www.byzcath.org
I'm an undecided voter. Can someone try to "convince" me that the Republican Party is really Pro-Life? Please provide data, voting records and list any Pro-Life Supreme Court Justices that have been appointed since the Reagan Administration.

Ung

ps This is a serious hypothetical Election '08 question.
Originally Posted by Ung-Certez
I'm an undecided voter. Can someone try to "convince" me that the Republican Party is really Pro-Life? Please provide data, voting records and list any Pro-Life Supreme Court Justices that have been appointed since the Reagan Administration.

Ung

ps This is a serious hypothetical Election '08 question.


By prolife do mean opposed to abortion or do you mean prolife in the broader sense of being opposed to all unjust killing and social and economic policies that harm people?

Joe
Two points (others will surely give more details):

1. Open pro-lifers would never have been confirmed to the Supreme Court. What to look for are justices that respect "original intent" or "literal interpretation" of the Constitution. With such an interpretation Roe v Wade has no standing, and will fall. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito all so far have ruled in that mode. Their votes helped to uphold the laws against the type of infanticide known as "partial-birth abortion". [Kennedy was the swing vote.] Republican appointments have been mostly good, but there have been disasters.

2. Abortion is a foundational issue that trumps other issues. As a Catholic I may conclude that the wars to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq are just (the Vatican's point was not that the wars were unjust but rather that even just wars should not be fought). Torture is wrong, but not in the same league as murder of innocents through abortion. Social and economic policies are certainly secondary. One could demonstrably argue that free-market capitalism helps more people out of poverty then does socialism. But societies can arrange many different economic systems and be respectful of life. In the other thread someone linked a listing of President Bush's many pro-life accomplishments. Always remember that the press is not going to tout them.

Quote
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver:

The abortion conflict has never simply been about repealing Roe v. Wade. And the many pro-lifers I know live a much deeper kind of discipleship than “single issue” politics. But they do understand that the cornerstone of Catholic social teaching is protecting human life from conception to natural death. They do understand that every other human right depends on the right to life. They did not and do not and will not give up -- and they won’t be lied to.

So I think that people who claim that the abortion struggle is “lost” as a matter of law, or that supporting an outspoken defender of legal abortion is somehow “pro-life,” are not just wrong; they’re betraying the witness of every person who continues the work of defending the unborn child. And I hope they know how to explain that, because someday they’ll be required to.

When someone claims that the right-to-life is just one of many pro-life issues rather then the foundational issue one harms the pro-life cause. One must always make sure the points he advances are actually correct as well as understood with in the correct context of the the right to life from conception until natural death. Otherwise it is like trying to fight one small battle while loosing the entire war.
Oh, on a lighter note than some of my recent posts in like-minded threads, I met Justice Clarence Thomas a couple of weeks ago and had a short conversation with him; we shared a joke about the Georgia-Alabama game (which ended disastrously for us Dawgs).

Alexis
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
Originally Posted by Ung-Certez
I'm an undecided voter. Can someone try to "convince" me that the Republican Party is really Pro-Life? Please provide data, voting records and list any Pro-Life Supreme Court Justices that have been appointed since the Reagan Administration.

Ung

ps This is a serious hypothetical Election '08 question.


By prolife do mean opposed to abortion or do you mean prolife in the broader sense of being opposed to all unjust killing and social and economic policies that harm people?

Joe


I'm first referring to the Abortion Rights vs. Right to Life issue. I'm not convinced that Republican politicians have done everything in their power to reverse Roe vs. Wade.

I'm not happy with the lack of Pro-Life Democrat politicians. Except for the former PA Governor, the late Robert Casey, and his son, Bob Casey Jr., I don't see that many Democrats defending life. But I'm equally unhappy with the Reagan Administration and both Bush Administrations for their passiveness in appointing openly vocal Supreme Court Justices that will actually try their utmost to over turn Roe vs. Wade.

I won't even get into the semantic debate concerning Christians who are openly against Abortion, but have no problem with artifical "barrier" contraceptive practices.

Ung
Originally Posted by Ung-Certez
I'm first referring to the Abortion Rights vs. Right to Life issue. I'm not convinced that Republican politicians have done everything in their power to reverse Roe vs. Wade.

I agree that Republicans have not done enough, and some have even only paid lip service to the Pro-Life cause. Still, a lot has been accomplished in the past 8 years. But when one thinks of things of going the other way with the appointment of openly pro-abortion Supreme Court justices....

As far as Republicans being passive about appointing openly pro-life justices such appointments would never be confirmed. The votes just are not there right now. But, one can get justices that will not find a right to abortion in the text of the Constitution. And you go from there.
If a Republican President with a Republican lead House and Senate cannot get a pro-life Justice confirmed - that leads me to believe that the goal wasn't to get it done in the first place. Which goes to my premise that only a pro-life Democrat can get realistically this done.
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
If a Republican President with a Republican lead House and Senate cannot get a pro-life Justice confirmed - that leads me to believe that the goal wasn't to get it done in the first place. Which goes to my premise that only a pro-life Democrat can get realistically this done.

Look at the timing of the appointments. Most Republicans have not had a Republican majority in the Senate when the appointments were made. And not all Republicans are pro-life. But if you can find enough pro-life Democrats in Congress who will promise to confirm pro-life justices, and then get a Democrat to run on a pro-life platform I might consider voting for him. At the moment the Democrat Party is legitimately called the "Party of Death" for the extreme positions it has its platform, and Senator Obama is the most radical anti-life candidate ever to run for the presidency.

Remember that a Supreme Court rules on the cases before it. Unless there is a human life amendment to the Constitution the way forward is to chip at Roe v Wade until it falls. Then the debate will go to the individual states. Much work to do, and I sure hope Michael was promising not to vote for any candidates of any party unless they are Pro-Life!
For the record Senator Casey says he is pro-life but will not confirm any judge who is against Roe vs Wade. A far cry from his Father of Blessed memory.

Republicans could only do so much. Have they done enough? Heavans no. Look at Clinton's record. Look at what Obama has done. Look at McCain's voting record. Look at what the both plan on doing if elected.
Originally Posted by MrsMW
For the record Senator Casey says he is pro-life but will not confirm any judge who is against Roe vs Wade. A far cry from his Father of Blessed memory.

Republicans could only do so much. Have they done enough? Heavans no. Look at Clinton's record. Look at what Obama has done. Look at McCain's voting record. Look at what the both plan on doing if elected.


But future Democratic Party presidential candidate Bob Casey Jr. could appoint openly Pro-Life Supreme Court justices.

Ung
He is not his Father. Look at what he does rather than what he says.
And, as was mentioned the previous thread, Barack Obama has pledged to pass the Freedom of Choice Act which will effectively eliminate all state and federal barriers to accessing abortion, including parental notification, 24 hour delays, etc etc.

Not to mention the use of tax-payer dollars to support abortion...

John McCain has a very solid pro-life voting record, and has made this an issue in his campaign against Mr. Infanticide himself, Barack Obama.

All one has to do is compare party platforms on abortion to get a clear picture of its orientation:

The DNC (appropriately named) Party Platform

Quote
Choice

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support and caring adoption options.


The GOP Party Platform

Quote
Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth. And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

Respect for life requires efforts to include persons with disabilities in education, employment, the justice system, and civic participation. In keeping with that commitment, we oppose the non-consensual withholding of care or treatment from people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which endanger especially those on the margins of society. Because government should set a positive standard in hiring and contracting for the services of persons with disabilities, we need to update the statutory authority for the AbilityOne program, the main avenue by which those productive members of our society can offer high quality services at the best possible value.


...couple that with this...

Quote
GOP Party Platform on "Preserving Traditional Marriage"

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.

Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.

As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights.


....as opposed to this...

Quote
DNC Party Platform on Same Sex Marriage

It is not enough to look back in wonder at how far we have come; those who came before us did not strike a blow against injustice only so that we would allow injustice to fester in our time. That means removing the barriers of prejudice and misunderstanding that still exist in America. We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.


...and which party is more in keeping with Catholic principles on these two fundamental issues? Very clearly it is the GOP. Historically, I think one could argue the opposite, and the Democratic Party was at one time a truly Catholic party. This can no longer be asserted in any serious way on fundamental issues and it is a tragic loss to our two party system.

God bless,

Fr. Deacon Daniel
To answer the original question, some Republicans are pro-life, but some are not. But the party platform has been fairly consistent in being anti-abortion.

Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
If a Republican President with a Republican lead House and Senate cannot get a pro-life Justice confirmed - that leads me to believe that the goal wasn't to get it done in the first place. Which goes to my premise that only a pro-life Democrat can get realistically this done.


Good luck finding a pro-life Democrat who can get some traction in national politics. The activists shut them down quickly. The last pro-life Democrat that I can remember being taken seriously was Gov. Askew of Florida in 1984. He did not get past New Hampshire.

Gov. Hugh Carey of New York was pro-life, but was never thought of for the national ticket.

Gov. Casey was not allowed to speak to the Democrat Convention in 1992 on the abortion issue. I haven't heard a pro-life Democrat speak seriously on the subject since Gov. Casey passed away.

I offer a few other people's opinions for reflection.

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=91657

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=91658

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=91295

As the son of a former union local President, I would love to find a pro-life Democrat to support. I tend to agree with them on issues regarding labor, pensions, social safety net type things. If only we had some Christian Democrats who believed that God is the source of life and liberty.

But pro-life is a blacklist kind of thing for Democrat activists, so those candidates that deviate from the herd get culled quickly. I thought Sen. Obama might be different, as his background is different, but I am sadly disappointed. Slick speaker, but just another party line politician.

As for Sen. McCain, he seems to be more or less pro-life. But I don't quite trust him, on a number of issues. And, he has run a foolishly negative campaign.

But he has a record of working with Democrats when he thought it was right.

This document may be a helpful guide. Obviously no party is perfect, but one of the parties is right on the fundamentals of upholding and protecting the dignity of human life and the integrity of marriage and the family:

Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine

It is a marvelous work which Catholics of both parties should consider.

God bless,

Fr. Deacon Daniel
Quote
John McCain has a very solid pro-life voting record, and has made this an issue in his campaign against Mr. Infanticide himself, Barack Obama.


I would be cautious in waiving a pro-life flag for McCain. Some like me will not soon forget his very public feud with the National Right to Life Committee.

He also voted in favor of the expansion of embryonic stem cell research, from which he has never recanted. If half of all women voters who will be supporting McCain feel he is pro-choice, then that is certainly NOT a clear position platform he has generated.

I also remember hearing a South Carolina National Right to Life Committee ad that stated plainly "If you want a strongly pro-life president ... don't support John McCain."

I do not recall one, not even one occasion where McCain took the floor of the Senate either identifying himself as a social conservative, OR defending one.

So what has changed? Alan Keyes, of whom I respect, maintains McCain is definitely NOT pro-life.

His recent interview on Supreme Court appointees refusing to submit a "litmus test" does nothing for the pro-life movement; as at this point the only three options are for a new constitutional amendment (he never proposed such a thing in the Senate); a change in Supreme Court justices (he admits there will be no litmus test); or an executive order that I feel he will never use due to his perceived "moderate" status.

With McCain's unclear position, I cannot see that any arguments of "proportionality" are really valid, and I would even posit such arguments may approach relativism. While certainly he may have personal beliefs along this line he has generally kept those out of his political actions.

The only truly pro-life candidate is third party, like it or not.
FDRLB

I suppose its a comfort that the Forum hasn't changed so much in my absence wink
Quote
I suppose its a comfort that the Forum hasn't changed so much in my absence wink

That's what I thought as well... grin
Originally Posted by Brian
I suppose its a comfort that the Forum hasn't changed so much in my absence wink


LOL! Welcome back!

Fr. Deacon Daniel
His voting record is pretty solid, but I would say that he is not ideal in every respect. His choice of Sarah Palin certainly gives an even greater boost to his very solid list of pro-life credentials.

The NRL PAC has this in their communication, which cites some of his credentials:

National Right to Life PAC

Quote
“John McCain boasts one of the most consistent pro-life voting records in the Senate.” Newsweek, April 19, 2008

Senator John McCain has an exemplary voting record against abortion and has cast 31 pro-life votes since 1997. This includes voting for a bill that would prevent minor daughters from being taken across state lines for secret abortions without parental notice or consent, voting against taxpayer funding of abortion, and voting for a ban on the brutal partial-birth abortion procedure. He voted to confirm pro-life Justices Alito and Roberts. He has also voted against endorsing Roe v. Wade and believes it should be overturned.

In contrast, the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party, Senator Barack Obama, has extreme positions and voting records in favor of abortion on demand. He strongly supports the appointment of only U.S. Supreme Court Justices who favor abortion on demand.

During the next presidency, one to three U.S. Supreme Court justices may retire, which will determine the direction of the Court for generations to come.

If Senator Barack Obama becomes President of the United States, hundreds of thousands more unborn children will likely die each year.

When Barack Obama was a state senator in Illinois, the issue of leaving newborns to die was hotly debated. According to sworn testimony, a hospital was performing “live birth abortions.” In this coldly calculated procedure, the abortionist gives the woman a drug to induce delivery. A living, wholly intact baby is born.

The baby isn’t given to his mother’s waiting arms to thrive and grow. He doesn’t go to a nursery. He doesn’t even receive any comfort care. The baby is put on a cold table and left to die.

Barack Obama had the chance to support legislation to ensure that babies who survive abortion are afforded the same legal protections as those who are spontaneously born prematurely. In fact, he had FOUR chances, but he refused to vote in favor of protecting these vulnerable lives all four times.

In sharp contrast, Senator John McCain voted in the U.S. Senate for the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act to require that children born alive following an abortion receive the same care provided to other premature infants.

Senator John McCain has publicly stated his opposition to abortion. To cite just a few:

• Talking about his pro-life voting record that goes back 25 years, McCain said in an interview last year with National Review, “I have many, many votes and it’s been consistent. And I’ve got a consistent zero from NARAL throughout all of those years... my record is clear. ... I’ve opposed [Roe v. Wade] ... because I thought it was a bad decision.”

• At the last March for Life rally, pro-life Senator Sam Brownback read a statement from McCain: “If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement.”

• In mid-April McCain told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, “The rights of the unborn is one of my most important values.”

To learn more on John McCain's pro-life record and to see some of his statements against abortion, visit www.prolifemccain.org. Read “A Closer Look at John McCain” and view fact sheets on his long opposition to abortion. Print a comparison of him with Barack Obama, the 2008 pro-abortion presidential candidate. All that, along with articles and voting tools, provided by the National Right to Life Political Action Committee, the political arm of the nation's largest pro-life organization.

The choice for president is clear. National Right to Life PAC supports John McCain for election as President of the United States. The country, our supporters, and the lives of the precious unborn need his leadership. STOP OBAMA and VOTE MCCAIN!


Originally Posted by ebed melech
His voting record is pretty solid, but I would say that he is not ideal in every respect. His choice of Sarah Palin certainly gives an even greater boost to his very solid list of pro-life credentials.

The NRL PAC has this in their communication, which cites some of his credentials:

National Right to Life PAC

Quote
“John McCain boasts one of the most consistent pro-life voting records in the Senate.” Newsweek, April 19, 2008

Senator John McCain has an exemplary voting record against abortion and has cast 31 pro-life votes since 1997. This includes voting for a bill that would prevent minor daughters from being taken across state lines for secret abortions without parental notice or consent, voting against taxpayer funding of abortion, and voting for a ban on the brutal partial-birth abortion procedure. He voted to confirm pro-life Justices Alito and Roberts. He has also voted against endorsing Roe v. Wade and believes it should be overturned.

In contrast, the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party, Senator Barack Obama, has extreme positions and voting records in favor of abortion on demand. He strongly supports the appointment of only U.S. Supreme Court Justices who favor abortion on demand.

During the next presidency, one to three U.S. Supreme Court justices may retire, which will determine the direction of the Court for generations to come.

If Senator Barack Obama becomes President of the United States, hundreds of thousands more unborn children will likely die each year.

When Barack Obama was a state senator in Illinois, the issue of leaving newborns to die was hotly debated. According to sworn testimony, a hospital was performing “live birth abortions.” In this coldly calculated procedure, the abortionist gives the woman a drug to induce delivery. A living, wholly intact baby is born.

The baby isn’t given to his mother’s waiting arms to thrive and grow. He doesn’t go to a nursery. He doesn’t even receive any comfort care. The baby is put on a cold table and left to die.

Barack Obama had the chance to support legislation to ensure that babies who survive abortion are afforded the same legal protections as those who are spontaneously born prematurely. In fact, he had FOUR chances, but he refused to vote in favor of protecting these vulnerable lives all four times.

In sharp contrast, Senator John McCain voted in the U.S. Senate for the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act to require that children born alive following an abortion receive the same care provided to other premature infants.

Senator John McCain has publicly stated his opposition to abortion. To cite just a few:

• Talking about his pro-life voting record that goes back 25 years, McCain said in an interview last year with National Review, “I have many, many votes and it’s been consistent. And I’ve got a consistent zero from NARAL throughout all of those years... my record is clear. ... I’ve opposed [Roe v. Wade] ... because I thought it was a bad decision.”

• At the last March for Life rally, pro-life Senator Sam Brownback read a statement from McCain: “If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement.”

• In mid-April McCain told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, “The rights of the unborn is one of my most important values.”

To learn more on John McCain's pro-life record and to see some of his statements against abortion, visit www.prolifemccain.org. Read “A Closer Look at John McCain” and view fact sheets on his long opposition to abortion. Print a comparison of him with Barack Obama, the 2008 pro-abortion presidential candidate. All that, along with articles and voting tools, provided by the National Right to Life Political Action Committee, the political arm of the nation's largest pro-life organization.

The choice for president is clear. National Right to Life PAC supports John McCain for election as President of the United States. The country, our supporters, and the lives of the precious unborn need his leadership. STOP OBAMA and VOTE MCCAIN!




OK, so we vote McCain into office. How long can we legitimately wait for him and his fellow Republican Pro-Life politicians to over turn Roe vs. Wade?

Ung
I'm curious about this claim: Torture is wrong, but not in the same league as murder of innocents through abortion.

I'm not sure that I agree. Torture, in my mind, is just as henious if not more so than murder.

Joe
Judges have to be put on the bench. A courtcase has to be sent up through the courts and then when it gets to the supreme court it can be overturned. That is why I will vote for McCain. His judges will be pro-life and Obama's will not.
McCain was tortured and has said over and over he opposes it. The difference is the Gitmo inmate is alive and the baby is dead.
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
If a Republican President with a Republican lead House and Senate cannot get a pro-life Justice confirmed - that leads me to believe that the goal wasn't to get it done in the first place. Which goes to my premise that only a pro-life Democrat can get realistically this done.


Michael,
The problem is that it requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to close a fillibuster and the pro-abortion Democrat minority always blocked a vote. So any nominee has to tiptoe around the Roe v Wade debate.
A simple majority in the Senate (in practice) cannot even bring about a vote for a Supreme Court nominee. This in itself should be motivation for every Catholic voter to NEVER vote for a Democrat senatorial candidate until the Democrat party changes its platform and leadership.

Fr. Deacon Paul
Originally Posted by Ung-Certez
Originally Posted by MrsMW
For the record Senator Casey says he is pro-life but will not confirm any judge who is against Roe vs Wade. A far cry from his Father of Blessed memory.

Republicans could only do so much. Have they done enough? Heavans no. Look at Clinton's record. Look at what Obama has done. Look at McCain's voting record. Look at what the both plan on doing if elected.


But future Democratic Party presidential candidate Bob Casey Jr. could appoint openly Pro-Life Supreme Court justices.

Ung


Ung,

I'm afraid Bob Casey, Jr has betrayed us and his father. He voted to overturn the Mexico City policy http://nrlc.www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/votes/?votenum=319&chamber=S&congress=1101 which would allow foreign aid for countries allowing abortion to be used as a birth control method.

Fr. Deacon Paul
...So the question remains that a Republican President doesn't have a realistic chance to overturn Roe vs. Wade because:

a.) Having an openly Pro-Life Supreme Court Justice be appointed and then be confirmed is practically impossible.

b.) Because a Pro-Choice Democratic Senate will always block
Pro-Life legislation.

Then it really doesn't matter who is President, that it would be better to vote for Pro-Life Republican Senators and Congressmen? Would this be a correct assumption?

Ung
Quote
That is why I will vote for McCain. His judges will be pro-life and Obama's will not.


There is very little evidence to support this assertion from what McCain has actually stated publically. He has recently stated publicly that there is no pro-life "litmus test" for his judicial appointees.

Rudy Guiliani flying around waving McCain's flag doesn't make me feel any better in the pro-life department.

It may be that McCain has private views or will "sneak" in something. I would rather see up front what someone stands for, hear it from his/her face rather than engaging in a sort of Machiavellian roulette to see what he comes up with under the table.
Originally Posted by Ung-Certez
...So the question remains that a Republican President doesn't have a realistic chance to overturn Roe vs. Wade because:

a.) Having an openly Pro-Life Supreme Court Justice be appointed and then be confirmed is practically impossible.

b.) Because a Pro-Choice Democratic Senate will always block
Pro-Life legislation.

Then it really doesn't matter who is President, that it would be better to vote for Pro-Life Republican Senators and Congressmen? Would this be a correct assumption?

Ung


You have stated very well the short-term assumption of most voters. However, looking into the future of an Obama presidency, lets consider:

Obama's promise that any Supreme Court nominee respect Roe v Wade.
The prospect of anoter "Janet Reno" type Attorney General who will make praying in front of an abortion clinic a federal crime, and in fact add double jeopardy by making it a "hate crime."
Add "radical education" as Eduction funding. This will teach elementary school children that homosexual marriage is acceptable, that abortion (expecially chemical) is an acceptable means of birth control and that Catholic schools must accept these principles in order to accept funding.
Allow federal funding of social security, food stamps, welfare, etc. for homosexual "spouses" as dependents.
Sign a FOCA bill which will PROHIBIT any regulation of abortion, abortion clinics, ban "informed consent" laws.
Promote UN funding for population control throughout the world, penalizing countries like Mexico, Poland and the Moslem world which disagree.
Begin the process which will eventually allow and even fund euthanasia. http://www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/Release022708.html (This article quotes Obama's regret at allowing Terry Schindler Schiavo's parents access to Federal Court to save the life of their daughter.

If Obama is elected look for a nightmare four years for respect for human life.

With regard to Supreme Court Justices, even with the obstacles, Pres Bush has managed to appoint pro-life Supreme Court justice Sam Alito.

S'bohom
Fr Deacon Paul
Quote
With regard to Supreme Court Justices, even with the obstacles, Pres Bush has managed to appoint pro-life Supreme Court justice Sam Alito.


And no decrease in abortions can be attributed solely to a Bush presidency. Not one. And that with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress for a time.

This make-up of the Supreme Court as well as a Republican congress AND President WAS the opportunity to make real "pro-life" statements and actions. The inaction is now history.
Quote

And no decrease in abortions can be attributed solely to a Bush presidency. Not one.


Do forgive me Diak, but I believe this claim to be false. President Bush's re-establishment of the Mexico City Policy (which forbids the giving of american taxpayer dollars to foreign organizations that perform abortions or lobby for legalizing abortion) would certainly decrease the number of abortions performed. This policy was instituted by Reagan, abolished by Clinton, and re-established by George W. Bush. Also, his signing of the Partial Birth Abortion Act in 2003 would also prevent at least some abortions from taking place.

I do believe that we've been "played" to some extent by the Republican party as they seem to have gotten used to our votes, as in the long run they haven't really make too much headway regarding this issue that so many hold dear to their heart.

In Christ,
Aaron
Justice Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan. He is the quintessential Roman Catholic, a father of nine children and grandfather of 28 grandchildern. What is his voting record when Pro Life and Dignity of Life issues are brought before the Supreme Court? Has he always voted according to his Roman Catholic upbringing and conscience?

Ung
Originally Posted by Ung-Certez
...So the question remains that a Republican President doesn't have a realistic chance to overturn Roe vs. Wade because:

a.) Having an openly Pro-Life Supreme Court Justice be appointed and then be confirmed is practically impossible.

b.) Because a Pro-Choice Democratic Senate will always block
Pro-Life legislation.

Then it really doesn't matter who is President, that it would be better to vote for Pro-Life Republican Senators and Congressmen? Would this be a correct assumption?

Ung

I don't think the assumption you have put forth is correct. A Supreme Court member who holds to an "original intent" or "literal interpretation" of the Constitution will not have continuing support for Roe. A judge who was not Pro-Life but who respected "original intent" would not find a Constitutional right to abortion. A President who appoints "original intent" justices can very much advance the Pro-Life cause (as we can see with President Bush's numerous Pro-Life accomplishments).

It is necessary to vote for Pro-Life legislators at all ranks of government. Each Pro-Life president can chip away at Roe v Wade. One of them will strike the last blow and it will fall. Then the battle moves to the legislature. One must measure accomplishments over decades, not just a single term of a President (or any legislator).

Is it better to vote for Pro-Life Republican Senators and Congressmen? Good question. I'd say it is necessary to vote for Pro-Life candidates at all levels of government. It is likely that Pro-Life Republican Senators would be far more likely to vote to confirm an "original intent" justice than would even a Pro-Life Democrat Senator (given party loyalty). But each Senator is different and must be evaluated individually. Senator Robert Casey of Pennsylvania (to his great credit) voted to confirm Supreme Court justices Roberts & Alito. Yet he also voted to allow federal funding to groups that perform and/or advocate abortion whereas Senator Rick Santorum (whom he defeated) would not. [I am praying that Casey become as effective supporter of life as was his father, and that when Specter retires that Santorum take his place.]
Originally Posted by Ung-Certez
Justice Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan. He is the quintessential Roman Catholic, a father of nine children and grandfather of 28 grandchildern. What is his voting record when Pro Life and Dignity of Life issues are brought before the Supreme Court? Has he always voted according to his Roman Catholic upbringing and conscience?

Ung

Scalia has always ruled with respect to the literal text of the Constitution. He cannot do more than that, though a Pro-Life viewpoint will certainly provide insight into understanding the Constitution. There is only so much he or any justice can do. That is why we need a human life amendment to the Constitution, to take away all ambiguity. But for that we will need a great deal more pro-lifers in Congress and the State legislatures. Lots of work to do.
Quote
Do forgive me Diak, but I believe this claim to be false. President Bush's re-establishment of the Mexico City Policy (which forbids the giving of american taxpayer dollars to foreign organizations that perform abortions or lobby for legalizing abortion) would certainly decrease the number of abortions performed. This policy was instituted by Reagan, abolished by Clinton, and re-established by George W. Bush. Also, his signing of the Partial Birth Abortion Act in 2003 would also prevent at least some abortions from taking place.

I do believe that we've been "played" to some extent by the Republican party as they seem to have gotten used to our votes, as in the long run they haven't really make too much headway regarding this issue that so many hold dear to their heart.

In Christ,
Aaron


Aaron, it is not false at all. I don't see any documentation that the Bush presidency prevented one abortion by act of signature into law or executive order, including the "Mexico City Policy".

Regarding the so-called "partial birth" law, it actually codified or at least permitted certain abortions or practices as acceptable by omission from what was to be considered illegal. I would even posit this to be a step back in the larger pro-life movement, a law that is a failure both in language and action. That law also did not stop one abortion to my knowledge and was a token bone to assure the pro-life vote.

The general decline in numbers is certainly not due to any legal barriers for infanticide. They were decreasing already in the Clinton era, which certainly again is not due to any legal barriers. During Clinton's second term the numbers were below 1 million for the first time since the 1970s (CDC estimates). And I am no Clinton fan, either.
In essence, the two-party system has basically failed for the pro-life movement.

With adamant pro-choice luminaries strongly entrenched in the establishment of both parties (Giuliani being a case in point for the Republicans), and the failure of either party to clearly articulate a true cradle-to-grave pro-life policy as an objective and immutable part of the party platform (abortion, just war, care for the elderly, homeless, etc.) this simply will not change in the forseeable future. If anything the Republican Party has greatly backslid on its previous convictions since the Reagan presidency in all aspects, from state committee leadership to delegates to Congressional and presidential candidates.

Diak,

With all due respect, Aaron's statement is more correct than yours. The Culture of Life ideology gained much pro-life support with the Partial Birth Abortion Act. It provided a vehicle for the American Bishops to preach Catholic policy to all Americans. And the real moral war is not Law; its the hearts and minds of the American people.

The Mexico City Policy tells the world that the United States will not finance abortions in other countries. Our pro-life alliance with the Vatican regarding UN abortion policy is a positive. You can't tell me that Obama will continue this. Quite the contrary ; his goal is to penalize any country which does not provide abortion on demand.

Do you know what the result of FOCA will be? Are you aware that Obama has promised NARAL of his support? How can you claim that the presidency is unimportant? We will be back to 1973 with an Obama presidency and a Democratic Congress.

Remember the persecution of pro-lifers during the Janet Reno days; a vote for Obama will mean new martyrs and tens of thousands of babies who will not be "worthy" of being born.
Quote

Diak,

With all due respect, Aaron's statement is more correct than yours. The Culture of Life ideology gained much pro-life support with the Partial Birth Abortion Act. It provided a vehicle for the American Bishops to preach Catholic policy to all Americans. And the real moral war is not Law; its the hearts and minds of the American people.

The Mexico City Policy tells the world that the United States will not finance abortions in other countries. Our pro-life alliance with the Vatican regarding UN abortion policy is a positive. You can't tell me that Obama will continue this. Quite the contrary ; his goal is to penalize any country which does not provide abortion on demand.

Do you know what the result of FOCA will be? Are you aware that Obama has promised NARAL of his support? How can you claim that the presidency is unimportant? We will be back to 1973 with an Obama presidency and a Democratic Congress.

Remember the persecution of pro-lifers during the Janet Reno days; a vote for Obama will mean new martyrs and tens of thousands of babies who will not be "worthy" of being born.


First of all I return to my request to demonstrate how even one abortion was prevented by the Bush presidency. The "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" was a farce from the day of its instigation, and did nothing. And certainly Catholic Bishops have been preaching the truth far before this piece of junk and ineffectual legislation.

Secondly, please do not put words into my mouth - I never maintained, implicitly or explicitly, that the "presidency is unimportant" and I ask that accusation be withdrawn. On the contrary. It is very important - and very important that any candidate who would presume to have a pro-life vote demonstrate he is truly prolife. Not voting for embryonic stem cell research. Not waffling on his positions on judicial appointees.

What I have done is state the truth regarding the fact that many in the Republican Party are most definitely NOT pro-life, at the local, state, and national levels. That is not changing for the better.

The "Culture of Life" gained nothing from the "Act". Not one abortion was prevented; as I have demonstrated the numbers were already declining in the Clinton era long before the junk legislation was enacted.

We need real pro-life leaders, not continuous compromises and empty promises that the Republican Party has continued to dish out to pacify the pro-life end of the party without following through. The current Republican ticket does not seem to present a real pro-life leader.

I will not vote simply because of a purported vice-presidential choice being somehow better in the pro-life movement than the guy who will hold the top office.

It seems philosophical suicide to even ally yourself with those who will not preserve and protect life at all costs - and there are ample examples of those in the Republican party, from the presidential candidate on down. I tried to justify for years remaining in that party, but could no longer do so.

I'll withold for the time being criticism on the so-called "Mexico City Policy" and stick to domestic issues for the time being. I also doubt the efficacy of the words that formed the so-called "alliance" with the Vatican, considering we are the largest provider of legal infanticide in the entire world.

The head of "Priests for Life" believes that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was "historic progress for the pro-life cause":

The State’s Interest in Life
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life (2007)

Today the Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion that was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2003. This is a day of historic progress for the pro-life cause, whose ultimate goal is to restore protection to every unborn child, at every stage of development. Today, for the first time since Roe vs. Wade, the United States of America has actually banned an abortion procedure, rather than just regulated it.

The pro-abortion forces attempted to strike down the ban because it does not have a health exception. The Court, however, said that the ban’s opponents failed to demonstrate that the need for a health exception was extensive enough to render the law unconstitutional. The Court also rejected the arguments that the ban is too broad or too vague. The wording of the ban is clear enough for abortionists to know when they are and are not violating the law.

The decision in this case is refreshing to read, because it emphasizes that the state has a legitimate interest in the life of the unborn child throughout pregnancy. Nor is this the first time the Court has recognized this interest. The decision refers to the state’s right to “express profound respect for the life of the unborn,” and affirms “that the government has a legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.” The partial-birth abortion procedure differs from other abortion procedures in that it actually hijacks the delivery process and turns it into a method of killing, and hence obscures the role of the physician in the birth process. The Court today reaffirmed the state’s “legitimate interest in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.” The decision also asserts, “The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed.” In reaffirming these legitimate state interests in defense of the partial-birth abortion ban, the Court is also pointing the way for continued pro-life legislative activity at the state and federal level.

Today’s decision also reminds us that elections matter. The work done by so many pro-life people in the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 made this decision possible. The lawmakers who passed the ban were elected, as was the President who signed it into law. The Senators who confirmed the two new Supreme Court Justices were elected, as was the President who nominated those Justices. Today’s fruit of these elections should lead us to renew our commitment to elect pro-life candidates in 2008.

As we give thanks for the ban on partial-birth abortion, we call for a vigorous and faithful enforcement of it. Moreover, state bans on the procedure should likewise be put into effect in a manner consistent with the federal ban upheld by today’s decision.

This decision draws a significant and necessary line that stops the momentum of the abortion movement that believes it can justify any and every method of killing the unborn. The ban will indeed save lives.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2007/07-04-09stateinterestinlife.htm

President Bush is responsible for appointing justices that won this majority. Diak and the others just hate President Bush so they are going to trash Bush if he is anything less than perfect. President Bush is not the monster we read about in the anti-Christian, anti-American media.
I have a few worries about John McCain, but he is better than Obama on the Life issues....
It seems that McCain at one time said he would fund fetal stem-cell research - has he changed his position about that? And if he hasn't, where does he think those 'fetal' cells are going to come from?
Sarah Palin on his ticket makes me a bit more comfortable with him, though I do have some problems with her too...but at least I am relatively sure she is solidly pro-life.
Originally Posted by Ladyhawke1017
I have a few worries about John McCain, but he is better than Obama on the Life issues....
It seems that McCain at one time said he would fund fetal stem-cell research - has he changed his position about that? And if he hasn't, where does he think those 'fetal' cells are going to come from?
Sarah Palin on his ticket makes me a bit more comfortable with him, though I do have some problems with her too...but at least I am relatively sure she is solidly pro-life.


The main problems I have with Palin are the fact that she habitually lies and that she is utterly unqualified and incompetent. That alone gives me serious pause in voting for McCain. McCain is an old man and I just can't justify putting Palin within reach of the presidency. Abortion is horrible but world war III would be worse.

Joe
Diak,

Glory to Jesus Christ, Glory to Him forever!!

I didn't meant to sound accusatory in my last post, so please forgive me.

But back to your original statement, I do think that President Bush's reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy has, in fact, prevented even one abortion by the fact that the U.S. isn't handing out money to "organizations" that perform abortions. Yes, they may have gotten money from another country, but by not giving them U.S. dollars, that would greatly reduce these "organizations" chance of furthering their pro-abortion agenda. (which is essentially to perform as many abortions as possible)

I found an interesting site with regards the the abortion ratio under Clinton and W. Bush (as well as under Reagan and H.w. Bush). I've posted it here for viewing: http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2008/03/poverty-and-abortion-new-analysis.html

There are several key graphs that indicate that abortion has been steadily decreasing for quite sometime now (since the 80's).

In any case, it's a good read and well worth the time to check it all out.

In Christ,
Aaron
WHat where and when did she lie?
Quote
please do not put words into my mouth - I never maintained, implicitly or explicitly, that the "presidency is unimportant" and I ask that accusation be withdrawn. On the contrary. It is very important - and very important that any candidate who would presume to have a pro-life vote demonstrate he is truly prolife. Not voting for embryonic stem cell research. Not waffling on his positions on judicial appointees.


I apologize; I apparently misinterpreted your comments. It appeared to me that you were saying that neither party nor Clinton or GW Bush were pro-life in their actions. I guess I don't understand your point. Due to my denseness, would you please propose what the actions the next President should take to decrease the number of abortions?

Christ is among us!
Fr Deacon Paul
When I go into the voting booth, I try to remember the words of the antiphon "Put not your trust in princes, in sons of men . . ."

Sadly, it seems to me, we are always in the position of voting for the lesser of two evils.

BOB
Originally Posted by MrsMW
WHat where and when did she lie?


Andrew Sullivan has done an excellent job of documenting her lies. Here are here lies (19 in all) in reverse order.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies--5.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies--4.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies--2.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-23.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies--1.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-21.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-20.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-18.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-17.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-15.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-14.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-13.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-12.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-11.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-10.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies--9.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies--8.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies--7.html
JOE:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

I think we're moving off topic here. The topic is "Are Republican politicians really Pro-Life???" I think that a character analysis of one of the candidates steps a bit toward a tangent that has little to do with the pro-life querry. I note that the writer you cite begins with "troopergate" as the media has termed it. That has nothing to do with pro-life.

If you wish to begin another thread with the subject of the candidate's veracity, please do, but remember the forum's requirement for basic Christian charity no matter what we may think of the person.

In Christ,

BOB
Not very objective journalism, I would say about "the Atlantic." Most of the subject material is political hype which is performed by most national candidates and should be condemned by voters of both parties.

Regarding Ung's opening question, Pres Bush SUCCESSFULLY nominated Justices Alito and Roberts (I mistakenly excluded Roberts in my previous post.) Without this pro-life trend in the Supreme Court it is unlikely that South Dakota would have passed its "Informed Consent" Law which was upheld by the US 8th Circuit Court just this past June.

This law is amazingly "different" because it calls the baby a member of "homo sapiens" which must infuriate pro-aborts. http://www.jmls.edu/faculty_pages/schwinn/pdf/PlannedParenthoodvRounds.pdf

Here is an excerpt from the decision:
. The disclosure actually mandated by § 7(1)(b), in concert with the definition in §8(4), is “[t]hat the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,” and that “human being” in this case means “an individual living member of the species of Homo sapiens ... during [its] embryonic [or] fetal age[ ].” The State's evidence suggests that the biological sense in which the embryo or fetus is whole, separate, unique and living should be clear in context to a physician, and Planned Parenthood submitted no evidence to oppose that conclusion. Indeed, Dr. Wolpe's affidavit, submitted by Planned Parenthood, states that “to describe an embryo or fetus scientifically and factually, one would say that a living embryo or fetus in utero is a developing organism of the species Homo Sapiens which may become a self-sustaining member of the species if no organic or environmental incident interrupts its
gestation.” This statement appears to support the State's evidence on the biological underpinnings of § 7(1)(b) and the associated statutory definition. Planned Parenthood's only
other evidence, Dr. Ball's affidavit, ignores the statutory definition of “human being.” Finally, this biological information about the fetus is at least as relevant to the patient's decision to have an abortion as the gestational age of the fetus, which was deemed to be relevant in Casey. As a result, Planned Parenthood cannot meet even the less rigorous requirement to show a fair chance of prevailing, much less the more rigorous requirement applicable here to show that it is likely to prevail, on the merits of its claim that the disclosure required by § 7(1)(b) is untruthful, misleading or not relevant to the decision to have an abortion.

Planned Parenthood also contends that ¶ 2 of the Act,requiring the physician to certify in writing that he or she “believes [the patient] understands the information imparted,” does not
allow a physician to disassociate himself or herself from the required disclosure in § 7(1)(b). . . .Because Planned Parenthood has failed to demonstrate the requisite likelihood of success on its claim that the disclosure required by § 7(1)(b) is untruthful or misleading, it has not demonstrated that there is an ideological message from which physicians need to disassociate


The abortion industry and its allies realizes that it is starting to lose the battle and must elect Obama to turn the tide with executive orders, appointments, budgeting and Washington propaganda.

Fr. Deacon Paul
Bob,

Fair enough. I'm sorry about throwing the thread off topic.

Joe
Posted By: lm Re: Are Republican politicians really Pro-Life??? - 10/23/08 04:41 AM
Here is the Republican Platform on two vital issues, Life and Marriage. Note particularly that the Republicans want the unborn to get the protection accorded under the 14th Amendment. Bravo!


Quote
Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth. And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

Respect for life requires efforts to include persons with disabilities in education, employment, the justice system, and civic participation. In keeping with that commitment, we oppose the non-consensual withholding of care or treatment from people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which endanger especially those on the margins of society. Because government should set a positive standard in hiring and contracting for the services of persons with disabilities, we need to update the statutory authority for the AbilityOne program, the main avenue by which those productive members of our society can offer high quality services at the best possible value.

Top
Preserving Traditional Marriage

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.

Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.

As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights.


Here is the Democratic Platform on the same issues.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/8a738445026d1d5f0f_bcm6b5l7a.pdf

See pages 50 and 51. I couldn't paste them.
What makes a "platform" enforceable? There are obvious pro-choice Republicans like Arnold, Spector, and Guiliani who haven't yet been rejected.. so..? There are also openly pro-life Democrats like Ray Flynn, Tim Roemer, and Dan Lipinski...
Well, it's a moot point. I already mailed in my absentee ballot yesterday. Maybe the Republicans can do a better job of convincing me they are Pro-Life in 2012.

Ung
Abortion will end when people's hearts are converted. Even overturning Roe vs Wade would just move it back to the States. It would not change one mind or stop one abortion.

The GOP has done nothing for the Pro-Life movement especially the man who gave so much lip service to the movement, Ronald Reagan.

Who is more consistantly pro-life (Abortion, Death penalty, euthanasia, war,) ?
President Reagan did a lot for the Pro-Life movement. If Brian and the others would drop their blind hatred for anything Conservative maybe he'd be able to see the facts clearly. 4,000 Americans are murdered each day because of the politicians Brian supports. There are not 4,000 humans killed each day if you combine those killed by the death penalty, euthanasia, and the just wars to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq. And I remind Brian that it was the Democrats who support things like euthanasia. Abortion is the Sacrament of the Democrat Party. Brian should download President Reagan's "Treatise for Life" and read it rather then pretending it doesn't exist or that the man was worse on abortion then the Democrats.

Reagan Championed Pro-life Causes

Jon E. Dougherty
Friday, June 11, 2004

On the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court's controversial 1973 decision legalizing abortion, President Ronald Reagan wrote a treatise celebrating life and challenging the nation to examine its soul regarding the procedure.

It was a book that, had his advisers gotten their way, would never have been written.

William P. Clark, a national security adviser and secretary of the Interior Department under Reagan, told CNSNews.com the 40th president insisted that the publication of "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation," a tome that began as an essay, was essential.

"He said, 'No, it's the truth, and we're going to go with it," said Clark, who wrote the book's foreword.

The book was a first in many ways. For one, it was the first book ever published by a sitting president. For another, it was a bold step politically. At the time of its publication, Reagan and his vice president, George H.W. Bush, were struggling to rebuild the nation's slumping economy and set to launch a re-election effort. Polls showed about half the nation backed abortion.

That didn't matter to Reagan, who, regardless of his political aspirations, was regarded by many who knew him to be a man of principle. Clark said Reagan came to realize abortion was morally wrong while serving as California's governor.

'Sanctity of Life'

"Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not," Reagan wrote in his book. "As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the 'quality of life' ethic."

Reagan's awakening came after he signed a bill as governor liberalizing California's abortion laws. That, of course, led to a surge in abortions.

"When he realized that it helped open the gates to abortion in California, he was very upset," Clark told CNSNews.com. "He said it was the biggest mistake he made in government. He tried to square it away as time went on."

Since that legislation, Reagan made his commitment to the "integrity of the human person," as he wrote in his book.

Other pro-life organizations have praised Reagan for his opposition to abortion.

"It is with great sadness that we say goodbye to our dear friend, President Ronald Wilson Reagan. There is little question that Ronald Reagan will be remembered as one of the greatest presidents in our country's history," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League, the nation's largest pro-life grassroots educational organization.

"We are particularly grateful for his steadfast effort to restore the dignity inherent to each and every human being's life through his Personhood Proclamations in 1984 and 1988," Brown said.

"It is our sincere hope that as President Reagan enjoys his rest in that eternal 'shining city' he often spoke of, that God will allow his courage and leadership to serve as an inspiration to a new generation of leaders who are willing to take up the cause that is at the heart of liberty and prosperity: the undeniable personhood and right to life of every human being, born and pre-born."

Joe Scheidler, national director of Pro-Life Action League, said he had hoped Reagan could have done more for the pro-life cause, but he was able to sign a number of bills curbing abortion and, at the end of his second term, expressed dismay that Roe vs. Wade was still the law of the land.

Record of Accomplishment

Still, Reagan did many things to support pro-life causes. Among them:

# He supported legislation that would allow for a challenge of Roe vs. Wade.

# He adopted the "Mexico City Policy" halting federal aid to private groups promoting abortions abroad.

# His administration cut off funding to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities because the global agency violated U.S. law by participating in China's mandatory abortion program.

# His administration adopted regulations prohibiting federally funded "family planning clinics" from promoting abortion as birth control.

# The Reagan White House blocked use of federal money for research using the tissue of aborted babies.

# It helped win approval of the "Danforth Amendment," which said federally funded educational institutions could not be guilty of "sex discrimination" for refusing to pay for abortions.

# Reagan himself introduced the issue of fetal pain into the public debate over abortion.

# His administration was key in enactment of laws protecting the right to life of handicapped newborns.

# Reagan designated a National Sanctity of Human Life Day, to recognize the value of life at all stages.

Abuse of Life Legacy

Reagan himself once said, "My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have meaning."

In a piece for Human Life Review, he wrote, "Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution ... No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right."

Yet now, after his death, many are using his battle with Alzheimer's to argue against President Bush's executive order banning the creation of stem cells from human embryos, including his widow, Nancy Reagan.

Opponents of such research say it's an immoral abuse of life because the human embryos are destroyed. Some observers note that pro-abortion forces are using the issue to attack the president.

"Serious people have serious disagreements about the balancing of the hope stem cell research holds for curing Alzheimer's versus the misuse of human life, but to leading media figures it presents just another way to bash Bush," says Brent Baker of Media Research Center.

Steven Ertelt, news editor for LifeNews.com, wrote Tuesday that Washington Post television reviewer Tom Shales complained in a piece Sunday about how "Bush has refused to reconsider his opposition" to making taxpayers fund additional research on human embryos and ridiculed how "Bush thinks he hears Jesus giving him orders."

Ertelt speculates that Reagan, as president, would have adopted a policy similar to Bush's.

Baker concludes the major media are piling on. "Leading journalists are exploiting Ronald Reagan's death to push for wider embryonic stem cell research as they emphasize how President George W. Bush is out of step with Nancy Reagan on the issue," he wrote.

Stand on Principles

At the end of the day, however, it was Reagan's staunch opposition to abortion that inspired millions of Americans to join him, pro-life advocates say.

"Reagan did not think in terms of risks. This is what was so awesome about him as a man. He did what was right," Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, told CNSNews.com. "That was Ronald Reagan. If he believed it, he said it. And if he said it, he acted on it."

The Rev. Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life, said that Reagan made a tremendous contribution to the pro-life cause because of his beliefs.

"He had a saying on a paperweight on his desk that said, 'It's amazing how much we can get done when we don't care who gets the credit,'" Pavone said. "And that was his spirit when dealing with [abortion]. If criticism comes, if political prices have to be paid, the number one thing he needed to do was bear witness to this moral truth."
Originally Posted by Brian
Abortion will end when people's hearts are converted. Even overturning Roe vs Wade would just move it back to the States. It would not change one mind or stop one abortion.

The GOP has done nothing for the Pro-Life movement especially the man who gave so much lip service to the movement, Ronald Reagan.

Who is more consistantly pro-life (Abortion, Death penalty, euthanasia, war,) ?


Brian,

A few points.

Abortion will end when people are converted, as will war, poverty, discrimination and all crime.

So what is your point?

By overturning Roe v. Wade and having it remanded back to the States, the powers that be in "Big Abortion" will be forced to fight their battles state by state. Abortion was thrust upon the people through the courts, not through their elected representatives. Turning it back over to the states is the best chance we have of severely limiting if not eliminating altogether the scourge of abortion.

Finally, your views on this issue are skewed by your party politics. Republicans have done nothing? The facts cited quite frequently do not reflect that view at all.

And what is the alternative? We see that the DNC (appropriately named) has certainly done its share to promote abortion on demand, and in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, infanticide in Illinois. Would you like to see the list of criminal advocacy we see going on there?

In ICXC,

Fr. Deacon Daniel
Neither side is very good on the subject, though clearly one is worse. I have a guess as to what the very first action of the new presidency will be, and it will come with a single stroke of a pen.

What I think we should be more worried about are what's going to happen to the economy, the judiciary, the Constitution (listen to the 2001 NPR interview) and potentially even free speech (if the fairness doctrine comes back) when it seems what appears to be inevitable happens next week.

We should be prepared for the super majority.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

The damage I think will be lasting.
I agree that the damage will be on a number of levels and will take decades to repair...
folks, we are adults here, at least i think we are. political progress is not by fiat, like a child wishing for things to happen. political progress is measured by ten steps forward and nine steps backwards, true, you lost nine steps, but nevertheless, you are one step ahead of where you were.while many politicos have used the Pro Life movement in a cynical way, there are still those who wish to do something. give them the benefit of a doubt, the goods one are out there.the frauds you can toss out on their hinies if you assert yourselves.
much love,
Jonn
Posted By: lm Re: Are Republican politicians really Pro-Life??? - 10/30/08 02:35 AM
Quote
Abortion will end when people's hearts are converted.


True. And in the meantime, it's best that we vote for those who will do what they can to make sure that laws (and judges) are in place to protect the unborn.

Here are some alternative options:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_third_party_presidential_candidates
Fr. Deacon Daniel,

Are you located near the Chicago area? If so, just this week I heard a Republican (Mark Kirk) debate a Democrat (Dan Seals) on the radio touting his pro-choice record as a "shining example" of his leadership. Illinois Republicans are closer to National and Southern Democrats than other Republicans
Read about the Freedom of Choice Act before you vote, and what effect it will have on Catholic hospitals and physicians. IIRC, Obama promised to push it through as one of his first acts.
http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20081101/OPINION03/811010368
I hesitate to speak on this topic, but I think that many Americans do not vote on experience or issues of a candidate, but on the 'likability' or 'appeal' factor...as if they are voting for a high school year book contest.

Perhaps McCain has little going for him in the 'appeal/charisma' category, and perhaps he is not the best candidate which could have been set forth by his party, but I truly, and as many informed persons I have spoken to say also, TRULY, fear what will happen to this country if they vote in Sen. Obama...and I am not just thinking of abortion.

Alice

I'm afraid of John McCain - he was a loud, enthusiastic supporter of the bombings of Serbia. That's not my idea of "pro-life". Bombing civilians (not to mention the Chinese Embassy) is not particularly edifying.

Fr. Serge
I am very neutral about politics and don't get offended, so I appreciate all opinions..though I will admit to having opinions of my own.

We all have issues that speak to us differently. To some it is war and/or foreign policy, to others it is more taxes, to others it is abortion and/or infanticide, to others it is what a political party stands or stood for traditionally or contemporarily.

Ofcourse what I dislike most about politics is that it has the terrible habit of stirring up anger and anomosity and can stir up passion between friends, family and brethren, and our Eastern tradition teaches us that the passions are not of God...so I won't say any more! smile

Let's just remember our brother Athanasius the L/aka: Ryan's beautiful post of yesterday:
Quote
In my opinion, voting has become a rather unpleasant duty for Christians. Any choice is problematic in some way or another. I believe that the current state of affairs calls for us to be understanding and charitable with each other with respect to voting, realizing that different Christians will reach different conclusions. However, we all ought to be able to agree to pray for the following: for God to guide all of us as we vote, for God to guide all who hold office that they might act in accordance with God's will, for God to convert our culture, and especially, for the coming of God's kingdom and the fulfillment of God's will.

In the peace of Christ,

Ryan



In Christ our Lord,
Alice

[qutoe]I'm afraid of John McCain - he was a loud, enthusiastic supporter of the bombings of Serbia.[/quote]

Replace John McCain with Joe Biden and the statement holds, and of course those bombings occurred during a Democratic administration.

Foreign policy will actually likely change little either way.
Originally Posted by Serge Keleher
I'm afraid of John McCain - he was a loud, enthusiastic supporter of the bombings of Serbia. That's not my idea of "pro-life". Bombing civilians (not to mention the Chinese Embassy) is not particularly edifying.

Fr. Serge

When the Chinese are using the embassy to covertly war against America it is a very good thing to bomb them.

I'm voting for McCain. He's pro-life. Obama wants to force taxpayers to pay for 4,000 abortions a day. He is a socialist. He talks about need to take care of your brother and has an aunt in Boston living in a slum he doesn't help and a brother in Africa starving on $1 a month that he doesn't help. His pastor of 20 years runs around saying "G-- D--- America". His best friend is a terrorist. And he says not wanting to pay higher taxes so he can spread the wealth is selfish. The scariest words in the world are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Rich liberal Democrats will take everything and leave the entire country poor and unemployed. And last week Congress debated socializing the nest egg we have in our 401k to fund all this new spending they promise. Joe the Plumber is right on target. Obama wants to make us poor so he can be powerful.

The average American seems to have some weird hangups about voting for 3rd party candidates. I've been voting 3rd party for 3 decades, and I believe Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin is light years ahead of John McCain and Barack Obama.
McCain is also reported to have voted for funding the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)with the end result of creating another Muslim state in Europe.

Ray
Helen writes that:
Quote
When the Chinese are using the embassy to covertly war against America it is a very good thing to bomb them.


The trouble with such a principle is that it can be used in both directions. I somehow doubt that Helen would approve the Iranian policy towards the American Embassy in Tehran (the prolonged hostage crisis). Or the Ottoman policy toward Ambassadors and diplomatic staff of countries which made war on the Ottomans (the Ambassadors and diplomats were thrown into prison).

Moreover, at the time of the bombings of Serbia, I fail to remember where and how China was "covertly warring on America". Must have been so covert that nobody told me.

Is Helen telling us that the American bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Serbia was deliberate? If so, that would really put the fat in the fire!

Fr. Serge

Originally Posted by 70x7
McCain is also reported to have voted for funding the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)with the end result of creating another Muslim state in Europe.

Ray


Read about Biden's record on Kosovo.
Originally Posted by Lawrence

The average American seems to have some weird hangups about voting for 3rd party candidates. I've been voting 3rd party for 3 decades, and I believe Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin is light years ahead of John McCain and Barack Obama.


This is not an easy one to answer, as I am not fond of either major party and haven't been since I started voting. In this case, I think there will be a radical shift to the left in this country with an Obama victory, with a two year super majority and numerous judiciary appointments looming. In this case I think a vote for a third party is probably just a throw away vote, though I can understand someone who in their conscience must vote that way.
Like here? Horrible! Kosovareport

There seems to be no difference between McCain and Biden on foreign policy and especially KosovO.

I received an e-mail of a YouTube video a few months back trying to persuade me to vote for McCain because of Obama's partial birth abortion position. As horrible as partial-birth abortion is, is a position as pre-emptive war better? No, sorry.

But to get back to the original question..."Are Republican politicans really Pro-Life?"

Most Republicans vote to restrict abortion and abortion funding. But they have generally bought into the notion of pre-emptive war, which is NOT found in the US Constitution, but could now be called "The Bush Doctrine."

Here is my point, McCain believes in pre-emptive war which kills innocent people. Obama believes in pre-emptive killing of innocents in the womb. Whether we are in or out of the womb, all life is precious to God.

Pope John Paul II was very clear about the Iraqi war and how it does not fit into the Christian just war theory. One Byzantine Catholic bishop, Romanian Michael Botean's words can be found here. Quote: "Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See Bishop of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin. Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory."

Read Bishop Botean's sermon here

So, either one party want to kill the unborn and the other wants to get you in pre-emptive war.

Are Republican politicians REALLY pro-life? No, only one and his name is Ron Paul. Watch a video with Ron Paul about the Just War

Humbly submitted,

Ray
Quote
As horrible as partial-birth abortion is, is a position as pre-emptive war better? No, sorry


I think that is a dangerous argument.
Dear Brothers,

Since when did the Iraqi war become a war 'against the people of Iraq'?

Granted, in retrospect, it may have been unwarranted (and for that we have the complete backing of former President Clinton and Sen Clinton who said that the intelligence was ironclad), and a mistake as well, but we owe it to the military that has served there and given their lives due to the terrorist suicide bombers, the respect of honoring their sacrifice on 'behalf' of the Iraqi people and to allow them to finish their job as so much progress has now been made...I didn't come up with this-- a soldier was saying this yesterday on some news show which I caught a glimpse of and out of respect for him and what he and others have done for the Iraqi people, I am passing it on. (I don't really like to watch much t.v. so I just run through it when I am on my treadmill to kill the time).

In Christ,
Alice

Although the Iraqi Christians were better off under Saddam Hussein--there is no doubt about that--but were all the people, really? Dictators are kind of frightening and hated by those who are under them... and in a way the U.S. is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't topple a dictator. Foreign countries and people are always angry at us for one reason or another anyhow...trust me, I know.
Originally Posted by 70x7
I received an e-mail of a YouTube video a few months back trying to persuade me to vote for McCain because of Obama's partial birth abortion position. As horrible as partial-birth abortion is, is a position as pre-emptive war better? No, sorry.

The Church does speak to this. Abortion and infanticide are intrinsic evils. Pre-emptive war can be just. Pope Benedict XVI, when speaking at the United Nations earlier this year, affirmed that sovereign nations have a duty to protect its citizens (to keep them free and not harm them). He also noted that other nations have an obligation to intervene when a nation does not live up to its responsibility. The context of the Holy Father’s words was a chiding of the assembled nations for allowing Iraq under Hussein to become so problematic that military intervention was necessary. He saw the war as a failure, but not necessarily as unjust.

Originally Posted by 70x7
Most Republicans vote to restrict abortion and abortion funding. But they have generally bought into the notion of pre-emptive war, which is NOT found in the US Constitution, but could now be called "The Bush Doctrine."

Abortion and pre-emptive war are not at the same moral level. Pre-emptive war can be a just war. George Weigel speaks to this from the Catholic perspective. In short, a state that does not secure at least a minimal level of normative life and/or threatens other sovereign states (by being a “rogue regime”) forfeits the larger society’s normal respect of its sovereignty. The larger society has a responsibility to deny such states the capacity to create lethal disorder (both at home and abroad). Military intervention should be avoided, if possible, but it can be just. It is intrinsically evil to target innocents, but innocents killed by accident are not an intrinsic evil.

Originally Posted by 70x7
Here is my point, McCain believes in pre-emptive war which kills innocent people. Obama believes in pre-emptive killing of innocents in the womb. Whether we are in or out of the womb, all life is precious to God.

Senator Obama is on record as supporting pre-emptive war. He rejected the Iraq war but has spoken numerous times about pre-emptive war against Pakistan if it continues to shelter Al Qaeda.

Originally Posted by 70x7
Pope John Paul II was very clear about the Iraqi war and how it does not fit into the Christian just war theory.

Pope John Paul II did not specifically state that the Iraqi War was not just. He spoke to how even just wars must be avoided, and that even just wars are a defeat for humanity. The Church offers guidance regarding whether a war is just or not but it is clear that the final determination is left to governments. In 2003 Pope John Paul II declared that “War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations” and restated that “war cannot be decided upon . . . except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions.” It should always be noted that his words were only partially aimed at the United States and primarily aimed at Iraq.

One can respect Bishop Botean but it is legitimate to consider whether he overstepped his bounds by declaring an action to be a mortal sin when the Holy Father did not. He is certainly correct that all war is “morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ”. But that would also include violence used in direct self-defense (of an individual or of a nation (an example of the latter would be our response to Pearl Harbor)).

Are all Republican politicians REALLY pro-life? Of course not. I don’t see anyone claiming that all of them are. Generally speaking most Republicans are pro-life while most Democrats are pro-abortion. One could certainly write in a vote for Ron Paul or vote for another third party candidate. But if one is voting among the major candidates one evaluates their positions on life issues. Even if one rejects the Catholic allowance of pre-emptive wars possibly being just, both major candidates support the right of a nation to engage in a pre-emptive war. McCain is wrong on embryonic stem cell research, though he does not go so far as Obama (who supports cloning). McCain has moved towards us on abortion and now supports a human life amendment, and has promised to appoint justices who support ‘original intent’ interpretations of the Constitution (which would not support Roe). Obama has promised to past the “Freedom of Choice Act” which would nullify all laws that in some way restrict abortion (including infanticide like partial-birth abortion and the killing of infants born alive) and to appoint justices that promise to uphold Roe.

Then, of course, there are the numbers. 4,000 babies murdered in the womb each day. Our country runs with the blood of the innocents. And one candidate wants to force taxpayers to pay for all future abortions because women have a "right" to murder them.
Dear John:

I must completely disagree with your claim that a pre-emptive war can be just. Furthermore, George Weigel is, in my opinion, very biased on the question of the Iraq War, and his opinion carries zero weight for me on this issue, but my opinion aside, he does not speak with any ecclesial authority. I respectfully and humbly suggest that you continue to hammer away with the arguments of proportionality and moral equivalence (or the lack thereof). Those arguments are very compelling and far more persuasive.

In peace,

Ryan
Ryan,

I stand by my points. We will have to agree to disagree.

Regarding George Weigel, he really only expresses the classic viewpoint, which seems to have been forgotten after Pope John XXIII (or thereabouts). St. Thomas Aquinas taught that there were times when the first use of war was justified (for example, to stop systematic and organized wickedness or to prevent innocents from coming to harm). Pope John Paul II spoke in 1992 to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome and emphasized the moral duty of “humanitarian intervention” in situations of an (impending or ongoing) genocide (and other nasty stuff). He did not specify on who the duty fell or how to fulfill it but, rather, left that an open question, perhaps one for the international community to determine. The theology Weigel advances is certainly not formal Catholic Teaching. But neither does formal Catholic Teaching exclude it. His is a legitimate theological opinion within Catholicism.

John
We have definitely drifted from the topic of this thread with the preemptive war issue.

However, in the interest of fairness and truth if you listened to the debates Obama has come out in favor of pre-emptive "wars."
His defense of Israel (Iran)
His plan to increase our commitment Afghanistan (strikes in Pakistan)

He most likely will want to take a more active role in the wars in Africa (Congo, Sudan, Nigeria, Eritrea, Ethiopia) as he has a more personal interest.

This brings us back to the intrinsic evil of abortion......

Fr Deacon Paul
Originally Posted by Paul B

This brings us back to the intrinsic evil of abortion......

Fr Deacon Paul


Yes...all other points being diversions and anguished justifications for voting for a man who supports the killing of the unborn and infanticide.

Even if one were to regard preemptive war and abortion as moral equivalents (which they are not), the comparative body count in either case is sufficient to consider abortion as the greater evil since more death and destruction (albeit done clinically behind closed doors) has been wrought through abortion than all the wars fought in the 20th century, including the Holocaust.

The Democratic Party favors and encourages this barbaric practice and pledges to throw the weight of government along with its financial resources to supporting it here and exporting it abroad.

Republicans oppose it and will defund it.

Any questions?

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Saying that your disturbed by a candidate's pro-abortion position, but that you like everything else about him, is rather like saying "My next door neighbor is a cannibal, but other than that he's a good man"
Problem is that both "neighbors" are cannibals.. one feasts on unborn babies and the other feasts on everyone else (and babies collaterally)...
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
Problem is that both "neighbors" are cannibals.. one feasts on unborn babies and the other feasts on everyone else (and babies collaterally)...


One of the more ridiculous comparisons I've run across...
Originally Posted by ebed melech
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
Problem is that both "neighbors" are cannibals.. one feasts on unborn babies and the other feasts on everyone else (and babies collaterally)...


One of the more ridiculous comparisons I've run across...


An example of exaggeration or hyperbole-sure, but I totally disagree that it's ridiculous.
Originally Posted by ebed melech
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
Problem is that both "neighbors" are cannibals.. one feasts on unborn babies and the other feasts on everyone else (and babies collaterally)...

One of the more ridiculous comparisons I've run across...

I agree with Father Deacon Daniel. The comparison is ridiculous and irresponsible. One may disagree with the Republican Party on many issues (and I certainly do). But nothing they have done adds up to the support and blessing that Democrats have given to the murder of 4,000 babies each day. Our country runs deep with the blood of the innocents and those who voted for pro-abortion candidates are covered with it.
© The Byzantine Forum