www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Does Obama support infanticide?

Is this true?

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=26868

What do you know of these matters?

Marian,

Sen. Obama supports abortion. That is a bad thing.

For some people, that is the only thing that matters. Articles like the one you cited are posted on the internet to appeal to them and to motivate them to vote for a different candidate.

For other people, like myself, there are are many other problems and issues facing this country; and a candidate's stand on abortion is not the most important thing politically.

-- John

John,

Would you be benevolent to list several problems/issues, that Obama can solve or improve, and McCain not?

Or, please, share a link to a reliable website where I can find out more.

Thank you.

However, I would never vote for a man who sustains abortion. I simply could not. I remember Christ's word and perhaps I would vote for none. What times we live...

m+

That Obama voted against a "Born Alive" act twice with reason suggests a flawed moral character that will have an impact on the decisions he has to make as President.

Terry

I second that!
Stephanos I

Personally I believe that Barack Obama would be a positively horrendous choice for president because he is so at odds with the 5 non-negotiables of Catholic teaching.

It sickens me no end when I hear Catholics speak of voting for Mr Obama on the basis of his support for "social justice". To them I quote some of the words of Bishop Fulton in his masterpiece The Life Of Christ.

"Our Lord was not denying that men must be fed , or that social justice must be preached; but He was asserting that these things are not first. He was, in effect saying to Satan, "You tempt Me to a religion which would relieve want; you want Me to be a baker, instead of a Saviour; to be a social reformer, instead of a Redeemer. You are tempting Me away from My Cross, suggesting that I be a cheap leader of people, filling their bellies instead of their souls. You would have Me begin with security instead of ending with it.you would have me begin with outer abundance instead of inner holiness.

"I reject any plan which promises to make men richer without making them holier"

"Next Christ laid hold of all the social theories which would say that sin was due to environment: to Grade B milk, to insufficient dance halls, to not enough spending money. Of them all he He said "You have heard." Then came the BUT: "But I tell you ." He affirmed that sins, selfishness, greed, adultery, crime, theft, bribery, political corruption-all these come from man himself. The offenses result from our own will, and not from our glands; we cannot excuse our lust because our grandfather had an Oedipus complex, or because we inherited an Electra complex from our grandmother. Sin, He said, is conveyed to the soul through the body, and the body is moved by the will.

And couple weeks ago...there were some posters here attacking me for what they thought was my "attack" against Obama (when at the time I thought it was about Osama...that was before I figure out the spelling issues)....

These folks claimed that he's a Christian and is a man of faith. Now look here...he's pro-abort...and all that.

Go figure!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

I know I am Romanian and have no business with the U.S.A. But I would like to know that the American nation is a Christian one, but not a crowd of a new Babylon.

However, open your ears and remember that:

(Matthew 6, 24, KJV)

From distance, when I look to Obama, I see an actor, a bad one in fact. But if the crowd yells... Obama has not the serious presence of Mr. Martin Luther King, for example. Regarding Mrs. Clinton, no comment.

The way I view this political situation:

Senator Obama is so charismatic that the people will not pay much attention to his plans and will probably not oppose any moves to import social experiments from the Netherlands including euthanasia and infanticide. He could be potentially more dangerous than Senator Clinton.

However, Clinton already has a credibility problem so that people will be watching her like a hawk if she were to become President.

Yes, America needs prayers.

As President, he can't do much harm without the support of congress. If the Democrats keep a slim majority, especially if they lose seats in the House or Senate, then his ambition may be curtailed.

The social experiments bring chaos. An essential law or politics must be for a few tens of years, no matter what party has the majority at a certain moment.

Regarding Obama, if he wins, he will be however a leader of opinion. I would prefer Mr. McCain, he seems more genuine and he is republican. Also he has experience of life and is conservative. At least this I know.

A question: will the next president name at the Supreme Court judges pro-life? I understood that soon 2 or 3 judges will retire. I think that the president must name judges pro-life.

Social matters...what if the city will be plenty of bread, and the inhabitants will be worse that those from Sodom? But this time God will not send fire again, He already sent His Son. But fire will be for those who fight against life and God. Their own incapacity to love and loneliness in eternity.

In hell there are no communities or communion.

God have mercy upon us all.

m+

Hi Marian,

As a Christian and as an American, I can vote for a candidate regardless of their position on abortion because I think the election is about other issues than abortion.

For example, I think this election is about the war. I am against the war, and I want it stopped. Personally, however, I really don't expect the war to end: regardless of who gets elected, because too much money and petroleum are at $take. Nevertheless, I would like America to rely more on diplomacy and less on war to get the resources and peace that we need.

That brings me to another issue that this election is about: education. I would really like my nephews to be able to afford a college education without having to go to war. In America, there is very little public support of people who want to go to college or who want to learn an advanced skill. They must pay for their advanced education with their own money. That means most people must go into huge amounts of debt, for years, in order to become educated sufficiently to make a living. But, many people cannot afford such loans. That leaves the military. The military will pay for people to get a skill or go to college. But, of course, the price is going to war. And so, many young people go off to war in order to get an education and a job. Yet, the military should be for warriors: not kids who need to get a job or an education. Instead, I would like to see America invest its money in its youth (and others who need a new skill), in exchange for national service that is not mostly or only limited to the military.

Another issue is health care. In America, we have some of the best medicine and medical technology in the world. However, we fail to provide even basic health care to millions of people: either at all, or affordably. Instead, we have transformed the practice of healing into a business. Conservatives love to criticize socialized medicine for the delays in treatment and the inefficiencies that result, which is true. However, conservatives often fail to acknowledge that the same inefficiencies and delays also result from purely free-market medicine, which is what we have now. Instead of a government bureaucracy denying health care to people, the private bureaucracies of insurance companies are denying people health care -- for a variety of scurrilous "exceptions." The result? Millions of people cannot afford any health insurance, and million of others pay dearly for it -- only to find that it is useless to them when they need it most. The solution, I suggest, is a mixed system like the military has. Basic medical care is available for everyone, but people are still free to acquire private insurance.

Here is another issue that this election is about: immigration. Our border security is a joke, both with Canada and Mexico. People can easily cross into the U.S. illegally. Why does the government allow this? Good question ! When in doubt, follow the money. For the last 20 years or so, America has had an economic policy of encouraging businesses to lower their costs (and thus increasing their profits) by reducing the costs of their labor. In other words, we are encouraging businesses to export jobs to countries that have lower costs for labor. However, some jobs cannot be exported -- agriculture, construction, cleaning, restaurants, etc. And so, we import cheap labor in the form of illegal immigrants. Many of them are from poor countries, and they are willing to come here and work for low wages and no rights because even that is better than the life in their homelands. But, importing illegal workers makes our borders insecure. It also lowers the price of American labor (in other words, wages go down). It also creates a nation within a nation of exploited workers; and in an era of terrorism, we do not need a foreign population of exploited workers in our midst. And, because many illegal immigrants are brown people, this issue can easily be racially exploited --and thus dodging the real issue, which is money. Money is what is driving illegal immigration -- namely, getting the cheapest labor for our goods and services. Wouldn't it be nice to actually look out for the American worker for a change? And wouldn't it be smart (as well as just) to treat illegal immigrants as human beings -- instead of political pawns ? In short, our immigration system must be overhauled, which also means overhauling our policy on labor, workers and the economy.

Finally, and at the risk of derision, this election is about the environment. The debate about the environment is more than a debate about global warming, wildlife and pollution. It is fundamentally a debate about our economy. Currently, we have an economy based on consumption. We consume energy (for our cars, electronic devices, and so on), plastics, food, and everything else -- to satisfy our wants immediately. As a result, we spend more than we can afford on resources that our children will need in the future. This cannot continue. However, if we had an economy based on investment --savings, self-control, moderation,. etc.-- we would consume resources on a basis that is much more sensible and which preserves the world for the future.


So, you see, there are fundamental issues facing this society in this election.
-- How shall we get the resources and peace that we need, by war or by negotiation?
-- How shall we educate our people, by debt or by investment?
-- How shall take care of the health of our people, for profit or for compassion?
-- How shall we treat our workers, by exploiting them or fairly?
-- How shall we make a living, with greed that robs the future, or with moderation that preserves this world for future generations?

Now, can you see that these issues take priority in this election to abortion? Life does not end at birth, and being pro-life means more than being anti-abortion. The future of this country is being decided in this election. And with it, for better or for worse, much of the future of the rest of the world is being decided too.

Yes, abortion is awful.

But, abortion is being exploited by the Republican party: to manipulate conservatives into supporting the Republican party and its agenda.

If people vote only about abortion, they will be also voting for continuing the rest of the Republican party's agenda. And that means:
-- more war,
-- more broken education,
-- more failure in providing health care,
-- more exploitation of workers and more border insecurity,
-- more waste: of the future's resources and hope.

Do you really want more of the same?

Do you really want George Bush to get, in effect, a third term?

I do not.

I want change -- change that we can believe in.

It won't come from Hillary Clinton. She has been so much part of the political machine for the last 30+ years that she is the machine.

It won't come from Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee, because they simply do not have enough votes to get elected.

Real change will come, in this election, with Barack Obama. He is the change that America is becoming: multi-ethnic, multi-racial, basically Christian, but loving freedom and being good-willed to others. He has a good program of plans, which you canread at his website: http://www.barackobama.com . But it is the person, not the program, that gets elected. And Barack Obama is a person of character, integrity, accomplishment, intelligence, compassion, charisma and vision. Barack Obama is the one person, in this election, who can build the coalitions that are necessary to bridge the divides within our country, and with other countries, in order to work together to make a better future.

As a Christian, as well as an American, I have to look at the needs of all of the people when I cast my vote. And I repeat: Life does not end at birth, and being pro-life means more than being anti-abortion. And there so many other issues that affect the living, and those issues must be decided in this election: the war, education, health care, immigration, and the environment. As a Christian as well as an American, I feel confidant that Barack Obama can best lead America to solving those problems and leading us to a better future.

-- John

Monday, 25 February 2008

Brother John,

I agree your word that life does not end at birth. This is clear.

I did read with attention your post and I understand.

But understand me that I simply could not vote for a person who is pro-abortion. If I'd live there, and I would not have any option, I do not know what I would do. Perhaps I would not vote for anyone. Yes, it is wrong not to vote, but my heart could not...

Yes, brother. I see your points. I had the chance to know a few persons, who had serious troubles. Either in Louisiana, poverty, poor education etc, or in Illinois, or in New Mexico, in and around Taos.

But...if Obama wins, then he must accomplish what he promised. And he much promises. When I will hear that the poor from New Orleans know an improvement in education, more jobs, better health care, then I would say he did his job.

Regarding the abortion...it is not awful. It is hell.

Thank you for sharing. I appreciate this.

m+

There are matters which are fundamental to human existence, one of these matters is the protection of life, especially innocent life. If a state can�t protect the most innocent among us, can we trust it to protect us when we are weak?

Socialism can do much harm if the value of life is limited to its utility.

Terry

I sit back and allow everyone to express their political opinions, so for this one little time I will, as well.

I would like to say: Give President Bush a break...no other President has had to serve under the conditions and threat which 9/11 posed to this country. For seven years we have not had an enemy/terrorist attack. Give the man credit for that, at the very least!!!

As for anything else I will say 'no comment'. I am not an idealist. Both parties are terrible and this country has many domestic as well as international problems, and each party has had a hand in whatever they are presently.

As for abortion, the law is probably here to stay, but what really really repels me as the most horrific murder of the preborn of all, and one that is NEVER necessary, is partial birth abortion-- and thanks be to God, that is another issue President Bush has shown leadership on.

My mother taught me, since I was a child, to give credit where credit is due. The world, our country, our relationships, our schools, our jobs, our church communities, would be much more pleasant if we could all look at each other and do that.

In Christ,
Alice