- Status
B
Bucky24
Guest
Who was supporting abortion?? I abhor abortion. I abhor murder of any kind by anyone.
Bucky
R
rpp
Guest
That is good.
You can support abortion by voting for a pro-abortion candidate. That is the point of this thread.
That and the fact that abortion trumps other issues, including the War in Iraq.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Bucky,
You’re against the war, that’s clear. Me, I’m a Soldier and I completely disagree with your assessment that the war was unnecessary, or for oil, and know for certain that 600,000 civilians have not been killed in Iraq. Besides, rather than placing all the blame at the feet of our President…widen your scope…Saddam himself, the world leaders that would not support sanctions against Iraq, the terrorists who are taking advantage of the situation…Iran…Syria…the first Bush for not finishing the Gulf War by taking Saddam out…but this is getting off the topic of the thread…it’s simply politically and morally irresponsible to be a single issue voter when considering Social Justice. Is it ok to vote for a guy who is Pro-Life, but also thinks the solution to the troubles in the middle east is to drop a nuke…or more probably a pro-lifer who thinks it’s best to roll over and pull a Nevel Chamberlain?
You’re against the war, that’s clear. Me, I’m a Soldier and I completely disagree with your assessment that the war was unnecessary, or for oil, and know for certain that 600,000 civilians have not been killed in Iraq. Besides, rather than placing all the blame at the feet of our President…widen your scope…Saddam himself, the world leaders that would not support sanctions against Iraq, the terrorists who are taking advantage of the situation…Iran…Syria…the first Bush for not finishing the Gulf War by taking Saddam out…but this is getting off the topic of the thread…it’s simply politically and morally irresponsible to be a single issue voter when considering Social Justice. Is it ok to vote for a guy who is Pro-Life, but also thinks the solution to the troubles in the middle east is to drop a nuke…or more probably a pro-lifer who thinks it’s best to roll over and pull a Nevel Chamberlain?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Maybe someone has already said this, but here goes.
I think if Giuliani is the Republican candidate vs Hillary Clinton, one must vote for Giuliani, even if he/she has to hold his/her nose to do it. Giuliani might by lying, but he says he will appoint Supreme Court justices of the Thomas and Scalia type. That’s clearly a message intended for those who are prolife. But, of course, maybe by that he meant “otherwise conservative” (but not prolife). But we know what Clinton is and what she’ll do. At least with Giuliani (and he’s certainly not my favorite) there’s a chance for a prolife court. With Clinton, there’s none.
I also think voting for Clinton is, indeed, a sin. That’s a knowing vote for a pro-abortion candidate, who will absolutely fill any court vacancies with pro-abortion judges. No doubt about it. Beside that, all promised “social programs” pale. Besides, Democrats (and I was born and raised one and held office in the party) haven’t done anything for the poor or working people in decades. They’re just as much in bed with big business as the Republicans are. At least the Republicans admit it.
I think if Giuliani is the Republican candidate vs Hillary Clinton, one must vote for Giuliani, even if he/she has to hold his/her nose to do it. Giuliani might by lying, but he says he will appoint Supreme Court justices of the Thomas and Scalia type. That’s clearly a message intended for those who are prolife. But, of course, maybe by that he meant “otherwise conservative” (but not prolife). But we know what Clinton is and what she’ll do. At least with Giuliani (and he’s certainly not my favorite) there’s a chance for a prolife court. With Clinton, there’s none.
I also think voting for Clinton is, indeed, a sin. That’s a knowing vote for a pro-abortion candidate, who will absolutely fill any court vacancies with pro-abortion judges. No doubt about it. Beside that, all promised “social programs” pale. Besides, Democrats (and I was born and raised one and held office in the party) haven’t done anything for the poor or working people in decades. They’re just as much in bed with big business as the Republicans are. At least the Republicans admit it.
B
BobP123
Guest
We haven’t even begun the primaries yet. Certainly Guiliani isn’t the most pro-life of the Republican candidates. Everything else being equal, wouldn’t it be a sin to vote for him in the primaries by your reasoning?
B
Bucky24
Guest
I agree with much of what you say, however the decision to go to war was our President’s. The UN inspectors were never given a chance. Now, he continues this charade that going into Iraq had something to do with terrorism. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq until we upset the balance in the region. Why was it so important to take Saddam out?
What about our new “First Strike” policy. What would Jesus have to say about that? Again, I contend that my points are VERY on topic and your comments brought me back to my original point. Indeed voting on one issue is very dangerous. Very dangerous indeed.
Again, I really hate what has been done to our democracy in the name of terrorism. I hate to say it, but I think they have already won.
I truly appreciate the service you have done in the name of us. I have a problem with the mission not with the troops. You all go where you are told. I only pray that the troops are treated well as more of the citizens learn the truth of what has happened in the last 6 1/2 years. Hopefully we have learned from the past in Vietnam. Don’t blame the troops. They were simply doing their job!
B
Bucky24
Guest
B
Bucky24
Guest
What is the source of this information? Anyone can put up a web site. 600,000 is an estimate done by the UN.
Bucky
R
rpp
Guest
Off topic.
This is a thread about voting for Candidates that support abortion. This thread that has nothing to do with the Iraq war.
B
Bucky24
Guest
It’s on topic if you’re talking about deaths to innocent people. The primary difference is that these people have already been born. I will never understand why the majority of Catholics put a greater emphasis on protecting the unborn or dying than the living.
Pope John Paul II spoke at length of the Sanctity of Life. All life.
I suggest that you read his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, “The Gospel of Life” where he writes: "I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral”.
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM
If you believe this is off-topic, then I think you’ve completely missed my point.
Bucky
M
mozart-250
Guest
I’ll ignore the part about “Their oil” for now (but that is blatantly false and off topic).
I’ll use your number of 600K (although it is probably high and it puts the blame on this administration when the reality is that we are dealing with shades of grey). And I will go with the (probably conservative) number of 40M abortions since Roe v. Wade.
Using these figures the amount of Iraqi civilians dead is 1.5 percent of the innocent human lives killed by abortion.
I will continue to vote solely on the issue of abortion thank you.
E
Excelency
Guest
Lets see. Richard Nixon (a republican) was president when Roe V Wade became law. I’ll have to check but I think the supreme court at the time had a republican majority. So, who is pro life and who is pro choice? I have not seen anything more that hot air from the republicans about ending their abortion holocaust. The record shows that the republicans are pro liars not pro lifers.
The republicans want the vote so they will say anything, even hate for abortion. I don’t believe them. The republicans talk but do nothing, as a result, with all the anti abortion actions taken by the republicans, we have fourty million dead citizens with no end in sight. And, his excelency, President George W. Bush has just promised to veto a new bill that would provide health care for millions of uninsured children. A real pro lifer here, we sure need more of his kind to save the children don’t we. With anti abortion candidates like that we can look forward to another fourty million.
The republicans want the vote so they will say anything, even hate for abortion. I don’t believe them. The republicans talk but do nothing, as a result, with all the anti abortion actions taken by the republicans, we have fourty million dead citizens with no end in sight. And, his excelency, President George W. Bush has just promised to veto a new bill that would provide health care for millions of uninsured children. A real pro lifer here, we sure need more of his kind to save the children don’t we. With anti abortion candidates like that we can look forward to another fourty million.
B
Bucky24
Guest
Well said! The truth of the matter is that the abortion rate has increased during G W’s reign compared to a decrease in the rate during Clinton’s time in office. This is largely due to economic factors. By further marginalizing the poor, the effect has been to increase the abortion rate. What affect do you think an increase in uninsured children will have on the abortion rate?
Bucky
K
Koru
Guest
I think the only thing I can say when someone votes for a candidate that is pro-abortion and in turn, gets elected for presidency is this…
When that person you voted for advances the commonality of abortion and/or euthanasia, remember that your vote counts as support for that person’s actions and authority. This is how I perceive the issue at least… but there are times when you need to weigh the evils and vote for the lesser of the two (or three)
If all candidates are pro-abortion and there is simply no way around it, there are two choices that can be made. You can either:
1.) Not vote at all and wash your hands of the matter…
2.) Realize that one of them is going to be the next president and research them all extensively to determine who you’d prefer over the others if there was no way around it and let your morals be your guide (and pray you made the right choice).
When that person you voted for advances the commonality of abortion and/or euthanasia, remember that your vote counts as support for that person’s actions and authority. This is how I perceive the issue at least… but there are times when you need to weigh the evils and vote for the lesser of the two (or three)
If all candidates are pro-abortion and there is simply no way around it, there are two choices that can be made. You can either:
1.) Not vote at all and wash your hands of the matter…
2.) Realize that one of them is going to be the next president and research them all extensively to determine who you’d prefer over the others if there was no way around it and let your morals be your guide (and pray you made the right choice).
B
Bucky24
Guest
M
mary_bobo
Guest
With all due respect, these are not SOME issues that I mention. They are the non-negotiable issues as far as Church teaching is concerned. I hardly think they qualify as “sound bites”. And to call the teachings of the church “ignorant” is beyond the pale. The church has stated that there are just wars and unjust wars, and we each are able to decide for ourselves whether the current situation in Iraq is just or no. That has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand. And your bringing Karl Rove into the discussion is nosensical.
B
Bucky24
Guest
Pope John Paul II declared before the 2003 war that it was an unjust war. Don’t take my word for it, see the following article: cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html
If you don’t see the connection to the Gospel of Life then I can’t help you.
As for bringing Karl Rove in to the discussion, up until a couple of weeks ago, he was the architect of this administration’s propaganda machine. The sound bites I am referring to are his tactics not the teachings of the church.
I NEVER called the Church’s teachings ignorant, only those who blindly select a candidate based on one issue without looking the rest of their platform or their record. Ignorant and irresponsible!!
Bucky
M
mary_bobo
Guest
You refuse to keep on the topic. We are discussing whether or not it is a sin to vote for a pro-choice candidate. Karl Rove has nothing to do with that. I hardly think most of us choose a candidate based on one issue, but there are those issues which are not up for grabs. And I do not think many of our posters are either ignorant or irresponsible. Please read the forum rules.Pope John Paul II declared before the 2003 war that it was an unjust war. Don’t take my word for it, see the following article: cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html
If you don’t see the connection to the Gospel of Life then I can’t help you.
As for bringing Karl Rove in to the discussion, up until a couple of weeks ago, he was the architect of this administration’s propaganda machine. The sound bites I am referring to are his tactics not the teachings of the church.
I NEVER called the Church’s teachings ignorant, only those who blindly select a candidate based on one issue without looking the rest of their platform or their record. Ignorant and irresponsible!!
Bucky
E
Excelency
Guest
Precisely my point. There are no anti abortion candidates. Only those who make clear their intentions and those who hide behind them claiming to be champions of the unborn. If you vote for any politician you have voted for abortion in America. Don’t cast a vote and think, well I’ve done all I can do, at least he/she is against it.
You do not count, your family does not count and the unborn children do not count, only money. That is THE ONLY thing that matters to our politicians. If the republicans thought that being pro choice was the only thing would keep them on the hill, guess how they would vote. Please remember that America has the finest politicians that money can buy.
- Status