L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I’d like to know the answer to that question, too.
- Status
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
I didn’t make the claim that one is more reliable than the other but both the CDC and Guttmacher Institute statistics I posted, show a decline in the abortion rate in the years cited in post #1191. Do you mean data for different years than the years cited in that post? Perhaps the CDC and Guttmacher Institute’s numbers differ because of the way in which they collect the data, I’m not 100% sure, but you claimed in post #1880, “Then why do abortions only go down under Democratic Presidents?” - you were not accurate. Are you going to acknowledge that you were innacurate?
C
Crossbones
Guest
Well, let’s look at what Bishop Kicanas said:
INTERVIEWER: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?
BISHOP KICANAS: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.
So, it’s not a slam dunk when referring to the selection between Obama and McCain. Given Obama and McCain’s positions were well known, why would he answer this question this way if you couldn’t vote for the pro-choice candidate?
C
Crossbones
Guest
Based on the CDC data, it was accurate.
Let’s look at the Guttmacher data.
1981-1992: Pretty flat.
1993-2000: About a 17% decline in abortion
2001-2008: About a 7% decline in abortion
2009-2011: About a 7% drop in abortions.
So, it would seem based on the Guttmacher Institute that abortion did decline under President GW Bush, but it has declined at a faster rate under Democratic Presidents.
E
estesbob
Guest
It turns out that Republican presidents average lower abortion numbers and lower abortion rates than Democrat presidents. On average, under Democrat leadership, there were 70,172 MORE abortions per year than under Republican leadership. According to this data, a Democrat president leads to an average increase in the abortion rate of 5.29% more than a Republican.
savelivesonline.com/pro-life-commentary/should-catholics-vote-democrat-to-reduce-abortions
Recycling the Myth that Abortions Decrease Under Pro-Abortion Democratic Presidents
nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/11/recycling-the-myth-that-abortions-decrease-under-pro-abortion-democratic-presidents/#.VxYfnmBOm2c
In fact, Guttmacher’s most recent published figures show 106,800 fewer abortions in George Bush’s fifth year than in Bill Clinton’s last year in office. That represents an 8 percent decline in the number of abortions and an even larger decline – 9 percent – in the rate of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 through 44.
factcheck.org/2008/08/saddleback-bloopers/
savelivesonline.com/pro-life-commentary/should-catholics-vote-democrat-to-reduce-abortions
Recycling the Myth that Abortions Decrease Under Pro-Abortion Democratic Presidents
nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/11/recycling-the-myth-that-abortions-decrease-under-pro-abortion-democratic-presidents/#.VxYfnmBOm2c
In fact, Guttmacher’s most recent published figures show 106,800 fewer abortions in George Bush’s fifth year than in Bill Clinton’s last year in office. That represents an 8 percent decline in the number of abortions and an even larger decline – 9 percent – in the rate of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 through 44.
factcheck.org/2008/08/saddleback-bloopers/
E
estesbob
Guest
Through the hard work for those of us involved in the pro-life ministry we have been able to reduce the number of abortions in this country from approximately 1.5 million per year to under 1.2 million per year . We did this by founding and staffing CBCs and working with Republican elected officials to pass laws from parental consent to the partial-birth abortion bill . Because of these efforts we have seen the defunding Planned Parenthood in several states and abortion clinics closing down all over the country We have done this spite of the unified opposition of the Democrat Party . It is absolutely ludicrous to dismiss our hard work and give credit to those who work ceaselessly to keep abortion legal in this country
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Now you are acknowledging that abortion has declined under a Republican President.
Can you provide a source for those statistics?
Here’s the reason why the CDC and Guttmacher Institute statistics on abortion are different:
politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/21/barack-obama/abortion-numbers-have-gone-down/
E
estesbob
Guest
So you can provide no direct quotes to back up your position,? I have.
Z
zz912
Guest
You cited Fr. Pavone as a reliable authority when falsely claiming he said it was okay to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
C
Crossbones
Guest
I have provided quotes from Bishop Kicanas. He is clearly talking about the 2008 election between McCain and Obama and he is saying that it is not a slam dunk, but there are a lot of issues that need to be considered.
I’m sure everyone reading those comments (or the entire article) can interpret it and I think everyone should read the article and Faithful Citizenship guide and determine what it says for themselves.
C
Crossbones
Guest
Yes, it did decline under President GW Bush and stayed flat under President Reagan and President GHW Bush.
nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/FS01AbortionintheUS.pdf is what I used.
C
Crossbones
Guest
I’m not dismissing anything. Correlation does not equal causation. It just is true that the abortion rates fell at a higher rate under Democratic Presidents than Republican Presidents. I don’t know why that would be.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
I don’t know how you came to those percentages in post #1202 from that source?
If you look at abortion under George W Bush, if you look at the data there is variance, increase, decrease, year by year, but when you look at the data from a different angle over multiple years:
Read more at: nationalreview.com/corner/182510/abortion-statistics-101-michael-j-new
The abortion decline can not have been flat from 2000-2005, per above statistics.
E
estesbob
Guest
You don’t have to “interpret” the quotes and documents I have provided. When people start relying on their personal interpretation rather than the direct teachings of the church they generally come up with an interpretation that agrees with their political views .
C
CatholicKnight3
Guest
I am trying to see your point. I admit that many republicans only pay lip service in order to edify the evangelical or Christian vote. That, I know is true.
I am trying to find where GW Bush was openly pro choice. That is a rather big issue imo. I can tell you most democrats are openly and unapologetically pro choice.
It really does not matter all that much what percentages of abortion happen under this presidency or that presidency. Does it.
What is the point here? It is legal in this country and our tax dollars are now funding this. To which I am not sure we are suppose to pay our taxes until we find out that our tax dollars are not funding it.
Personally, I sort of think we are not suppose to, and if we ALL decided to stop paying them until we know for sure, then there might be a movement to stop it. Yes, even at the risk of being imprisoned.
I know many will say we are suppose to “obey the law of the land” as a convenient excuse to avoid being imprisoned. I am fairly certain Gods Law takes precedent over any man made godless law. Pretty sure. I mean the early Christians were breaking Roman law by spreading the Gospel. They did it. Were they suppose to “obey the law of the land?” I doubt the Gospel would have made much headway if the early Christians decided to obey the Roman law which was the law of the land.
I am just curious what your point is. Is there a suggestion that since the percentage of abortions were less under the Clintons that they were actually pro-life and Bush was pro choice?
C
CatholicKnight3
Guest
The problem is if the teaching of the Church breaks the Law of God, then I am not sure we are suppose to follow it.
I hear what you say in regards to interpretation. This has been an argument I have used many times with various protestants. To which many say they follow the “word of God,” to which I would always say you are actually following your INTERPRETATION of the word, which is different.
However, there are clear moral laws and they are not “relative.” For example, homosexuality is and always has been AN ABOMINATION. Period. Any church that recognizes HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE as something that is blessed by the Lord and has a ceremony in CHURCH is committing an absolute and deliberate mortal sin. To which, I would never follow it, regardless if the Church ever tells me I am to accept it or not. That, I can tell you.
That is an example. So, the Church is still under the eyes of Our Lord. Period.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Crossbones made this comment on post #1180 - “Then why do abortions only go down under Democratic Presidents?”I am trying to see your point. I admit that many republicans only pay lip service in order to edify the evangelical or Christian vote. That, I know is true.
I am trying to find where GW Bush was openly pro choice. That is a rather big issue imo. I can tell you most democrats are openly and unapologetically pro choice.
It really does not matter all that much what percentages of abortion happen under this presidency or that presidency. Does it.
What is the point here? It is legal in this country and our tax dollars are now funding this. To which I am not sure we are suppose to pay our taxes until we find out that our tax dollars are not funding it.
Personally, I sort of think we are not suppose to, and if we ALL decided to stop paying them until we know for sure, then there might be a movement to stop it. Yes, even at the risk of being imprisoned.
I know many will say we are suppose to “obey the law of the land” as a convenient excuse to avoid being imprisoned. I am fairly certain Gods Law takes precedent over any man made godless law. Pretty sure. I mean the early Christians were breaking Roman law by spreading the Gospel. They did it. Were they suppose to “obey the law of the land?” I doubt the Gospel would have made much headway if the early Christians decided to obey the Roman law which was the law of the land.
I am just curious what your point is. Is there a suggestion that since the percentage of abortions were less under the Clintons that they were actually pro-life and Bush was pro choice?
I’m simply trying to refute that claim because I don’t believe looking at the statistics that that claim is accurate. The abortion rate has declined under Democratic and Republican administrations and this is probably due to multifaceted reasons. In terms of under Barack Obama’s presidency, perhaps in part due to abortion regulation laws that have been made law, largely thanks to Republicans who took majorities in many state legislatures after being elected after the 2010 midterm elections and Republican Governors for signing the bills into law. Some Democrats may have also voted for these laws, but I suspect very few in comparison to Republicans. What impact have these laws had during Barack Obama’s Presidency? And this source says during Bill Clinton’s presidency, “In addition to Clinton being President, state legislatures during these years were dominated by Republicans who were able to pass modest legislation (like public-funding restrictions and informed-consent laws) that effectively reduced state abortion rates–as shown most recently by Michael New.”
C
CatholicKnight3
Guest
Oh, ok.
I guess my point is whoever was trying to claim that since the percentages of abortions happening at a lesser rate when a democrat is in white house means that they are NOT pro choice?
I always love that term. “Pro choice.”
Most of those pro choice people are dead set against a pregnant woman smoking or drinking during their pregnancy too. I have met them.
I always find that interesting. On one hand, they claim the woman has the right to do whatever they want with their body regardless of the child in her womb, express their disgust at a woman smoking while pregnant.
For those Seinfeld fans for example. Elaine, in one episode shows her full support for pro choice and is disgusted by anyone that is pro life. In another episode, she expresses her disdain for a woman smoking while pregnant.
Just an example of double standards.
Anyway, thank you for the clarification there.
C
CatholicKnight3
Guest
Amen!
I will show what they say, since many will not click on the link.
PIUS IX (1846-1878)http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/images/stories/articles/Pius-IX.jpg
The Overthrow of Order
“You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings.”
(Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, December 8, 1849)
LEO XIII (1878-1903)http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/images/stories/articles/Leo-XIII.jpg
Overthrow is Deliberately Planned
“… For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists.”
(Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, n. 27)
Debasing the Natural Union of Man and Woman
“They [socialists, communists, or nihilists] debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust.
(Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)
The Harvest of Misery
“…there is need for a union of brave minds with all the resources they can command. The harvest of misery is before our eyes, and the dreadful projects of the most disastrous national upheavals are threatening us from the growing power of the socialistic movement.”
(Encyclical Graves de Communi Re, January 18, 1901, n. 21)
SAINT PIUS X (1903-1914)http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/images/stories/articles/St-Pius-X.jpg
The Dream of Re-Shaping Society will Bring Socialism
“But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, ‘the reign of love and justice’ … What are they going to produce? … A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.”
(Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique “Our Apostolic Mandate”] to the French Bishops, August 15, 1910, condemning the movement Le Sillon)
- Status