Corrupt, but Pro-Life Candidate

[frankadams]

We must live in alternate universes-but then again i think my comments about mental mastrubation apllies here also.

You will kindly have to tell me what is factually wrong about my recollection of the presidential elections of my recent lifetime.

 

[estesbob]

You will kindly have to tell me what is factually wrong about my recollection of the presidential elections of my recent lifetime.

Both ran aspro-life a platform and were huge supporters of the pro-life agenda when president. in addtion George Bush never ran as pro-choice. When he served on the Board of the Houston Planned parenthood chapter abortion was illegal in Texas. His wife was indeed pro-abortion. IIn the 1980 election both canidates were pro-life

 

[frankadams]

Both ran aspro-life a platform and were huge supporters of the pro-life agenda when president. in addtion George Bush never ran as pro-choice. When he served on the Board of the Houston Planned parenthood chapter abortion was illegal in Texas. His wife was indeed pro-abortion. IIn the 1980 election both canidates were pro-life

You are wrong about Bush’s abortion position in 1980. Here is a citation. Sorry that I could not figure out how to get the link, since it took me through a Google Books search engine. You can find the excerpt in Google Books. The title is Changing Patterns In Voting by Robert W. Speel.

“Bush, who had been born and raised in New England before moving to Texas, was generally conservative on economic and defense issues, but far more liberal that most of his opponents on social issues in 1980–favoring the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion rights, for example (Not until Reagan chose Bush as his vice presidential nominee was Bush reborn as a social conservative.)”

 

[estesbob]

You are wrong about Bush’s abortion position in 1980. Here is a citation. Sorry that I could not figure out how to get the link, since it took me through a Google Books search engine. You can find the excerpt in Google Books. The title is Changing Patterns In Voting by Robert W. Speel.

“Bush, who had been born and raised in New England before moving to Texas, was generally conservative on economic and defense issues, but far more liberal that most of his opponents on social issues in 1980–favoring the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion rights, for example (Not until Reagan chose Bush as his vice presidential nominee was Bush reborn as a social conservative.)”

I lived in Houston when Bush ran for congress. He NEVER ran as a pro-choice canidate. try as they could in both the 1980 and 1988 campaigns his opponents tried in vain to find any place he had declared himself pro-choice. It was assumed he was pro-choice becuase he was on the Board of Planned Parenthood but as I said before that was prior to abortion bring legal in Texas.

Regardless he ran as peo-life in all four of the presdential elections he was involved in and was staunchly pro-life the entire time he was in office.

Lets say for the sake of argument that you are right. We would then have a canidate who said he was pro-life running against(in 84 , 88 & 90) against a canidate who was solidly pro-abortion. Better to vote for the one who “might” betray you than the one who will for sure.

The interesting situation is 1980 when he and Reagan ran against a democrat who was Pro-life.

 

[frankadams]

I lived in Houston when Bush ran for congress. He NEVER ran as a pro-choice canidate. try as they could in both the 1980 and 1988 campaigns his opponents tried in vain to find any place he had declared himself pro-choice. It was assumed he was pro-choice becuase he was on the Board of Planned Parenthood but as I said before that was prior to abortion bring legal in Texas.

Regardless he ran as peo-life in all four of the presdential elections he was involved in and was staunchly pro-life the entire time he was in office.

Lets say for the sake of argument that you are right. We would then have a canidate who said he was pro-life running against(in 84 , 88 & 90) against a canidate who was solidly pro-abortion. Better to vote for the one who “might” betray you than the one who will for sure.

The interesting situation is 1980 when he and Reagan ran against a democrat who was Pro-life.

I cannot claim any personal knowledge of Bush’s congressional runs in Texas, so I will not challenge your statement if you were there for those campaigns.

Republicans were lukewarm on the pro-life issue in the years immediately after Roe, and I do remember many only taking the position of “state’s rights” and “personal autonomy” (albeit in a more principle way unlike most of today’s pro-aborts). My recollection puts Bush in the pro-abort camp. I do remember Reagan supporters using the issue against Bush in the primary in 1980, and I don’t recall any sort of denial by Bush in regards to this position. I also recall Bush stating his unequivocal pro-life position shortly after he became the vice presidential nominee, and commentators describing it as a change in his position.

In regards to 1980, it is my recollection that Carter had already sold out to the pro-aborts by that time, despite being a born-again evangelical. (This is something Democratic heroes like Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, and Dennis Kucinich would later do.) Am I recalling that incorrectly? Is my whole memory on the elections of that time in my life flawed?

 

[estesbob]

I cannot claim any personal knowledge of Bush’s congressional runs in Texas, so I will not challenge your statement if you were there for those campaigns.

Republicans were lukewarm on the pro-life issue in the years immediately after Roe, and I do remember many only taking the position of “state’s rights” and “personal autonomy” (albeit in a more principle way unlike most of today’s pro-aborts). My recollection puts Bush in the pro-abort camp. I do remember Reagan supporters using the issue against Bush in the primary in 1980, and I don’t recall any sort of denial by Bush in regards to this position. I also recall Bush stating his unequivocal pro-life position shortly after he became the vice presidential nominee, and commentators describing it as a change in his position.

In regards to 1980, it is my recollection that Carter had already sold out to the pro-aborts by that time, despite being a born-again evangelical. (This is something Democratic heroes like Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, and Dennis Kucinich would later do.) Am I recalling that incorrectly? Is my whole memory on the elections of that time in my life flawed?

You know I dont know what the platform was then. I know he was then and continues to be pro-life but he may have downplayed it.

You left out Richard Durbin who claims he became pro-abortion because of the attitude of those who are pro-life.

 

[Gisella]

pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.

that is like saying being pro-free will is being pro-sin.

taxes are not robbery. the government has a responsibility to each and every citizen. part of that responsibility is to help protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. they don’t provide happiness, just guarantee the opportunity to pursue it. we have a flawed economic system (just like every other system is flawed as there is no perfect economic system) and part of the reasoning for government assistance programs is to correct the injustices caused by our system. it is the government, which we as citizens have a responsibility to support albeit to also hold them accountable, whose job it is to correct these injustices (since they are caused by our system) and help provide the opportunities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
.

I never said taxes were robbery. I think income redistribution is. If taxes are used for things that benefit everyone directly and are needed for society to function(police, roads, defense, education, etc) I don’t have a problem. Welfare just helps certain individuals. How is our system responsible for their poverty? This isn’t the 1930s. Personal choices are more likely to be the blame. The Constitution doesn’t gaurantee any material goods. It just gaurantees the right to pursue them.

 

[rwoehmke]

Hmm. Pro-choice = pro-abortion. I agree a euphemism. Does that mean that pro-life has become a euphemism for anti-abortion? Well? I guess at least for some folks. Just seems to me that pro-choice represents a very narrow choice, where pro-life appears to cover so many aspects that one is never sure just what the person who calls himself pro-life means without further dialogue…

 

[bengal_fan]

I never said taxes were robbery. I think income redistribution is. If taxes are used for things that benefit everyone directly and are needed for society to function(police, roads, defense, education, etc) I don’t have a problem. Welfare just helps certain individuals. How is our system responsible for their poverty? This isn’t the 1930s. Personal choices are more likely to be the blame. The Constitution doesn’t gaurantee any material goods. It just gaurantees the right to pursue them.

income redistribution is actually commanded by God in the book of Isaiah. it is called the year of jubilee.

our system does cause poverty for some. if some one some where is making money, some one else is losing that money. even if it in a provider / consumer relationship. that consumer is giving up money for the product the provider has. the provider is taking from the consumer more than it cost for him to produce that item. that item loses value or is perishable and the consumer will never get back that lost income on that item.

our system allows for and even rewards greed (gordon gecco says it best in “Wall Street”). our system is also set up in a way that makes it easier for those who already have wealth to accumulate more and for those without it to find it harder and harder to gain it (“it takes money to make money”). that is how our system creates (and will continue to create) poverty. wealth redistribution is necessary for our system to survive. if the rich just get richer and the poor just get poorer, one of two things will happen. either the poor will unite and rise up against the rich and chaos will ensue or (and i think this is beginning to happen in small ways now) as more and more people become poor, the wealthy will have fewer people to make money off of. they will have to raise prices to keep their lifestyles which will only cause more and more poverty. this leads to more price hikes and more poverty. the only way to curb either of these is for wealth distribution. if the wealthy don’t do it voluntarily (as commanded in Isaiah), then for the good of our system and our country, it must be forced.

as for the others attacking my logic… my only answer is that i stand by it. just because you feel comfortable in jumping to judgement on what people are ultimately thinking and believing does not mean we all are. i will try to stick with Jesus’ advice and leave the judgement up to Him. i will continue to work in support of life but i will also understand that choice does not equal evil, but that there are evil choices people can make. the only way to truly prevent evil choices from being made is to change hearts and minds… not laws. i work to change the laws of our country (which DO give the rights upon which the right to choice is based) so that life is better protected but i fight even harder for the hearts and minds of the people who would choose to end life as oppose to choosing to give it.

 

[vz71]

Hmm. Pro-choice = pro-abortion. I agree a euphemism. Does that mean that pro-life has become a euphemism for anti-abortion? Well? I guess at least for some folks. Just seems to me that pro-choice represents a very narrow choice, where pro-life appears to cover so many aspects that one is never sure just what the person who calls himself pro-life means without further dialogue…

Actually, at this stage in the game, ‘pro choice’ means defending ones choice to have an abortion or not. Since an abortion is wrong in the first place, ‘pro choice’ is wrong. You cannot defend someone’s choice to have an abortion.

Now remove abortion from the table, and ‘pro choice’ becomes a legitimate stand.

No euphemism here, just the reality of what choices there are in the ‘pro choice’ world.

 

[Ender]

but SOME innocents die because of the death penalty (proven). many innocents die because of war. they are the same issue, you are just valuing one life over another which is not in line with how God seems to view us.

What you ignore are the moral aspects that distinguish these issues. Abortion is an intrinsic evil, the death penalty and war are not; in an abortion an innocent person is intentionally killed, in wars and executions the death of innocents is unintended; the benefit of an abortion comes directly from the death of the unborn child, there is no benefit at all that comes from innocent deaths in wars or executions.

You distort the meaning of the term by claiming that those who hold abortion to be a greater evil than war are “valuing one life over another.” I think you can see this if you compare the number of executions each year (50-60) with the number who die in automobile accidents (42,000+). Do you consider lower speed limits a greater moral issue than capital punishment? I’m pretty sure if speed limits were lowered we would save more than 50-60 lives a year, so why, if all life is valued the same, would you not accept that lower speed limits is a greater moral issue than capital punishment?

These moral issues involve more than the question of the number of dead and have nothing at all to do with differentially valuing human lives.

Ender

 

[quasimodo]

Peter Singer is one example who is strong on social justice and he deems it ethically acceptable to kill the unborn.

and the born … up to the age of 6 months

quite a guy that Dr. Singer, no?

 

[estesbob]

as for the others attacking my logic… my only answer is that i stand by it. just because you feel comfortable in jumping to judgement on what people are ultimately thinking and believing does not mean we all are.** i will try to stick with Jesus’ advice and leave the judgement up to Him**. i will continue to work in support of life but i will also understand that choice does not equal evil, but that there are evil choices people can make. the only way to truly prevent evil choices from being made is to change hearts and minds… not laws. i work to change the laws of our country (which DO give the rights upon which the right to choice is based) so that life is better protected but i fight even harder for the hearts and minds of the people who would choose to end life as oppose to choosing to give it.

You support the slaughter of 1.2 million chilldren a year and then have the utter arrogance that Jesus would apporve of it???

You have no logic-only rationalization of supporting abject evil.

 

[vz71]

that being said, i do feel the need to point out the pro-choice is NOT the same as pro-abortion. most people who would call themselves pro-choice would be offended by the assumption just as pro-life people are offended when they are called anti-choice.
we do have the right to do evil and God has the right to punish that evil.

I believe it was Fr. Corapi that6 said it very succinctly…
“You DO NOT have the right to do evil.”

 

[Gabe_D]

Bengal_fan,

I see your point, but I can’t agree with you. Democratic society is built up on a few foundations of which the most important are:

1. Each human person is a subject (not an object) and as such has its own rights protected by law.
2. Law treats equally every human being.

If you accept these two and acknowledge that a human fetus is a person than you can’t support law that allows one person (mother) to dispose of another one (unborn baby). Because such a law contradicts with the aforementioned democratic rules, as the convienience of one person prevails against the right to live of another.

 

[ReginaHenderson]

I could not in good conscience vote for either of them. The first one advocates murder of child and the other one is for the death penalty. The death penalty is only justifiable when it is needed to protect the people. Due to the security of prisons a person could fairly easily be prevented from escaping. So in first world country there is no need for the death penalty, it is just senseless killing. If both of the candidates would be bad in office one should either find a good third party candidate or not vote. How ever I am lucky in this situation because I am not of legal voting age in the united states yet.

Pax Christi vobiscum,
Regina.

 

[vz71]

I could not in good conscience vote for either of them. The first one advocates murder of child and the other one is for the death penalty.

Sounds like you equate the two.
But it appears that you know better…

The death penalty is only justifiable when it is needed to protect the people. Due to the security of prisons a person could fairly easily be prevented from escaping. So in first world country there is no need for the death penalty, it is just senseless killing.

So I am confused…
Why treat the death penalty (not an intrinsic evil) as I would abortion (intrinsic evil).

 

[ReginaHenderson]

Sounds like you equate the two.
But it appears that you know better…

So I am confused…
Why treat the death penalty (not an intrinsic evil) as I would abortion (intrinsic evil).

I do see the two as similar. Abortion is always evil. The death penalty is, how ever more complicated. Now in the United States it is possible to keep a Murderer behind bars for the rest of his life with out there being much of a risk of him escaping. So the people can easily be protected from the murderer with out killing him. Thus there is no need to kill the person. It would be better to keep them alive so that they have a chance to repent their sins.

Pax Christi Vobiscum ,
Regina.

 

[estesbob]

I do see the two as similar. Abortion is always evil. The death penalty is, how ever more complicated. Now in the United States it is possible to keep a Murderer behind bars for the rest of his life with out there being much of a risk of him escaping. So the people can easily be protected from the murderer with out killing him. Thus there is no need to kill the person. It would be better to keep them alive so that they have a chance to repent their sins.

Pax Christi Vobiscum ,
Regina.

I agree with everythng you say above. But in an earlier post you seemed to imply that you would not vote for a canidate supporting the death penalty . That , of course, is your right but there simply is no comparisn between the death penalty and abortion. The Church has made it clear that a atholic can, in good conscience, support both the death penalty and canidates who favor it.

 

[ReginaHenderson]

I agree with everythng you say above. But in an earlier post you seemed to imply that you would not vote for a canidate supporting the death penalty . That , of course, is your right but there simply is no comparisn between the death penalty and abortion. The Church has made it clear that a atholic can, in good conscience, support both the death penalty and canidates who favor it.

I would not vote for either of them. It does not seem right to vote for some one being killed when it can be avoided with out detriment.

Pax Christi Vobiscum,
Regina

Ps. I might not respond until tomorrow after Mass because I have confession soon and then a birthday party.