro-abortion vote in itself. You have already said you’re willing to be judged by God for doing it, and I guess that says it all.

 

[saylo]

Are you really trying to say that every Republican in office is just like Arlen Specter? Please respond. I would just like to see you say it.

There you go again! You twisted my direct question. I asked (hypothetically, you should know that) that if Arlen Specter was the Republican candidate in YOUR State against a pro-choice Dem and a pro-life Third Party…which one would YOU vote for.

That is not complicated is it?

As to the party platform, it gets written at the convention. Seems you are stretching for reasons to do what you want to do.

You are evading the question, my frend. You ask questions and demand answers but refuse to answer Q’s made to yourself?

A vote for some prolife third party that can’t possibly win is a prolife vote wasted…deliberately wasted in order to show one’s pique because the only party that has any prolife candidates at all doesn’t please one in some way. That’s like a little kid hitting his mother because she won’t let him eat candy before dinner.

If Specter was running in YOUR State would YOU vote for him? Are you a Republican first or pro-life?

A prolife vote wasted is one that does not cancel out a pro-abortion vote and is, therefore, a pro-abortion vote in itself. You have already said you’re willing to be judged by God for doing it, and I guess that says it all.

If YOU vote for Arlen Specter would YOU still go to Holy Communion?: