Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

[Al_Masetti]

Your posts # 228 & 229 are fabulous. Excellent, outstanding summary of what has transpired.

Interested folk can expand this horizon by visiting www.frontpagemag.com where David Horowitz writes and posts. He was one of those radicals … but who saw the light.

As most readers know, I am constantly interested in the Venona papers and all the books and research stemming from it. Including M. Stanton Evans’ “Blacklisted by History” … because these works expand on the foreign influences starting in the 1930’s and extending into WW2 and later … and then you pick up with David Horowitz who starts in the 1960’s and brings the radicalism story up to date.

(continued)

Anymore, the Dem Party is as allied with big business as is the Repub Party; the only major difference being that the Dem Party business alliances tend to have a more international flavor to them. It is no accident that a former Dem president has been paid tens of millions of dollars by Dubai, and by Chinese interests, as well as American business interests. It is no accident either that the Dem party has done nothing at all for the poor in this country or any other, for decades. It’s all middle class “vote buying” now. It’s really a shame that most “grass roots” Dems still think they’re voting for “Old Party” values. The reality is that they’re voting for abortion rights, elite privilege, and not much else.

I was present at the McGovern takeover and the radicalization of the Dem Party. I was privy to the planning and the restructuring. I saw the results and knew the people. I understood Leninism quite well, and power-taking, and “spoke the language” of the “hard left”. I was there when abortion rights became the litmust test for acceptability in the power structure of the party. I have talked to Dems from the “Old Party” whom I once supported, but now no longer do. They will tell you that you can’t buck the “party line” on abortion and survive as a Democrat. And they’re absolutely right about that.

 

[BamaRider]

As most readers know, I am constantly interested in the Venona papers and all the books and research stemming from it. Including M. Stanton Evans’ “Blacklisted by History” … because these works expand on the foreign influences starting in the 1930’s and extending into WW2 and later … and then you pick up with David Horowitz who starts in the 1960’s and brings the radicalism story up to date.

Al, if ya don’t mind mind shoot me the short version by PM the Verona papers thing. I can’t get the URL to work, I don’t think my browser likes it for some reason.

 

[Veronica7978]

I cannot vote for either party as I truly believe either would make me complicit in death one way or another.

The current pro-life administration openly supports a free trade agreement with a country supplying the US with abortion pills.

“The drug maker, Shanghai Hualian, is the sole supplier to the United States of the abortion pill, mifepristone, known as RU-486.”

New York Times article.

We are taught to avoid abortion doctors or doctors who refer to other doctors who perform abortions. I think the same should apply to our politicians. Either they do all they can to stop all abortions or they are no better than those they point fingers at to get elected.

I feel as a concerned people we have to look past the rhetoric of politics and see the truth. To me the truth is we decide between the lesser of two evils. One evil says for the rights of the people. The other does things for riches and power. Both do these things at an unacceptable cost.

I prefer to put my trust in the Lord, he will not fail those who believe.

Pray for the true conversion of all the canidates.

This is the most concise, effective, heartfelt, inspired comment. Thank you. I was really lost in how to vote until I read this. : )

 

[SoCalRC]

I hope this posts doesn’t mean you think the GOP is racists and anti Catholic? I can’t tell you there are no such individuals in the ranks, but if called out on it, he’ll be dealt with, but you better have more then hearsay. Talk radio is akin to Evangelical?? Owell everyone can opine here.

Yes, I would contend that a signficant chunk of the GOP collation is racist and/or anti-Catholic. Notice the massive hirings from Bob Jones University into the Justice Department.

Similliar look at the legal action and complaints against the USAF Academy - from Catholic and Jewish complaintants.

LBJ predicted that the south would go GOP for a generation after the Civil Rights Act. I think he underestimated. Reagan paid homage (though he might have been sincere, he is reputed to have been quite the racist himself), and every serious GOP presidential candidate has followed suit. Similarly,the Evangelical crowd that the GOP also panders to has made no bones about their opinion of Catholicism.

Why would this surprise anyone? We were founded as a WASP nation, with the message of our evil and un-Christian Catholic ways in the ‘readers’ we used in our schools. It was certainly alive and well 50 years ago, and I still come across anti-Catholic literature occassionally today.

Likewise, racial divides have never wholly healed, and politicians will keep stoking racial and xenophobic fires as long as they get a response from voters.

 

[vinessa]

Even when abortion was illegal, I am pretty certain that there weren’t any cases of the women themselves going to jail. It was the doctors who got in trouble. I think that the same would be true today.

True enough. Then the doctors would stop, but it would do nothing to stop women from seeking abortion. So there would still be demand, but no supply, creating the perfect conditions for a deadly but booming black market in illegal abortions.

Point being, until you reduce the DEMAND, reducing the supply creates another, sicker, and more deadly condition in the culture.

Look, our society didn’t willy-nilly just wake up and decide to kill tens of millions of babies one morning for the “viciousness” of it. There was deliberation and debate. And *there was obviously a problem *that needed to be addressed, of women dying and hurting themselves. So the decision was made, and it included restrictions and limits. It is not the optimal choice! But demand needs to go down. That’s the real bottom line. How do you get women to stop risking death in order to get abortions?

We help those women seeking an abortion to find places where they can get medical care, financial assistance, information on adoption etc. I have known of many women who raised children, worked and went to school. So, if they choose to raise their child, it isn’t impossible to do so.

Well, where were you, or any of these helpers, for me when I was pregnant? It’s great that your friends got help, but it’s a fantasy to believe it’s universally available. It is not. I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but in this country, when your family is riddled with addiction and mental illness, there’s no miraculous network of helpers out there. Nobody intervenes to offer care or assistance – hurting and homeless people are ignored, and left in their denial and pain as long as it doesn’t bother anyone else. As a society, we prefer that people take care of themselves. The system discourages, in fact punishes, neediness.

I always wonder how we can trust them to protect the lives of our babies, children, elderly, disabled… if they can so easily support the decision to murder a pre-born infant.

Or start a war, or sell arms, or give tax breaks to industries that poison and degrade our environment…

Well, 35 year ago, in January of 1973, I conceived my first baby. I was a very young, newly married woman. By the way, that baby of mine is now a 35 year old. He is a wonderful home schooling, Christian father and husband. I cannot imagine my life without him!

Grammy, I’m happy for you. But at 18 you were married, had a family and a support network. You don’t realize how far from your advantages many people are.

Again, I am NOT saying that abortion is right. It isn’t. But the Roe v Wade ruling occurred for a reason. It was deliberated, debated, and decided on because there was an underlying problem that needed to be addressed. NONE of these discussions so far has mentioned that underlying problem and HOW EXACTLY making sterile abortion unavailable will address that problem BETTER than the existing situation.

It’s easy, and cheap really, to simply call pro-choicers “vicious baby killers”, while your own head is buried in the sand about the problems that still, today, needs to be solved in order to make abortion simply unfathomable.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why would this surprise anyone? We were founded as a WASP nation, with the message of our evil and un-Christian Catholic ways in the ‘readers’ we used in our schools. It was certainly alive and well 50 years ago, and I still come across anti-Catholic literature occassionally today.

Only occasionally? From Evangelicals perhaps. The left in the U.S., however, is profoundly anti-Catholic and express it all the time. Consider that you cannot be a Dem officeholder without renouncing a key position of your religion and, indeed, self-excommunicating. I call that anti-Catholic with a vengeance. The Repub party can, and should be criticized for a great deal, but at least it does not require self-excommunication as a requisite for holding office.

I think it would come as a great surprise to Condi Rice, to Alan Keyes, to Thomas Sowell, to the half of Catholic Americans who are Repubs to learn that the Repub Party is inherently racist.

Indisputably the party contains a significant number of racists, since virtually everyone in the U.S. is racist to one degree or the other, with a virulence that is only exceeded in almost every other country on earth. Fortunately, in the U.S., it’s fairly mild. There is little doubt in my mind that there are as many racists in the Dem party as there are in the Repub party.

It would be fortunate if Catholics would actually study the social encyclicals. If they did, there are certain things they would discover are principles of the Church, at least as expressed by the Popes.

(Continued)

 

[Ridgerunner]

(Continued)

They would discover that neither political party meets them.
-The Republican party fails in providing a “safety net” of economic and social support for those who are unable to support themselves decently.
-So does the Democrat party. It talks about it, but never does it. Providing middle class benefits is just “vote buying”. Meanwhile, those on SSI, for example, receive about $500.00/month, and the dem party doesn’t even advocate changing that, let alone change it.
-The Repub party largely fails in effecting “subsidiarity”; that is, devolving the greatest amount of authority to the most proximal level, the family being the very most proximal. The party does emphasize family autonomy and “faith based initiatives”, but does nothing to correct the “family disincentive” wraught by failing to make the child tax exemption follow inflation. If the child exemption had been adjusted for inflation from what it was in Truman’s day, it would now be about $25,000 per child.
-The Dem party totally fails in effecting “subsidiarity”. It supports policies and groups that invade the family’s autonomy in every way. It, too, has failed to keep the child tax exemption in line with inflation.
-The Repub party fails in supporting the right of labor to organize. It is excessively supportive of trade policies that make the right almost irrelevant.
-The Dem party is more supportive of the rights of organized labor, but fails in exactly the same way the Repub party fails in advocating trade policies that make the right largely irrelevant.
-The Repub party succeeds in supporting policies that encourage widespread ownership of productive assets. The USCCB opposed privatization of Social Security where it should have supported it. The Repub party, however, too readily abandoned what could have been a precisely what the social encyclicals call for. The Repub party is, however, fairly benign toward small business.
-The Dem party is interested in redistribution of income, but has no expressed interest in the wide distribution of productive assets.
The party has no evident desire to promote small business, and tends to make life more difficult for it. Dem definitions of “the rich” are pernicious in that they ignore the fact that small businesses tend to have “incomes” much greater than the actual disposable personal income of their owners.
-The Repub party at least rhetorically overemphasizes the benignity of large business, which is a misplaced trust. The Popes condemned that.
-The Dem party overemphasizes the benignity of government and creates ever greater dependency on it. The Popes condemned that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I hate to follow myself, but I’m going to, if nobody intervenes.

At this point it seems likely to me that the currently leading Dem candidate will win the presidency over the currently leading Repub candidate.

It also seems to me there is not much difference between the leading candidates.

It’s possible that the leading Repub candidate won’t win the nomination or, having won it, might feel constrained by a potentially rebellious base to adopt policies more in tune with true Catholic values.

However, if the leading Dem candidate wins, it will present the Repub party with at least the opportunity to realign itself in a way more closely consistent with Catholic social policies as expressed in the encyclicals.

Say what you will, but I believe the Catholic Church has always provided Protestants with a sort of guidance, like a pole star provides sailors at sea, notwithstanding that they don’t really know it. (Some do, though, and admit it.) I believe the Amrerican people really WANT to do the right things. It was once believed that the 21st century would be the “Catholic Century” due to the rising influence and affluence of Catholics in American society. It could still happen. But the Catholic Church needs to purge itself of “political correctness” learned from others, and the nonsensical acceptance of rhetoric in lieu of action, and the downright cowardice in asserting it’s authority to teach; a cowardice that has given rise to “Cafeteriaism” in its own members.

But I also believe the Church will have to purge itself first, regardless of the cost. It needs to purge the chanceries, the publications and the schools of selling party politics in the name of religion. The bishops need to openly excommunicate a great number of people; people who will retaliate but who will more and more find themselves isolated as a consequence. Some will leave the Church entirely. But it’s better that those who are so inclined, do so, rather than continue as “surrogate catechizers” to mislead the faithful.

I believe if the Church stood by its own principles in governance and social action, regardless of party positions and the “blends” the parties come up with, it would find itself determining policy through its properly catechized members instead of finding its members debating which political party line most closely reflects the teachings of the Church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Here I go again. I apologize to all, but I re-read my post and see that it could be misunderstood in one particular.

In no way, and for no reason, do I endorse voting for a pro-abortionist, no matter what might follow doing that. To me, that would be gravely sinful. No economic or social policies even begin to balance out the evil of abortion.

 

[vinessa]

It began with the McGovern “takeover” of the Dem Party. McGovern was (and remains) a very leftist fellow. The Viet Nam War was still going on. There were a lot of young people, particularly students, but not exclusively students, who had adopted extreme leftism, largely as a reaction to the war, but also as a result of a sort of “generational revolt”

Don’t forget that cars and television were also on the ascendancy. Also the switchover from television and radio tubes to transistors, which put “immediate media” in everybody’s pocket!

McGovern and his people had the power to reorganize the manner by which delegates were to be chosen in the future. One half of the national delegates had to be women. Initially, those slots were filled with very left-wing feminists who, according to their ideology, were abortion supporters. The national party leadership had been swamped with radicals other than the feminists as well as the latter, it has to be remembered that, at the time, abortion was a “left-wing” cause.

This is true.

And, of course, having the resources, the “abortion lobby” maintained, and still maintains, a radical feminist lock on at least half the Dem convention delegates.

Unfortunate, but also true. Still, not all “feminist” policies are wrong or bad. I would suggest that you perhaps draw a clearer line between what is “radical” and what is not.

It’s a self-perpetuating thing. The abortion business contributes huge sums in political campaigns

Can you cite sources please? I would like to look at these numbers and compare them to other industry contributions.

Anyone who files for office as a Dem is told right away that he can expect money and organizational support if he toes the line, but can expect contribution to his adversary, even a Repub adversary, if he does not support the agenda. That seems strange, but it isn’t. Supporting the Repub (more likely primary) adversary of a Dem who breaks ranks on abortion keeps the party “pure” from the abortionists’ standpoint.

This is a bit far afield, Ridgerunner. It would depend on the Repub. Surely the “rich abortionists” would not give money to candidate Huckabee for example. But maybe, a libertarian.

The money is in the hands of leftist radicals like the Hollywood crowd and George Soros and in the hands of the abortion lobby.

I would like to see the ledgers. Are you saying that collectively, in some grouping somewhere, that Hollywood and its associated industry ranks 1st in contributions to the Democratic Party, followed by George Soros # 2, and “the abortion lobby” is 3rd? Who constitutes ‘the abortion lobby’ and where can I read this listing of their financial contributions?

the “leftist agenda” of the old left; programs for the poor and underprivileged, have been almost totally abandoned. True leftism is really about gaining and keeping power, of which money is a necessary ingredient.

Maybe, sadly, because it costs so much to hang onto power too. The Republicans are no angels in this regard either.

The interest of the abortion lobby is “one issue”, though most of their people are also radical in other ways.

It seems to me that many Catholics are also “one issue”.

It is no accident that a former Dem president has been paid tens of millions of dollars by Dubai, and by Chinese interests, as well as American business interests. It is no accident either that the Dem party has done nothing at all for the poor in this country or any other, for decades. It’s all middle class “vote buying” now. It’s really a shame that most “grass roots” Dems still think they’re voting for “Old Party” values. The reality is that they’re voting for abortion rights, elite privilege, and not much else.

I wish either party was “clean”. But Ridge, I’d like to see your references on the contributions from the ‘abortion lobby’ if you have them available. If dollars represent influence then I’d like to see how much that lobby wields.

Also, it strikes me, considering this reality, that it makes more sense to contribute to and participate in the DEMOCRATIC party, as a way of taking power back! If the Catholic lobby (and money) were more attractive, believe me, we would have a say – and exercise more influence than we could ever hope to on the Right, competing with the wealthy armament manufacturers.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Also, it strikes me, considering this reality, that it makes more sense to contribute to and participate in the DEMOCRATIC party, as a way of taking power back! If the Catholic lobby (and money) were more attractive, believe me, we would have a say – and exercise more influence than we could ever hope to on the Right, competing with the wealthy armament manufacturers.

The majority of Catholics – with the exception of 2004 – have always supported the Democratic Party. And with our support, that party has become more and more supportive of abortion on demand, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage and so on.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Yes, I would contend that a signficant chunk of the GOP collation is racist and/or anti-Catholic. Notice the massive hirings from Bob Jones University into the Justice Department.

Similliar look at the legal action and complaints against the USAF Academy - from Catholic and Jewish complaintants.

LBJ predicted that the south would go GOP for a generation after the Civil Rights Act. I think he underestimated. Reagan paid homage (though he might have been sincere, he is reputed to have been quite the racist himself), and every serious GOP presidential candidate has followed suit. Similarly,the Evangelical crowd that the GOP also panders to has made no bones about their opinion of Catholicism.

Why would this surprise anyone? We were founded as a WASP nation, with the message of our evil and un-Christian Catholic ways in the ‘readers’ we used in our schools. It was certainly alive and well 50 years ago, and I still come across anti-Catholic literature occassionally today.

Likewise, racial divides have never wholly healed, and politicians will keep stoking racial and xenophobic fires as long as they get a response from voters.

That is the dirty little secret of the GOP, the South was vehimently anti-republican until the 1960’s, the question to ask is what event in the 1960’s and leading up to it would cause such a drastic swing in the electorate?

Not that the democratic party dosen’t benefit from injustice as well, they happen to be opposing the war now, but I remember quite a few of them lining up to vote for a war for political points(I was only in 7/8th grade at the time, but I still remember some of the speeches, of course I also remember when the conservatives chastised the “liberal media” for exagerating the significance of the threat of Muslim terrorists, right after the Cole bombing)

Look at far right writtings and such, a lot of xenophobia, biggotry towards Muslims, etc. Listen to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh(I do every day), Limbaugh completly lied about something Bill Clinton said not two days ago, not accidently, deliberatly took a quote out of context, when the very next paragraph showed just how dishonest Mr Rush is.

Of course the democrates don’t oppose the Iraq war(I mean many of the prominate members) because it was unjust, but because it hasen’t gone well.

This will be the very fist election I will be able to vote in and honestly I am stuck, neither is truely pro life, to be honest I sometimes doubt republican planners really want abortion to end, it certianly woulden’t be good for them politically if it was abolished tomorrow.

Both parties depend on ignorance, ineffeciency, and fear to perpetuate themselves.

Perhapse I will write in Chuck Norris(as a student deeply interested in maths, I’m quite interested in seeing him divide by zero, which I have been told he can do)

 

[Ridgerunner]

Don’t forget that cars and television were also on the ascendancy. Also the switchover from television and radio tubes to transistors, which put “immediate media” in everybody’s pocket! **But you see, at one time the dominant force in politics was “grass roots” participation. Certainly, mass media influences voters, but it always did. The difference now is the disempowerment of “grass roots” groups. It’s structural. **

Unfortunate, but also true. Still, not all “feminist” policies are wrong or bad. I would suggest that you perhaps draw a clearer line between what is “radical” and what is not. That would take a long time. I come from a long line of responsible working women, so I am not one who limits women to “kinder, kirche, kuchen”. By “radical” in general, I mean those who are actively hostile to all “traditional” roles. “Abortion rights” are central to that view of things. Indeed, abortion was definitional at one time.

Can you cite sources please? I would like to look at these numbers and compare them to other industry contributions.** My sources are politicians who live with it. Thoroughly researching it is likely an occupation in itself. However, if I remember to ask a politician what the names of the groups are in my state, I will. Because of laws respecting contributions, though, and the numerous evasions and loopholes thereof, it’s extremely difficult to know what individuals or organizations are really the donors to individual candidates or advocacy groups. PACs are “legalized money laundering”. But the polticians themselves know who the “money people” are who controls the flow, and what they want. **

This is a bit far afield, Ridgerunner. It would depend on the Repub. Surely the “rich abortionists” would not give money to candidate Huckabee for example. But maybe, a libertarian.
I am sure you’re right about Huckabee. But in a way that threat is now moot, as aspiring Dem candidates who tried to be prolife are now long gone. As with anything else, eventually no one “fights the tide”. In my state, there was one exception in Congress; an “Old Party” Dem from a socially conservative district that was solidly Dem from before the Civil War, but is now changing. But he died just the other day. I do not doubt that the next elected candidate from that district will be a Repub.

I would like to see the ledgers. Are you saying that collectively, in some grouping somewhere, that Hollywood and its associated industry ranks 1st in contributions to the Democratic Party, followed by George Soros # 2, and “the abortion lobby” is 3rd? Who constitutes ‘the abortion lobby’ and where can I read this listing of their financial contributions?** I did not purport to rank the donors. Otherwise, same answer as above.I am sure none of us have access to the “ledgers”. However, I will ask, as abovementioned. **

Maybe, sadly, because it costs so much to hang onto power too. The Republicans are no angels in this regard either.** Nor did I say they are. The reliance on money and media campaigning (which costs a lot) has had a corrupting influence on both parties, and no one could seriously doubt that. But I ask you to observe that while there are a number of prolife Repub politicians, there are virtually no prolife Dem officeholders. The Dem party is the abortion party, and simple observation confirms that fact. Consider the refusal to allow Bob Casey to address the Dem convention because of his prolife views. This is anecdotal, of course, but my own wife was ousted from a state Dem committee for giving one prolife speech. One. It was an appeal to encourage the participation of prolife advocates and candidates in the party structure. They even told her, immediately afterward, that they “couldn’t have that” because it “would offend some supporters”. Personally, anyway, I don’t need statistics to tell me the Dem party is the abortion party.**

It seems to me that many Catholics are also “one issue”.And, when it comes to abortion, ought to be. At least the abortion supporters know what the central issue is. Too many Catholics don’t seem to.

I wish either party was “clean”. But Ridge, I’d like to see your references on the contributions from the ‘abortion lobby’ if you have them available. If dollars represent influence then I’d like to see how much that lobby wields. Once again, I do not intend to make an occupation of researching this. I said before what I will do, and I might luck into more information in the process. If so, I will present it. But either you do not realize how difficult it is to track contributions to and on behalf of individual candidates and truly identify the donors, or you are simply saying this as a way to divert from the clearly observable fact that the Dem party is totally dominated by abortion supporters. Remember the Chinese laundry workers who contributed the max to a current candidate? Nobody ever did figure out who the real donor was, though one was strongly suspected. Good heavens! I used to collect campaign funds myself. It’s tremendously difficult to track.
(Continued)

 

[Ridgerunner]

(Continued)

Also, it strikes me, considering this reality, that it makes more sense to contribute to and participate in the DEMOCRATIC party, as a way of taking power back! If the Catholic lobby (and money) were more attractive, believe me, we would have a say – and exercise more influence than we could ever hope to on the Right, competing with the wealthy armament manufacturers. Not meaning to be difficult, but you cannot possibly know how little possibility of this there is UNTIL Catholics totally refuse to support the party with money, votes or anything else, and make the Dem party come to them. The party could not absorb a hit like that, election after election, and would have to do it. How much good do you suppose Catholic support of the Dem party has ever done for the prolife cause in, e.g., Massachussetts? Exactly none. The problem is not that there is some Catholic monolith that can go in and change the Dem party. The problem is that many Catholics do not vote or otherwise support candidates in accord with the teachings of the Church. That’s a problem of catechesis, not power politics. And that’s why, from being an almost entirely Dem voting group, Catholics are now at least evenly split between the parties now, despite powerful heritage and association incentives to remain with the Dem party. Many Catholics have come to realize the Dem party is essentially a “one issue” party, and is as impervious to prolife influence as granite is to spitballs. Keep in mind, as well, that increasing numbers of Catholics regard supporting pro-abortion candidates as seriously sinful, as do I. You can’t ask them to support abortion candidates on the off chance that someday they might, against all opposition, gain sufficient influence in the party to make a difference. Certainly not when those who have already tried it have failed. It’s like asking people to embrace Islam and join Al-Quaeda in order to combat terrorism from within. It won’t happen.

 

[vinessa]

And that’s why, from being an almost entirely Dem voting group, Catholics are now at least evenly split between the parties now, despite powerful heritage and association incentives to remain with the Dem party. Many Catholics have come to realize the Dem party is essentially a “one issue” party, and is as impervious to prolife influence as granite is to spitballs. Keep in mind, as well, that increasing numbers of Catholics regard supporting pro-abortion candidates as seriously sinful, as do I. You can’t ask them to support abortion candidates on the off chance that someday they might, against all opposition, gain sufficient influence in the party to make a difference. Certainly not when those who have already tried it have failed.

Yes, it’s too bad. Especially when going to the other side means more profit for the war industry, more tax money in the private corporations pockets, fewer health and basic services programs for the poor, troubled, and elderly, and more degradation of the environment. I guess if your conscience can ‘erase’ the people harmed or killed by THESE policies, then for sure vote for the criminalization of safe, sterile abortion if sought. (remember, nobody is required to seek abortion)

My point still remains – just because something is legal and available does not require people to choose it, or participate in it. Illegal drug use is down in this country, NOT because drug use is illegal, but because socially it has become frowned upon. It is no longer “cool.” Making abortion statutorily illegal is ‘suppressive’, but it does nothing to heal the disease.

Heal the disease I’m saying. Address the cause. Then abortion will be unfathomable.

Frankly and obviously, abortion isn’t my main issue. It’s how we care about and for each other all around. I can’t just say, oh yea, now abortion is illegal again, we’re set. Even looking at the broader picture and being willing to compromise a little, there’s nobody good to vote for. Nobody who isn’t in bed with someone despicable and stinky – be it munitions manufacturers (aka Halliburton, Enron cronies, etc), oil companies (and by extension their support for corrupt, dictatorial regimes), or evil feminists.

BTW, I did just spend some time on the Federal Election Commission website. I looked at the presidential candidates reports, including PAC contributions, and including scanning the individual contributors lists from A-Z. I also looked at the final reports for Bush and Kerry in the 2004 election. I’m sure it’s true that money is hidden under other names, but scanning the lists and tallying up the totals, it appears that contributions from either pro-life or pro-choice committees or organizations (Right to Life Action Groups vs. Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List, and NARAL) account for less than 1% of any candidates total. Even if you double or triple this amount to account for “hiding”, the percentage is still minimal.

And just to put this into perspective, the biggest fundraiser of all was George W. Bush, who amassed $375,000,000 for his election. $2,900,000 (less than 1%) was from PACs, not all of which were pro-life. Another big contributer for him was the National Rifle Association.

Now consider that in 2007, a total of 3025 defense contracts were awarded, totaling $224,617,853,685 – or $750 for every American citizen.

On Friday alone, 11 new contracts were announced, totaling $348,912,000. One of these, for $29,192,000, was awarded to Alliant Ammunition and Powder Company, LLC, of Radford, VA. Hello? Does anyone care that this $29 million, of our tax dollars, is being used directly for ammunition and gunpowder to KILL people?

Let’s look at these numbers again (rounding, for ease).

$225,000,000,000 one year of military defense contracts
$375,000,000 total election funds of GW Bush
$349,000,000 one day of military defense contracts
$29,000,000 one contract for gunpowder and munitions
$2,900,000 all GW Bush’s PAC money
$1,000,000 pie-in-the-sky guess at pro-life or pro-choice PAC funds (50% of total)

How can a Catholic justify criminalizing abortion, while at the same time supporting a war machine of this proportion that benefits moneyed interests at the expense of health care, food and housing for all? Your tax money (and mine) is not being used against your will for abortion. But it IS being used, in huge quantities, to kill people around the world.

The numbers tell me that the war industry has our system in a far greater grip than the ‘abortion industry’ does. How does that morality square?

Sources:
fec.gov/finance/disclosure/disclosure_data_search.shtml
fec.gov/index.shtml
militaryindustrialcomplex.com/

 

[Veronica7978]

Vinessa, I won’t quote everything you said, but WOW, you’ve done your research, and you have made some terrific points. I hope that the measure of life doesn’t just count towards the unborn for Catholics and extends to all life, as the term “pro-life” indicates.

Great work Vinessa!

 

[LCMS_No_More]

The numbers tell me that the war industry has our system in a far greater grip than the ‘abortion industry’ does. How does that morality square?

Well, Bush & Co say that they’re pro-life and pass laws that nip around the periphery of abortion (without making any real impact).

Isn’t that enough?

[/sarcasm]

 

[SoCalRC]

Only occasionally? From Evangelicals perhaps. The left in the U.S., however, is profoundly anti-Catholic and express it all the time. Consider that you cannot be a Dem officeholder without renouncing a key position of your religion and, indeed, self-excommunicating.

I’m sorry, that is kind of misleading and kind of false. Direct abortion is, infallibly, always held to be a grave moral disorder. However, secular voting on legality is several steps removed. It is currently held to be a sin, at least for Catholic politicians, by Pope Benedict, but the bishops are quite divided.

It is incorrect to assert that voting for a pro-choice politician incurs an automatic sentence of ex-communication. Which is a good thing for GOP voters as well. The GOP caucus generally supports exceptions for abortion, like rape and incest. So voting for them would also be ‘illicit’ if we equate voting with the allowed acts of others.

Further, the Vatcan provides a list of NINE moral principles on which we are not supposed to compromise. The Church contends that what is at stake is the “essense of moral law”. As far as I can tell, both major political parties in the have some serious problems in representing the list in its entirety.

I think it would come as a great surprise to Condi Rice, to Alan Keyes, to Thomas Sowell, to the half of Catholic Americans who are Repubs to learn that the Repub Party is inherently racist.

No one said inherently racist - just that the party relies heavily on white male anger for part of its ‘base’.

Similiarly, my disdain for Rice and Sowell have nothing to do with their melatonin levels, and everything to do with seeming incompetence in their chosen fields.

It would be fortunate if Catholics would actually study the social encyclicals. If they did, there are certain things they would discover are principles of the Church, at least as expressed by the Popes.

No disagreement there. Tragicly few Catholics seem willing to actually study and follow their faith, even in something as fundemental as voting:

vatican.va/roman_curia//congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

 

[SoCalRC]

This will be the very fist election I will be able to vote in and honestly I am stuck, neither is truely pro life, to be honest I sometimes doubt republican planners really want abortion to end, it certianly woulden’t be good for them politically if it was abolished tomorrow.

First of all, do vote - even if it is for an aging martial artist turned actor.

Second, I personally, do not agree that wholly voting one’s faith is a ‘waste’. Compromising on non-neogtiable princples just means that there is no incentive for either major party to change.

However, I still understand that people have a hard time trusting in God against seemingly insurmountable odds. Also, I understand a desire to ‘do’ something against perceived grave evil.

The best you can do is follow your Christian conceince. If that leads you to vote a straight party ticket - either way, fine. What I keep stressing in these sorts of threads is that virtually everyone is compromising on the Church’s stated position:

vatican.va/roman_curia//congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

So it seems a tad counter productive and hypocritical to loudly profess that one’s own compromises are more inhernently Catholic or Christian than another.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Vinessa:

So vote for abortion, then, as you seem to want to do, and live with it.

This is all very interesting, but I’ll see what the people who are really in politics say about it. I rather thought your initial question was a setup, and so it was.

But please don’t try to say the abortionists care for the poor, because they don’t. The abortion party has done nothing at all for the poor in decades, even when there was no war, cold or hot going on. It does, however buy votes with middle class welfare, a scheme in which everybody expects a benefit at the expense of someone else, but with no real need compelling it.

And so what if the president raised a lot of money? So do they all. And they all accept PAC money too. That proves nothing. However, his appointment of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court proves something to me, as does the appointment by the former president of Ruth Bader Ginzburg, who would lower the legal age of consent to hetero or homosexual sex to age 12.

And did you really expect the military budget not to be large? What do think it means beyond the fact that it’s large? Do you honestly believe your candidate is going to suddenly spend all that money on the poor? And why do you think the military budget will be less if the abortion party wins the white house? You surely don’t think your leading candidate is going to cut and run from Iraq, do you? If you do, you should listen more closely to what she says; perhaps more to what she doesn’t say. Remember Kosovo? You know, the war Congress refused to sanction (unlike Iraq), in which U.S. bombers dropped bombs indiscriminately from 30,000 feet, in which the civilian infrastructure was deliberately destroyed, and in which the Chinese embassy was bombed, and in which we came within one British general’s refusal to go along, of having a military clash with Russia? But you’re going to vote for your candidate anyway, I guess. And yes, various industries do profit from military spending. Always have, always will. And, unfortunately, the military does kill people. Always has, always will. However, that’s not the direct purpose of military action, which is quite different, and the Iraq and Afghan wars would actually be a lot cheaper if it was. Bombing blindly from 30,000 feet in Serbia was, indeed, a lot cheaper. One nuclear bomb would have been cheaper still. There is no direct relationship between the cost of the military and the number of people killed. In fact, it’s often an inverse relationship. The Cold War cost trillions, but not a shot was fired in anger between the U.S. and the USSR. And would it have been better had the U.S. unilaterally disarmed? How many would have died then?

Your pie in the sky guess is wrong on its face. Emily’s List alone contributed a million in 2008. And that does not consider any of the other PACs that have a liberal bent. When you get down to it, the entire Dem party support structure is one big pro-abortion PAC. Well, yes, many big businesses contribute to both sides in order to get access for their own interests. And some of them support abortion interests too.

I agree with you that there is a parallel betwen abortion and drug use. If addictive or dependency-forming drugs were freely available to 12 year olds, it is not unreasonable to expect that they, and others in society would come to see them as more acceptable than they do now. That’s actually the reason why the FDA was created. Freely available addictive drugs had caused massive addiction problems because, being freely available, people “saw nothing wrong with them”. Would you support allowing cigarette machines in schools, and cigarette ads on childrens’ programming? I doubt you would. Yet, counselors of all kinds, including school counselors, are giving young people that very advice. For abortion on demand to be forced into the Constitution of the United States by one man, which it was, when it isn’t there at all, and for that to be maintained, principally by one party, is a symbol of a society’s corruption. It says the “right” to kill unborn children is one of the most sacrosanct rights in our national ethos. If the Supremes suddenly declared that it’s legal to kill children up to age two, would you not consider that massively corrupting to the society, just because it’s there, and no matter how many two year olds were murdered in the following years?

And do not kid yourself. If the Dem presidential candidate wins, your tax dollars WILL be funding abortion. And it will be done in a way that will make it almost impossible to reverse. Remember you heard it here first.

Medicare and Medicaid spending is greater than defense spending. Do you then believe the medical industry has more control over the country than do all those defense contractors you love to hate? Social Security trumps all. Does the AARP, then, have more control than anyone else? The federal budget, taken by itself, does not tell you anything.