Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics

[estesbob]

If you’re comfortable with the strength of your position it shouldn’t be necessary to obscure the truth.

The 1992 case you refer to was the Planned Parenthood v Casey decision which was decided 5-4. Three of the four who opposed its central ruling that reinforced Roe were Republican appointees (the fourth was a Kennedy appointee from before the time when Roe was an issue); the possibility of getting another justice who would oppose Roe from a Democrat president is virtually nil. The chances of getting such a justice from a Republican president are probably 50-50.

You may not consider it important to obtain a fifth justice who might oppose Roe but let’s be clear about what the situation really is. There are four justices who can reasonably be assumed to oppose Roe: all were appointed by Republican presidents. It is inconceivable that a Democrat president would appoint such a justice.

Ender

Had Robert Bork been on the bench Roe would have been overturned in 1992. He was not on the bench becuase a demoacrat congress would not confirm him.

 

[dmelosi]

Of all the Republicans you have voted for, which one has DONE the most for the unborn? Not talked about, DONE.

So what do you suggest? Give up the battle to stop the murder and promote abortion by voting for a democrat?

 

[estesbob]

Of all the Republicans you have voted for, which one has DONE the most for the unborn? Not talked about, DONE.

Lets take the current Presdient for example. Appointed two pro-llife judges to the USC. Signed the partial birth abortion ban-upheld becuase of the judges he appointed to the bench,. reinstated the mexico city protocol cuttng off funds to overseas abortion providers. Promoted and signed the “Born alive act”. Vetoed ligislation approving fetal cell stem clell research Promotes parental consent and informed consent laws-uniformly blocked by the Democrats in cogress. Most importantly he has been a passionate advocate for life.

Abortions, BTW, have dropped 10% since he took office.

 

[estesbob]

So what do you suggest? Give up the battle to stop the murder and promote abortion by voting for a democrat?

Note that we can never get an answer to “what issue or combination of issues trumps abortion?”

 

[dmelosi]

Note that we can never get an answer to “what issue or combination of issues trumps abortion?”

The only reason that I can think of is that many Catholics don’t believe that abortion is murder. Surely they don’t think it is murder and promote it like they do. Do they?

Maple and SoCal are correct in their views that any abortion is wrong…but it is like a giant whirlpool is sucking more and more Catholics & other Christians into it by dumbing down the fact of what abortion really is.

I as you believe that it is better to stop the bleeding within the party that is trying to change the law and take the stand publicly that they are pro life.

 

[Fitswimmer]

So what do you suggest? Give up the battle to stop the murder and promote abortion by voting for a democrat?

I’m suggesting that Pro Life voters stop thinking that the Republican party is interested in anything other than staying in power. I know too many Catholics who have voted, volunteered and donated to the Republican party for years because they believed that the Party was Pro life. However, when you ask those same people what the Party has actually done for the Pro Life cause, you hear crickets.

Don’t give up the battle-start looking at the facts and start fighting the real battle! As long as Pro Life voters continue to support the Republican party with their time, votes and money while nothing gets done-nothing ever will get done. The Republicans don’t need to do anything for the Pro Life cause-they’re getting the power anyway!

 

[Fitswimmer]

Lets take the current Presdient for example. Appointed two pro-llife judges to the USC. Signed the partial birth abortion ban-upheld becuase of the judges he appointed to the bench,. reinstated the mexico city protocol cuttng off funds to overseas abortion providers. Promoted and signed the “Born alive act”. Vetoed ligislation approving fetal cell stem clell research Promotes parental consent and informed consent laws-uniformly blocked by the Democrats in cogress. Most importantly he has been a passionate advocate for life.

Abortions, BTW, have dropped 10% since he took office.

Not true-from an article written by Pro Life ethicist Dr. Glen Harrold Stassen

I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information - federal reports go only to 2000, and many states do not report - but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are counterintuitive and disturbing.

Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation’s abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute’s studies).

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.

I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky’s increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan’s increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania’s increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).

Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013#5

 

[dmelosi]

I’m suggesting that Pro Life voters stop thinking that the Republican party is interested in anything other than staying in power. I know too many Catholics who have voted, volunteered and donated to the Republican party for years because they believed that the Party was Pro life. However, when you ask those same people what the Party has actually done for the Pro Life cause, you hear crickets.

Don’t give up the battle-start looking at the facts and start fighting the real battle! As long as Pro Life voters continue to support the Republican party with their time, votes and money while nothing gets done-nothing ever will get done. The Republicans don’t need to do anything for the Pro Life cause-they’re getting the power anyway!

And your answer is to vote democrat?

 

[aimee]

Dr. Glen Harrold Stassen is an anti war freemason also well versed on democrat talking points.

Andrew Sullivan linked to a seemingly ironic story noting that “after steady declines under Clinton, abortion rates have been increasing under Bush.” The author, Dr. Glen Harold Stassen, who claims to have been trained in statistical analysis, acknowledges that piecing the data together is difficult, but sees a marked increase in abortion rates between 2000 and 2003, in some cases double digits. He attributes this to women’s economic fears, lack of a stable mate (via unemployment) and health care fears, all tied in, of course, to Democrat talking points. Now, I am not trained in statistical analysis, but have very strong mathematical skills and have performed quite a bit of statistical analysis in the course of my professional career and believe there may be another contributing factor that Dr. Stassen is ignoring.

submandave.blogspot.com/2004/10/fun-with-statistics.html

 

[estesbob]

I’m suggesting that Pro Life voters stop thinking that the Republican party is interested in anything other than staying in power. I know too many Catholics who have voted, volunteered and donated to the Republican party for years because they believed that the Party was Pro life. However, when you ask those same people what the Party has actually done for the Pro Life cause, you hear crickets.

Don’t give up the battle-start looking at the facts and start fighting the real battle! As long as Pro Life voters continue to support the Republican party with their time, votes and money while nothing gets done-nothing ever will get done. The Republicans don’t need to do anything for the Pro Life cause-they’re getting the power anyway!

Of course everything you say above is demonstrably false but even if it were true why would the solution be to vote for canidates that unequivocably promote taxpayer funded abortion on demand?

I

 

[estesbob]

Dr. Glen Harrold Stassen is an anti war freemason

Any relation to perenial Presidential canidate of the 60s Harold Stassen?

 

[aimee]

Any relation to perenial Presidential canidate of the 60s Harold Stassen?

not sure if he’s the same

 

[frankadams]

Note that we can never get an answer to “what issue or combination of issues trumps abortion?”

Estes, this question that you posed directly to me was directly addressed by me in Post 87 a week ago. If you recall, you responded with an oh-so-clever remark reducing my post to Kerry supporting “better day care.” So kindly stop trying to puff yourself up by claiming we are “too scared” to answer your “tough” questions.

You call yourself more “pragmatic” than ideal in regards to this issue. As such, you say that is morally sound to support a candidate who supports some abortion over one who supports none on the basis that you don’t believe the truly pro-life candidate has a chance of winning.

A vote for John Kerry over George Bush could be justified in a similar manner. You justifiy your pro-choice vote by saying “I think he won’t get elected.” One could justify* their* pro-choice vote by saying, “I don’t think he’ll end abortion.” Both you and he would be making “pragmatic” decisions.

I do not know exactly what factors went into your conclusion tht a truly pro-life candidate “cannot win.” A Catholic who reaches a conclusion that a semi pro-life candidate “cannot or will not end abortion” might take in a variety of factors. This might include his statements about abortion before, during, and after the election. He might consider his Supreme Court nominees (if any) during his presidency. He might also consider the previous performance of other “pro-life” presidents of his party and the entire history of Roe and Casey and the relationship between those decisions and the party who helped make them possible. He may end up, like you, making a “pragmatic” decision that the candidate cannot or will not end abortion.

Beyond that “pragmatic” decision, he might consider other issues which directly address Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. He likely would especially take into account the hundreds of thousands killed by the war (not to mention the millions more injured and displaced.) He might examine other life issues, both in terms of their victims and their contributions to what Mother Church calls a “culture of death.”

The social programs that you dismiss so readily might further solidify his “pragmatic” decision. He might think about circumstances that help fuel more, rather than less, abortion. He might thing about circumstances that violate Catholic social justice teachings on “vast inequalities” which demonstrate a lack of respect for human dignity. He might look at Catholic teaching on human rights. He might look at particulars of Catholic social justice teaching, especially those of the magisterium here in America that have applied Catholic teaching to American issues, such as health care, the environment, global warming, welfare, taxes, affirmative action, immigration and a host of other issues that the Church deems important.

Mind you, he could recognize that abortion is a more important issue, but having already made (just like you) a “pragmatic” decision about what he think a president cannot or will not do, these dozens of other issues can further cement his decision to vote for Kerry.

Both of you are compromising. Both of you are voting for a candidate who supports an “intrinsic evil.” You made what you view as a “pragmatic” decision as the basis for your compromise. He did likewise.

My question remains: why is your “pragmatic” decision/compromise (arrived at in good faith and with “careful deliberation”) acceptable, but the Kerry voter’s “pragmatic” decision/compromise (arrived at the same way) categorically illicit?

Note that this is not all about “trumping issues,” it is also about history, power, and facts. A candidate can claim he is for ending all war, poverty, and starvation. However, as a Catholic, my “careful deliberation” must include an analysis of whether he truly intends to do so and whether or not he truly will do so. To leave this out of my decision making is to refuse the Holy’s Spirit’s gift of prudence.

I now repeat my still unanswered question: Why is your “pragmatic” decision/compromise (arrived at in good faith and with “careful deliberation”) to vote for a “limited abortion” candidate acceptable, but the a voter’s “pragmatic” decision/compromise (arrived at the same way) to vote for an “unlimited abortion” candidate categorically illicit?

 

[Fitswimmer]

Here is a link to a graph showing abortion rates from 1973-2007.

mccl.org/abortion_statistics.htm

If you look at the graph-abortion rates seem to have peaked in 1990 and then started a steady decline. The rates have remained fairly steady since the second term of GW Bush. No decline.

 

[estesbob]

Not true-from an article written by Pro Life ethicist Dr. Glen Harrold Stassen

sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013#5

LOL-I am suprised that anyone trots out that study anymore. Widely debunked even by the Planned Parenthood Gutamacher Insitute. . He interpolates national figures based on the experience in 16 states and even then he doesnt say abortion increased under Bush-just that the rate of decline was less than it was under Clinton.Iit turns out even that thesis was not true.

Even Stasen admits his study is deficient:

Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can’t substantiate his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the Guttmacher study and says it is “significantly better” than his own earlier effort:
Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute) bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.

I suggest members look at the thorough debunking of this study by the non-partisan group Factcheck. Org

factcheck.org/article330.html

Another examole of the mental mastrubation required to be catholic and rationaliz vorng for abortion on demand canidates

 

[Fitswimmer]

Any relation to perenial Presidential canidate of the 60s Harold Stassen?

I have no idea-nor do I care. His FACTS can be authenticated by looking at his sources.

What you have not done in any of your posts, is produce verifiable sources for your claims that the Republican party has done so much for the Pro Life cause. If you would be so kind as to do that, perhaps those of us who are as of yet unconvinced that the Republican party is a real friend to the unborn might change our minds.

 

[dmelosi]

Here is a link to a graph showing abortion rates from 1973-2007.

mccl.org/abortion_statistics.htm

If you look at the graph-abortion rates seem to have peaked in 1990 and then started a steady decline. The rates have remained fairly steady since the second term of GW Bush. No decline.

In your first post that quotes abortion rates, you seem to endorse the idea that abortion rates have gone up.

You were called on your source for that. Now you quote another source that is even more unreliable.

Who is trying to fool who here?

 

[Fitswimmer]

LOL-I am suprised that anyone trots out that study anymore. Widely debunked even by the Planned Parenthood Gutamacher Insitute. . He interpolates national figures based on the experience in 16 states and even then he doesnt say abortion increased under Bush-just that the rate of decline was less than it was under Clinton.Iit turns out even that thesis was not true.

Even Stasen admits his study is deficient:

Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can’t substantiate his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the Guttmacher study and says it is “significantly better” than his own earlier effort:
Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute) bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.

I suggest members look at the thorough debunking of this study by the non-partisan group Factcheck. Org

factcheck.org/article330.html

Another examole of the mental mastrubation required to be catholic and rationaliz vorng for abortion on demand canidates

New data informs abortion rate debate

FactCheck.org recently released a report attacking the claim, originally made in an October SojoMail article by Glen Stassen, that abortion rates have risen under the Bush administration. FactCheck’s main criticism focuses on the scope of data used, claiming that “Stassen’s broad conclusion wasn’t justified by the sketchy information he cited.”

Stassen has responded by affirming that new data from the Allen Guttmacher Institute (AGI) - previously unavailable since it was prompted by the debate surrounding his original article - shows that “the dramatic decline in number of abortions of the '90s…has now stalled almost to a stop. My initial study thought it had actually reversed.” Though a stall in the decline of abortions is not the increase he originally projected, for those pursuing a consistent pro-life ethic, these updated statistics still paint a troubling picture.

Moreover, Stassen agrees with AGI’s report that “It takes time for political decisions to be reflected in the statistical data, so it is too soon to tell what the impact of Bush administration policies will be on U.S. abortion rates,” but asserts his original analysis was made with the best data available at the time, and welcomes increased attention on how factors such as financial support for mothers, availability of medical insurance, and jobless rates impact abortion rates.

• See FactCheck.org’s article

• Read Stassen’s response

 

[Fitswimmer]

From Stassen’s Response to Fact Check

In the data from the Center for Disease Control, abortions as a ratio of all births
actually increased slightly in 2001 (CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
Sept 26, 2004, page 16), while AGI estimates the ratio to have neither declined
nor increased in 2001. The small difference is within the range of likely error, and
thus the two reports do not actually contradict each other. The AGI estimates that
the ratio declined very slightly in 2002, by 0.3 points from 24.5 to 24.2. This, too
is within the range of possible error, especially if all 50 states and the District of
Columbia were included.

I commend the honesty of the AGI study: They tested their methods by seeing
how well these methods would have worked for estimating the data in 1997
based on the 1996 data. The result was an error of 1%. This is larger than their
estimated decline in abortions for 2002 of 0.8%, and larger than their estimated
change in abortion ratios for 2002 of 0.3. This amounts to a stall in the dramatic
declines that happened in the 1990s, and is consistent with the slowing of the
reductions in abortions ever since Aid to Families with Dependent Children was
abolished and poor families have received much decreased financial security—
now even further decreased under Bush policies. The Roman Catholic bishops
warned at the time that this undermining of financial support for mothers would
probably halt the decline in abortion rates or even cause them to increase. I
believe they were right in their warning.

 

[mapleoak]

Note that we can never get an answer to “what issue or combination of issues trumps abortion?”

none.

Sometimes it is hard to see, but in case you missed it.