Voting: Where is the pro-life choice on our ballots?

[Ani_Ibi]

**This thread is not for debating for or against abortion. When the time comes to vote, who can we vote for who is pro-life? There doesn’t seem to be a coherent political strategy for returning North American life to its senses. That’s the problem. What’s the solution? **

1) What needs to happen to turn this around 180 degrees?

**2) Who needs to do it? Who is out there who is a good pro-life politician? Who is out there who would make a good pro-life politician? **

3) Where in the U.S. is pro-life flourishing?

4) When can we expect a pro-life choice on our ballots?

---

5) How do we start? (Small steps please)

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Hi Ani, this is a great thread

!) What needs to happen first is TRUTH Planned Parenthood are allowed to go into public schools and also some private schools and teach “sex ed”.They talk about abortion as if you are getting a tooth pulled I am 35 and heard the “blob of cells” routine in the ninth grade:banghead: Now they are “teaching” this much earlier. We have to push them to have to tell the truth!!!They show child birth to students:ehh: Well, they need to be mandated to show an abortion and the aftermath,and at different stages.They scream choice but in order to make a free and unhindered “choice” you have to know the facts.
2)We need to put pressure on the politicians that are pro-life,and we need to use the truth to convince them to push for this.Also, as far as the public school arena,we should raise cain because the fact that planned parenthood are in there in the first place is violating our freedom of religion.If they want to make these laws for the atheist they must do so for us.
3)In Mississippi there is one abortion mill in the whole state and it is close to shutting down due to the very little"business " it has.
4)If planned parethood has anything to say about it we will have pro-life ballots when hell freezes over:nope:
5)We need to lobby the politicians and the media, set up protests in front of TV stations as well,with all the meaningless violence, the fact they show everything else even sitcoms will have sexual inuindos and talk about abortions.Well,seeing as how we do have freedom of speach and the media has run with it,and are very biased in promoting abortion,let them put their money where their mouth is Show abortions and the result at the differents stages of pregnancy and include the emotional and psycological toll on women:tsktsk: If they refuse(which they will)take it to court under the freedom of information act and freedom of speech.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Thank you, Lisa. You have given this quite a bit of detailed thought. Who emerges as candidates for a pro-life platform?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Ani Ibi:

Thank you, Lisa. You have given this quite a bit of detailed thought. Who emerges as candidates for a pro-life platform?

Therein lies the problem, like Father Pavone says we have to vote for the most Pro-life candidate that has a reasonable chance of winning.Because even if they are somewhat off base in some of the pro-life issues,they will help to chip away at the death culture.I heard Jeb Bush is thinking about running the next presidential race,and I know he is a convert to Catholicism,and he has saved Terri Shiavo once from starvation,I would be interested to find out if he is totally in complience with Church teachings,what do you think?God Bless

 

[jlw]

Lisa4Catholics pretty much says it all.

I will say that we must be energetically putting forth effort on 1) 2) and 5).

That said, the reality of politics at the national level is about building coalitions and majorities. It is not a clean business. The ones with backbone and principles rarely get out of the primaries. It is what it is.

If we can’t elect a staunch pro-life candidate, then we mush vote for the most pro-life candidate (ie Bush). This is a LONG war, and each battle matters. The 180 degree turn won’t happen overnight. It will turn in 10 degree or 25 degree shifts, have a setback, and then progress toward our goal again.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Lisa4Catholics:

Therein lies the problem, like Father Pavone says we have to vote for the most Pro-life candidate that has a reasonable chance of winning.Because even if they are somewhat off base in some of the pro-life issues,they will help to chip away at the death culture.

Sounds do-able to me.

Lisa4Catholics:

I heard Jeb Bush is thinking about running the next presidential race,and I know he is a convert to Catholicism,and he has saved Terri Shiavo once from starvation,I would be interested to find out if he is totally in complience with Church teachings,what do you think?God Bless

I really have no idea. I’m Canadian. I am hoping to sit back here and listen to what yall have to say.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

jlw:

This is a LONG war, and each battle matters. The 180 degree turn won’t happen overnight. It will turn in 10 degree or 25 degree shifts, have a setback, and then progress toward our goal again.

Whew! Those are rousing words of wisdom. Have you thought of running for office? And Lisa too?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Well jlw what do you think?We can ask ANI to move here from Canada and be are politicag advisor God Bless you ANI

 

[km112482]

Lisa4Catholics:

Hi Ani, this is a great thread

!) What needs to happen first is TRUTH Planned Parenthood are allowed to go into public schools and also some private schools and teach “sex ed”.They talk about abortion as if you are getting a tooth pulled I am 35 and heard the “blob of cells” routine in the ninth grade:banghead: Now they are “teaching” this much earlier. We have to push them to have to tell the truth!!!They show child birth to students:ehh: Well, they need to be mandated to show an abortion and the aftermath,and at different stages.They scream choice but in order to make a free and unhindered “choice” you have to know the facts.
2)We need to put pressure on the politicians that are pro-life,and we need to use the truth to convince them to push for this.Also, as far as the public school arena,we should raise cain because the fact that planned parenthood are in there in the first place is violating our freedom of religion.If they want to make these laws for the atheist they must do so for us.
3)In Mississippi there is one abortion mill in the whole state and it is close to shutting down due to the very little"business " it has.
4)If planned parethood has anything to say about it we will have pro-life ballots when hell freezes over:nope:
5)We need to lobby the politicians and the media, set up protests in front of TV stations as well,with all the meaningless violence, the fact they show everything else even sitcoms will have sexual inuindos and talk about abortions.Well,seeing as how we do have freedom of speach and the media has run with it,and are very biased in promoting abortion,let them put their money where their mouth is Show abortions and the result at the differents stages of pregnancy and include the emotional and psycological toll on women:tsktsk: If they refuse(which they will)take it to court under the freedom of information act and freedom of speech.

Ok I dont think anyone can say it better than that Lisa!

You are so right. You Go Girl!

God Bless,
Kerri

 

[km112482]

By the way,

**LISA FOR PRESIDENT!!!:clapping: **

**God Bless, **
**Kerri **

 

[jlw]

Lisa4Catholics:

Well jlw what do you think?We can ask ANI to move here from Canada and be are politicag advisor God Bless you ANI

HA!

Well…God has forgiven me for my past skeletons…but I don’t think the MSM would.

I think…more gets done by people NOT in government. Of course, because I think that, I vote republican!

Political activist, not making headlines. That’s me.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Lisa4Catholics:

Well jlw what do you think?We can ask ANI to move here from Canada and be are politicag advisor God Bless you ANI

Leaping Lizards! Do you know what you are asking? If I were your political advisor, the U.S. would be back in the Stone Age before the first tulips popped. No no no. You don’t want that.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Democrat Bill Casey Jr and Republican Rick Santorum, both running for Penn Senator seat in 06, are both Catholic pro-life; or so I hear.

Winthrop Rockefeller, currently Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas and candidate for Governor in the next election was at one time mildly pro-choice but, accordingly to my secret source on another thread, he as seen the light.

Anybody know anything about these guys?

 

[jlw]

Ani Ibi:

Democrat Bill Casey Jr and Republican Rick Santorum, both running for Penn Senator seat in 06, are both Catholic pro-life; or so I hear.

Winthrop Rockefeller, currently Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas and candidate for Governor in the next election was at one time mildly pro-choice but, accordingly to my secret source on another thread, he as seen the light.

Anybody know anything about these guys?

OF COURSE!! Looking forward to the Casey v Santorum fight. With abortion off the table (we hope, anyway. God help us if some dang political advisor makes one of 'em go “moderate” on us), it will be a battle over the role of government in our lives, which is the real debate worth having.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

jlw:

OF COURSE!! Looking forward to the Casey v Santorum fight. With abortion off the table (we hope, anyway. God help us if some dang political advisor makes one of 'em go “moderate” on us), it will be a battle over the role of government in our lives, which is the real debate worth having.

Yeah just south of us in Penn; so real close.

 

[mtr01]

Lisa4Catholics:

Therein lies the problem, like Father Pavone says we have to vote for the most Pro-life candidate that has a reasonable chance of winning.Because even if they are somewhat off base in some of the pro-life issues,they will help to chip away at the death culture.I heard Jeb Bush is thinking about running the next presidential race,and I know he is a convert to Catholicism,and he has saved Terri Shiavo once from starvation,I would be interested to find out if he is totally in complience with Church teachings,what do you think?God Bless

You know, I’m still not convinced by Fr. Pavone’s argument on this. I find something totally illogical about the “most pro-life” position. Perhaps it’s just my tendency to want to see things in black and white, but I think that for anyone to call themselves “pro-life” and still argue for abortion even if only in limited circumstances is illogical. In other words “mostly pro-life” is nonsense to me.

I see this type of thinking as a type of slippery slope. “Well, if abortion or euthanasia is OK in this instance, perhaps they might be OK in other situations as well.” In addition, my suspicious nature also leads me to believe that such a position is based more on political rather than moral issues - one can appease pro-life voters while still seeming to be “redeemable” by the pro-abortion voters. I have no faith in someone like that to make any real progress in pro-life issues (OK, I’m jaded too).

Unless I see some real evidence to the contrary, I still believe that the best way to go about making a change is to forget one’s affiliation to whatever political party he or she belongs to, and start voting Catholic. That means supporting only candidates that are 100% pro-life, no exceptions (even if they are 3rd party candidates). Let’s face it, there are 66 million Catholics in this country. If we all (or even most of us) started voting like it, we could make a huge difference in the types of candidates who run for, and are elected to office. Can you imagine the ideological reshuffing of the major parties if significant numbers of votes were being cast for 100% pro-life candidates (with that being the express reason for the votes)?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mtr01:

You know, I’m still not convinced by Fr. Pavone’s argument on this. I find something totally illogical about the “most pro-life” position. Perhaps it’s just my tendency to want to see things in black and white, but I think that for anyone to call themselves “pro-life” and still argue for abortion even if only in limited circumstances is illogical. In other words “mostly pro-life” is nonsense to me.

I see this type of thinking as a type of slippery slope. “Well, if abortion or euthanasia is OK in this instance, perhaps they might be OK in other situations as well.” In addition, my suspicious nature also leads me to believe that such a position is based more on political rather than moral issues - one can appease pro-life voters while still seeming to be “redeemable” by the pro-abortion voters. I have no faith in someone like that to make any real progress in pro-life issues (OK, I’m jaded too).

Unless I see some real evidence to the contrary, I still believe that the best way to go about making a change is to forget one’s affiliation to whatever political party he or she belongs to, and start voting Catholic. That means supporting only candidates that are 100% pro-life, no exceptions (even if they are 3rd party candidates). Let’s face it, there are 66 million Catholics in this country. If we all (or even most of us) started voting like it, we could make a huge difference in the types of candidates who run for, and are elected to office. Can you imagine the ideological reshuffing of the major parties if significant numbers of votes were being cast for 100% pro-life candidates (with that being the express reason for the votes)?

Yes, I must say that my heart skipped a beat at the thought of being asked to vote for the most pro-life. Abortion, as the Doctrine of Double Effect is applied, is an absolute harm. There can be no weighing of abortion, no measuring it against another possible benefit. I also worry that we are buying into a mentality of accepting tablescraps, leftovers instead of having standards about how we are treated as caring Catholics exercising our civic responsibilities conscientiously.

Who out there will hear our voice and who will run for office on a 100% pro-life ticket?

 

[jlw]

mtr01:

You know, I’m still not convinced by Fr. Pavone’s argument on this. I find something totally illogical about the “most pro-life” position. Perhaps it’s just my tendency to want to see things in black and white, but I think that for anyone to call themselves “pro-life” and still argue for abortion even if only in limited circumstances is illogical. In other words “mostly pro-life” is nonsense to me.

I see this type of thinking as a type of slippery slope. “Well, if abortion or euthanasia is OK in this instance, perhaps they might be OK in other situations as well.” In addition, my suspicious nature also leads me to believe that such a position is based more on political rather than moral issues - one can appease pro-life voters while still seeming to be “redeemable” by the pro-abortion voters. I have no faith in someone like that to make any real progress in pro-life issues (OK, I’m jaded too).

Unless I see some real evidence to the contrary, I still believe that the best way to go about making a change is to forget one’s affiliation to whatever political party he or she belongs to, and start voting Catholic. That means supporting only candidates that are 100% pro-life, no exceptions (even if they are 3rd party candidates). Let’s face it, there are 66 million Catholics in this country. If we all (or even most of us) started voting like it, we could make a huge difference in the types of candidates who run for, and are elected to office. Can you imagine the ideological reshuffing of the major parties if significant numbers of votes were being cast for 100% pro-life candidates (with that being the express reason for the votes)?

You aren’t jaded!! You are an idealist!! God bless you!! AND…

If you hate sports analogies (especially about a subject so serious) I apologize in advance…
.
The facts on the ground: You have to MOVE the ball. It took pro-choicers 50 years to get an activist court to rule that abortion is somehow a “right”. It has taken THIRTY YEARS for pro-lifers to get a majority in congress, and another 4 years to widen the lead *just a little. *

The best football teams play offense and defense well. Sometimes they are perfect, but they win “ugly”, too. They win by moving the ball, sometimes quickly, but mostly it by steady consistent execution. Sometimes if the team becomes one-dimensional (democrats and abortion-on-demand) they are easy pickin’s. The GOP has captured the VAST MIDDLE, I think.

Not everyone is a devout Catholic or Evangelical, but the VAST MIDDLE knows that abortion is somehow wrong, but is too afraid to say it too loudly (I might just change my analogy to that of the current goings-ons in the Middle East?). They need a nudge, an vote of confidence, an event or events to put the TRUTH in the center-stage, with the spotlight glaring, where no one can deny it or side-step it.

When parental notification, or sonogram requirements, or PBA bans are on the docket, it resonates with VAST MIDDLE. These are the issues that must be put before every legislature in the land.

Yes, let us not forget about judges. (Oh Lord, have mercy on us!! Please let it be your will that faithful men and women be confirmed to our higher courts!!) The window for this may be open for only a year (optimistically, if the dems filerbustering ways backfire, we might have another three years!), so I pray that Bush fights for them.

Capturing the MIDDLE of the wall is the battle. With a little nudge here, and a vote there, the dam walls will break. Thus is the case with abortion, because once everyone can admit that they are really pro-life, the walls of pc madness will crumble, and the MSM will undoubtedly be just as stunned when they learn that what they have been reporting all along…is a lie.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

OK, moving the ball looks like what? From the examples you have given:

1. repeal Wade and Roe? Actually I will get someone to come on the board and explain what bad (and weak) law W&R is.
2. capitalize on majority in Congress.
3. Put truth about abortion on middle stage to nudge Vast Middle into speaking out. This involves parental notification, or sonogram requirements, or PBA bans.
4. new judges who will (continue to) rule in favour of defining the unborn babies as persons.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

mtr01:

You know, I’m still not convinced by Fr. Pavone’s argument on this. I find something totally illogical about the “most pro-life” position. Perhaps it’s just my tendency to want to see things in black and white, but I think that for anyone to call themselves “pro-life” and still argue for abortion even if only in limited circumstances is illogical. In other words “mostly pro-life” is nonsense to me.

I see this type of thinking as a type of slippery slope. “Well, if abortion or euthanasia is OK in this instance, perhaps they might be OK in other situations as well.” In addition, my suspicious nature also leads me to believe that such a position is based more on political rather than moral issues - one can appease pro-life voters while still seeming to be “redeemable” by the pro-abortion voters. I have no faith in someone like that to make any real progress in pro-life issues (OK, I’m jaded too).

Unless I see some real evidence to the contrary, I still believe that the best way to go about making a change is to forget one’s affiliation to whatever political party he or she belongs to, and start voting Catholic. That means supporting only candidates that are 100% pro-life, no exceptions (even if they are 3rd party candidates). Let’s face it, there are 66 million Catholics in this country. If we all (or even most of us) started voting like it, we could make a huge difference in the types of candidates who run for, and are elected to office. Can you imagine the ideological reshuffing of the major parties if significant numbers of votes were being cast for 100% pro-life candidates (with that being the express reason for the votes)?

The problem is there was a 100% pro-life candidate on an independat ticket the last election,but he had NO chance to win,I think he go 2% of votes,if he has No chance to win and more pro-lifers voted for him Kerry could have won and we would have been worse off.Of course if a candidate has a chance to win that is through and through pro-life the vote would go to him.The circumstances were such that the votes could have put Kerry in office.God Bless