www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall kerry wrong for catholics. com

I just wonder what Kerry took out of his pocket during the debates, and I found a picture of his doing it. I thought you weren't suppose to have any notes.
http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/winners-never-cheat.html

I agree that this is the focus. And if we truly think that this issue is important, we ought to be thinking hard about how to organize not simply to be "doing something", but to accomplish goals.

1) Let's agree to the fact that we have had a Republican President and Congress past four years. What change has there been in the abortion rate? Notwithstanding their platform, they have taken only the most risk-free, timid steps; these folks are not going to risk their makority position on a courageous stand.

2) Let's also agree that the Senate will remain very evenly divided; prospects for a filibuster breaking majority are nil. The next Supreme Court appointments, to pass the Senate, will have to have no clear abortion views and to be apparent moderates. (Like Bush I appointments.) The prospects for some transforming change here are remote. And, as I mentioned before, the whole strategy of working the isssue through court action seems potentially counterproductive.

3) I agree with you that it is vitaly important to maintain a pro-life voice. But when we are talking voice rather than effect, the singular gravity of the abortion issue is diluted; there are many issues in which action rather than rhetoric are at stake and which thus become of "proportionate" significance.

I disagree. President Bush has been appointing many solid individuals to the federal courts. Not all have been confirmed by the Senate, but many have. Even if he succeeds in only getting a minority of pro-life judges confirmed he will have accomplished something (far more than a candidate who has promised to appoint only pro-abortion judges). Further, Bush has been reallocating as much funds as possible away from the abortionists and to organizations that do not perform or advocate abortions. He is also using the bully-pulpit of the presidency to speak about respect for life. His opponent is as far away from even this position as is possible and has promised to appoint only pro-abortion judges to the courts. If, as you suggest, there is no real difference in the candidates the abortionists would not be so motivated to vote Bush out of office.

The Church clearly teaches that respect for innocent human life (abortion and euthanasia) outranks all other issues. We should be putting party affiliations aside and voting for the candidates who will do the most for the cause of life instead of making excuses to vote for those who promise to support legalized abortion.

�

We have not really had a Republican Congress for the past four years. There has been a bare majority of Republicans and the Democrats have been united in filibustering almost all legislation that is friendly to life. Further, not all Republicans are pro-life. I would be very happy to vote for pro-life Democrats if they would further the cause of life. Unfortunately that political party currently treats abortion as its sacrament.

As I noted earlier, Bush has been advancing the pro-life cause as best he is able. The ban on partial-birth abortion (as full of holes as it is) and other legislative successes was hard fought against an organized enemy of life. As citizens we would do well to vote for only pro-life candidates, regardless of party affiliation. Restoring a respect for life and legislation to support it will only occur incrementally. But electing a pro-abortion president may wipe out even these little gains.

This is why we must elect pro-life people to Congress, and especially the Senate. But even if every judge appointed to the Supreme Court is not pro-life it is essential that they see that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. If Bush appoints judges who do not legislate from the bench it will a small step in the right direction.

There is no other issue that dilutes the cause of protecting life. Added together, all other issues cannot be used as an excuse to support a pro-abortion candidate. This is the proper understanding of �proportionate� understanding of how to vote.

We are followers of Jesus Christ.

We must speak and vote pro-life.

We must assist women to choose life at all times. This assistance must come in prayer, in emotional support and in financial support. Each of us must become involved in helping.

The actual truth is that the ban on partial birth abortion sailed through Congress 281-142 in the House and 64 to 34 in the Senate. This Republican administration and Congress were able to bring the proposed marriage amendment to a vote; but not the pro-life amendment that they allegedly espouse. They simply are not promoting the pro-life cause to the best of their ability.

You contradict yourself. You previously advocated against minor party candidates who are pro-life, in favor of major party candidates, like Bush, who play pro-life on the stump, but put the issue on the legislative back-burner after the election; who support abortion in cases of their choosing; and whose record on other life issues is terrible.

Your remark is unresponsive to mine. The dilution does not arise by comparison to other issues. The dilution stems from our not having a major, pro-life candidate. It stems from the fact, that notwithstanding the rhetoric, the distinction between the candidates does not come close to spanning the whole issue of abortion with all its gravity; the actual distinction is between pro-life talk and limited, cautious action, on the one hand; and pro-choice talk and limited, cautious action on the other. The abortion issue has more gravity than all the other issues combined to be sure. But the abortion issue is not genuinely on the table in this election. You may console yourself that it helps with those aspects of the Republican agneda that they are actually willing to push, but those issues added together cannot be used as an excuse.

Kerry, Iran, and nuclear weapons

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40744

I can't understand why anyone would want to give a terroist state a nuclear weapon.

It was mentioned in another post that the Democrat party had done wonderful things, etc., for a century. I wouldn't put my faith in traditions of either party. I saw both parties completely reverse their positions on most issues in the 1970s. They have little in the way of traditions that extend back before that time. The conservatives left the Democrat party and it bacame essentially the hippie party. All those conservatives moved to the Republican party and tilted it to the right. I don't think Bush is all that great a president. But Kerry could be the most wonderful man on the planet and I couldn't support him because of his views on abortion. Abortion matters. It's murder, pure and simple. And please, none of Cardinal Bernadin's seamless garment nonsense. While some of those other life issues matter, they are not in the same league as abortion. For example, capital punishment, which the Church says governments have a right to do, although the Church wishes they wouldn't. The Church has never said any government has the right to sanction abortion. In this election I would love to support "choice" if I felt like I really had one. I don't like either candidate.

HAMPTON, N.H. (AP) - John Kerry said Monday that President Bush has sacrificed hopes for disease cures offered by stem cell research to "extreme right-wing ideology."

The Democratic presidential candidate, with actor and activist Michael J. Fox, promised to fund more embryonic stem cell research with federal money if elected. A new campaign ad says it's time to "lift the political barriers" blocking the exploration of stem cell therapies.

"The hard truth is that when it comes to stem cell research, this president is making the wrong choice to sacrifice science for extreme right-wing ideology," Kerry said.

Kerry criticized Bush's decision to prohibit federal funding for research on embryonic stem cell lines created after Aug. 9, 2001. Some religious and conservative organizations oppose such research because days-old embryos are destroyed in the process.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041004/D85GMHNG1.html

Bush may not do everything right, but he understands the principles of faith. He has a belief of hope and steadfastness.

I mean Kerry is just blaently going against the Church. I pray for his soul. I don't understand or comprehend how someone can be raised in the faith of Christ and just through everything he taught to the wind. I don't understand, how one can partake of the Sacramental Life of the Church and not understand the condemnation of thier soul that is brought on them by their own actions. I just don't understand, it scares me for them.
Pani Rose

This point doesn't seem to penetrate. It is certainly correct that the issue of abortion is in in its own league. But the election does not grant us a referendum on abortion. The practical difference between what will happen on these issues if one or the other of the major party candidates is elected is, judging from recent history roughly nil. Because of this, almost all issues are proprotionately important, because all have at least zero importance.

Ditto with stem cells. The industry has been promised by Republican Congrressional leaders that an accommodation will be made after the election.

This is dead wrong. Allowance for prudential judgement doesn not mean it's OK to do evil, but we'd rather you didn't. :rolleyes:

I would characterize your analysis of party history with the words you use for Cardinal Bernadin. Maybe it was just very different in the South than in the industrial northeast. But I 'd like to think of this another way.


From Frederica-Mathewes Green, a pro-life presbytera who has studied and written extensivley on the issue of why woman have abortions.
http://www.frederica.com/pro-life/pbitter_mrb.htm

There are things to be done that could advance the cause of saving lives that do not depend on criminalizing abortion. Family leave might help. It took a decade to forge a coalition to support such legislation. Bush-father vetoed it because it "tied the hands of business". Then it was repassed in 1993 and Clinton signed it. Maybe it was one factor that helped cut the abortion rate 50% during Clinton's first term.

Right-to-life organizations point out that financial concerns are a factor in 21% of abortions. Maybe an economic plan is important not just for "seamlessness" but to save lives more surely than empty "I'm agin' it" slogans.

For those facing a lifetime with hardships becuase of a congenital defect in their unborn child, who makes the decision easier by its dedication to support, and who is making it harder by its rugged indivualistic mythos.

On "choice" here's something more from FMG:
"No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.

(Real Choices: Listening to Women, Looking for Alternatives to Abortion)
This is very strikingly similar to what I posted some time ago from Teresa Heinz Kerry.

That's pretty much what I get from the current Pope's statements on capital punishment. The Church says that states can execute criminals, but the Pope indicates he doesn't particularly like it. The Church has not decreed capital punishment to be evil. I don't support capital punishment either, but it doesn't belong in any argument about abortion, as the "seamless garment" folks like to do. I am not aware that Rome has ever endorsed any of Cardinal Bernadin's teachings.

"I would characterize your analysis of party history with the words you use for Cardinal Bernadin. Maybe it was just very different in the South than in the industrial northeast. But I 'd like to think of this another way."

I don't know your age, but I watched all the conventions in the late 60s and early 70s. My analysis of party history is pretty accurate. The liberals and anti-Vietnam War people drove the conservative Southern Democrats out of the Democratic Party. People who had supported that party for many years suddenly were not welcome any longer. The conservatives went to the Republican Party, which had been fairly moderate until that time. The Republican Party has tilted to the right ever since. I was there and I saw it happen.

"Right-to-life organizations point out that financial concerns are a factor in 21% of abortions. Maybe an economic plan is important not just for "seamlessness" but to save lives more surely than empty "I'm agin' it" slogans."

Oh, I couldn't agree more. Crisis Pregnancy Centers could put some of the money being wasted in Iraq to much better use helping poor pregnant women in need.

"Ditto with stem cells. The industry has been promised by Republican Congrressional leaders that an accommodation will be made after the election."

I will have to wait and see on that one, since I haven't heard that before. But I have read that many medical experts think stem cell research offers very little promise in treating some of the diseases like Alzheimers, which stem cell supporters supposedly want the research for.

Nobody knows at the moment. But there will be experiments aimed at discovery. The most positive news is that methods are emerging to do the work with adult stems cells. For reasons having nothing to do with "life issues", the view that these lines are more promising is begtinning to emerge - thank God.

I am the same age as Medved. The solid south hasn't solidly supported the Democratic candidate since LBJ and the civil rights movement. LBJ reflected after the passage of this legislation that he had lost the South for Democrats. IIRC George Wallace was not running on a Vietnam platform!

I do remember LBJ making that statement, but civil rights had little impact on party allegiance in my area. Most of the local Southern Democrats remained loyal to their party, although some did grumble about LBJ and civil rights. But they still voted for Democrats. It was that 1972 George McGovern candidacy that proved to be the last straw for our Southern Democrats. That's when they left for the Republican Party.

djs wrote:

I disagree. Kerry's agenda is to make abortion rights and the destruction of embryos a permanent part of the American scene. Voting for Kerry will aid him in his crusade.

Documentation?

And he says he will build a coalition!
My questoin is how? Not when he has allianted those who are supporting us in Iraq.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp


Reacting to John Kerry's omission of Poland�s efforts in Iraq, President of Poland Alexander Kwasniewski said, �I find it kind of sad that a senator with 20 year parliamentary experience is unable to notice the Polish presence in the anti-terror coalition.�
When asked about Kerry's derogation of non-U.S. coalition countries fighting in Iraq, Kwasniewski said: �I don't think it's an ignorance. The anti-terror coalition is larger than the USA, the U.K. and Australia. There are also Poland, Ukraine, and Bulgaria etc. which lost their soldiers there. It's highly immoral not to see our strong commitment we have taken with a strong believe that we must fight against terror together, that we must show our strong international solidarity because Saddam Hussein was dangerous to the world.�

�That's why we are disappointed that our stance and ultimate sacrifice of our soldiers are so diminished,� President Kwasniewski said. �Perhaps Mr. Kerry thinks about the coalition with Germany and France, countries which disagreed with us on Iraq.�


Number of Polish-Americans, by state, from the 2000 census:

Michigan: 854,844 (percentage of total population: 8.6%)
Pennsylvania: 824,146 (percentage of total population: 6.7%)
New Jersey: 576,473 (percentage of total population: 6.9%)
Wisconsin: 497,726 (percentage of total population: 9.3%)
Ohio: 433,016 (percentage of total population: 3.8%)
Florida: 429,691(percentage of total population: 2.7%)

A crusade? It is not impossible that you are right, but I think you're wrong. Certainly on the abortion issue I fully expect that Kerry would do nothing to criminalize abortion, but would work to provide better choices and to mitigate the pressure on woment to make this ghoulish choice.

The embryonic stem cell issue, strikes as more troublesome. We have many allies on the abortion issue. Who will go all the way to defend the embryo? Who will stay if and when some terminal diseasses is cured? My prayer is that adult celss quickly supplant embryonic cell lines before twe slide too far.

Your live nightmare and you want Kerry for what?

From the Weekly Standard
Blood Brothers
From the October 11, 2004 issue: Why the leading practitioners of late abortion wrote checks to Kerry.
by Douglas Johnson
10/11/2004, Volume 010, Issue 05

MARTIN HASKELL, George Tiller, and Warren Hern have several things in common. All three are abortionists who specialize in late abortions. Haskell's name is closely linked with the partial-birth abortion method. Tiller and Hern may be the only two abortionists in the United States who openly advertise their willingness to perform third-trimester abortions.

Finally, all three men have opened their checkbooks to support Senator John Kerry's bid to be president of the United States. Their contributions to Kerry's campaign total $7,000.

That is not a vast sum compared with the millions being spent by liberal groups to attack President Bush. (Federal law limits a contributor to maximum total donations of $4,000 to a single presidential candidate, split between two types of campaign accounts.) Nevertheless, these contributions are worth scrutinizing because of what they reveal about John Kerry.

Although Haskell, Tiller, and Hern have been controversial figures for many years in national debates about late abortions (as anybody can ascertain by entering their names into Google), the Kerry campaign apparently readily accepted the contributions--money that might very well have originated in fees charged to perform partial-birth abortions or other late abortions.

But why would such men send their hard-earned dollars to Kerry? After all, Kerry told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, on January 25, 2004, "I'm against partial-birth abortion, as are many people." And Kerry told the Dubuque Telegraph Herald in July, 2004, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

My bet is that the abortionists know

that during his 20 years in the Senate, Kerry has been an absolutely consistent defender of abortion. So why should they be bothered by statements intended only to mislead voters who are strongly opposed to the grisly business that these men are in--voters who are still unfamiliar with Kerry's actual record?

Most likely, these abortionists are quite aware that Kerry has promised to nominate only Supreme Court justices who share his real position on abortion policy--which would guarantee that partial-birth abortions and other late abortions, and of course earlier abortions, would remain almost entirely shielded from scrutiny or restriction by elected lawmakers for the foreseeable future.

DR. MARTIN HASKELL wrote the Kerry for President campaign a check for $2,000, recorded June 30, 2004. Haskell, based in Ohio, owns three abortion clinics, all called Women's Med Center (http://www.womensmedcenter.com). In 1992 Haskell published a paper describing how to perform what he called "dilation and extraction." Circulation of this paper led to introduction of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act by congressman Charles Canady, a Florida Republican, in 1995.

Brenda Pratt Shafer, a nurse who worked briefly at one of Haskell's clinics, witnessed close up the partial-birth abortion of a baby boy who she said was at 26 and a half weeks.

"I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant," Shafer related. "The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/722chwmt.asp