Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Catholic voters urged to consider respect for human life, dignity

The "Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life" said that, while freedom of conscience leaves Catholics free to choose among political parties and strategies for promoting the common good, they cannot claim that freedom allows them to promote abortion, euthanasia or other attacks on human life.

11 Comments:

Blogger veggiedude said...

Funny how they left out the death penalty. The catholic church is opposed to it. Whoever wrote up the 'Doctrinal Note' did so out of politics, not religious conviction.

9:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check your facts, my friend. Perhaps you weren't aware that the Church does not teach Catholics must oppose capital punishment under all circumstances. Check out sections 2266 and 2267 of the Catechism. You can also find a great explanation of this by Catholic Answers at:
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp

Speaking of which, also check-out their new video version of the "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" at www.catholic.com.

5:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is sad to me that this subject keeps coming up. Catholics do not know their own faith. I am sad about that. Clearly, we can't know everything, but for goodness sakes these are important issues that people don't even understand how the church stands on them. I ask those people this, how do they feel about a so called CAtholic, John Kerry who told you people this, that the Catholic Church opposes the death penatly, and then they don't even know what is in the Catechism. I think of it as "A wolf in sheeps clothing"

Yesterday on a national radio program there was a renown psychologist on who stated that John Kerry may be a sociopath. If you are not familiar with this field of work you may be thinking that a sociopath is automatically a murderer, but a sociopath is "One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior."
A person that lies and changes his story based on his audience, and pretends that all is peachy in his life when it really isn't has this type of behavior. People want to vote for this guy!! I would suggest that they evaluate how good of a judge of character they are.

6:07 AM  
Blogger veggiedude said...

Bush has overseen 152 executions as governor of Texas. Kerry is opposed to the death penalty. Capital punishment was used to get rid of Jesus, because the conservatives of his day were small minded. Some things, they never change.

8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>A person that lies and changes his story based on his audience, and pretends that all is peachy in his life when it really isn't has this type of behavior.

This sounds like alot of public politician I've seen; which ONE fits the description? Gee, get off yer soapbox. It's not like any thinking person wouldn't seen chimpy Bush fitting the description.

12:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...in the case of Henry Lee Lucas, a convicted serial killer who was also a serial liar, there were many doubts as to whether he had actually committed the crimes he claimed he did. Bush granted Lucas clemency because he could not commit a man to death who had a chance of being innocent."

Hmmm...how does that square with the image of Bush as brutal executioner?

4:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It wasn't political rhetoric, this was psychologist who said she was worried for John Kerry's emotional health. I thought she was very kind in what she said, and she gave specific examples of him being a sociopath. Let me ask this question, and see if you can give me an answer, because no one else that is a democrat has been able to. What do you think has changed about John Kerry in 20 yrs that now all of a sudden the things that he voted against, voted for have all changed to something different? His voting record is public. The man voted against many things that he says now that he supports. 200 times he voted to increase taxes, but now all of a sudden he is a fiscal conservative??? Perhaps he has another social illness instead, dilusions

9:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>200 times he voted to increase taxes, but now all of a sudden he is a fiscal conservative??? Perhaps he has another social illness instead, dilusions

Do ya know how the politics and the whole bill-passing things works? If not, take a class on government, then watch some CSPAN. Come back after you've got something meaningful to contribute to this discussion.

8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It isn't going to upset me when you insult me, but you didn't answer my question. I know government, how it works, how voting takes place. If in fact that his voting record is as you say.. then what about his statements. Public statements. Bragging rights. One example that isn't about his support for any particular bill, but that is about the Vietnam war, is this: Recently he claimed he only threw away his ribbons, not his Vietnam medals. If you watch his public display, he said he threw away his medals. That is the easiest one that comes to mind. Perhaps you can put together a list of allllllllllllllll his little intricacies in all the bills he voted against and then for. One liners of course, in which he .. ohh didn't like the dollar figure of a bill, so he didn't vote for it. He didn't like that there was a part in the bill that didn't include rape so he voted against it. Things like that. Go ahead, because I will say to you this. If it is about partial birth abortion, I don't care what the reason, you don't abort a full term fetus, you don't abort any fetus. If it is about the parental notification law, that just is a lie because there was a stipulation in that bill that a guardian could be appointed in cases of rape.

6:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pro-life? Look at the fruits


By Glen Harold Stassen


I am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my family, "pro-life" is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he also is a blessing to us and to the world.

I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information, but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are disturbing.

Abortion was decreasing. In the decade before Bush became President, the number of abortions in the United States fell from 1,610,000 to 1,330,000. That is a decline of 17.4 percent over the 1990s, an average decrease of 1.7 percent per year. (The data come from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life.)

Enter Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its course downward. Instead, the opposite happened.

Three states have posted several years of recent statistics through 2003: Kentucky, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Here's what happened to their abortion rates: Kentucky's increased by 3.2 percent from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3 percent from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9 percent from 1999 to 2002.

I found 13 other states that reported statistics allowing comparison of abortion rates in 2001 and 2002. Here's what happened: Eight states saw an increase in their abortion rates: Arizona (+26.4 percent), Colorado (+67.4 percent), Idaho (+13.9 percent), Illinois (+0.9 percent), Missouri (+2.5 percent), South Dakota (+2.1 percent), Texas (+3.0 percent), and Wisconsin (+0.6 percent). Five states saw a decrease: Alabama (-9.8 percent), Florida (-0.7 percent), Minnesota (-4.4 percent), Ohio (-4.4 percent), and Washington (-2.1 percent).

In total numbers, 7,869 more abortions were performed in these 16 states during Bush's second year in office than previously. If this trend reflects our nation, 24,000 more abortions were performed during Bush's second year in office than the year before (or three years before in the first three states). Had the previous trends continued, 28,000 fewer abortions should have occurred each year of the Bush era. All in all, probably 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than expected from the earlier trends.

How could this be? I see three contributing factors:

Two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Average real incomes decreased, and the minimum wage has not been raised to keep up with inflation for seven years. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.

Half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of my 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001; in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions.

Women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency abortion increases.

My wife and I know — as does David — that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons, and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, every father, and every child needs public and family support.

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, childcare, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs and insurance and support for prospective mothers.

Glen Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif. He formerly lived and taught in Louisville.

5:07 AM  
Blogger David said...

A comment on this "study" from Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review:

"The conclusions look less than airtight. That is in part a result of the lack of comprehensive data. But the researcher also makes a number of analytical jumps. For example, we're to believe that joblessness leads to a higher abortion rate. Maybe so; but it would be nice to have some historical data to back up the point. I also think the moral assumptions behind the article are unsound. For one thing, it is not the case that pro-lifers should care only about whether the abortion rate goes up or down. Even if the abortion rate were zero, the fact that the law treats unborn human beings as non-persons would remain an injustice. And it is not the case that every policy that might bring down that rate is a good idea. If, for example, it were demonstrated that a policy of massive public subsidies for illegitimate births would reduce the abortion rate--which I do not believe--that would not by itself establish that it was worth doing."

10:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home