Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Brideshead Deconstructed | Main | Advertising Your Competitors? »

August 18, 2008

Comments

Curious

Greetings SDG,
Interesting rumination on a tough call. But, consider that there will probably be a window during the next 4 year team to replace some of the bad guys on the Court. If Obama is elected, that window will be lost forever; in fact the Supreme Court may be lost for a generation, perhaps forever. McCain, even if he does the monumentally stooopid act of choosing a pro-abort VP, would still give us better justices. Of course we have to hope he doesn't go all "maverick" on us when making such decisions... McCain is not my favorite, but he is light years ahead of Obama. As to positioning VPs, didn't work out so well for Quayle or Gore, but did for Papa Bush.

bill912

Sitting vice presidents rarely get elected president. The only 2 to do so before Bush41 were Jefferson and Adams.

Dave Mueller

I think McCain is basically just throwing a bone to the Log Cabin Republicans, though I think the comment was unnecessary. I would be very surprised if McCain actually selected a pro-abort VP. If he does, he may very well lose my vote as well.

JohnD

I often wonder what our political landscape would look like if people stopped trying to overthink their political decisions and strategies, and simply voted for the candidate that best represents them and their principles.

I know, I'm crazy.

SDG

Interesting rumination on a tough call. But, consider that there will probably be a window during the next 4 year team to replace some of the bad guys on the Court. If Obama is elected, that window will be lost forever; in fact the Supreme Court may be lost for a generation, perhaps forever. McCain, even if he does the monumentally stooopid act of choosing a pro-abort VP, would still give us better justices. Of course we have to hope he doesn't go all "maverick" on us when making such decisions... McCain is not my favorite, but he is light years ahead of Obama. As to positioning VPs, didn't work out so well for Quayle or Gore, but did for Papa Bush.

I hear you, Curious.

FWIW, I can't see McCain picking any Quayle, or Gore, or Cheney. Those guys were wrong from the get-go -- they were never ready to be the next face of their party. McCain is going to pick someone with a serious chance at being the next face of his party -- possibly, as I say, in four years. If I'm wrong and McCain picks a likely non-contender, I admit I might possibly rethink my views. If he picks Ridge or someone like him, I can't see voting for him.

If Obama is elected, the balance of the court will be cemented, but not necessarily fundamentally altered. He'll replace two evil justices with two more evil justices, and a window will be lost. I'm not sure that's much consolation if we wind up with two pro-choice parties for the next twenty years.

Dennis

So who are you going to vote for? Or are you just going to sit it out?

You know, there's more to Catholicism than the abortion issue.

Shaun G

Bear in mind, SDK, that "conception" has become a fuzzy word. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, for instance, defines conception not as the moment of fertilization but as the moment of implantation.

It's entirely possible that when McCain said he believe life begins at conception, he was referring to implantation, which would square with his support of embryonic stem cell research.

If it is indeed the case that McCain meant implantation when he used the word "conception," I think pro-lifers would be right to say that he was purposely trying to mislead them.

SDG

So who are you going to vote for? Or are you just going to sit it out?

You know, there's more to Catholicism than the abortion issue.

Both of these points are alluded to in my post.

Uhura

Curious represents my reasoning as well.

Jenny Z

I *really* don't think you need to worry. I don't think there's any way on God's green earth that he would actually pick someone that is pro-choice... my guess (and alot of other folks' guesses) is that he's doing it to keep Obama on his toes.

As for not voting for him... agreed, who're you going to vote for? We *know* what kind of Supreme Court Justices Obama would nominate. And we know that, given McCain's record, he'd stand true to pro-life issues in making his nominations.

If you vote for anyone else, you're giving a vote for Obama. I know people think that's a load of bollox, but really. I'm not talking about ideals... ideally, I'd love to be able to vote for a 3rd party and have it be viable. But I'm being realistic.

If he lost your vote because of this, I'd say you're losing sight of the bigger picture.

Kevin J Jones

Note that McCain is also pretty old and suffers from severe injuries and health problems originating in his POW days. It is possible he will die in office, an event we haven't seen since FDR.

charley

Keep in mind that a pro-choice president can still appoint strict constructionalist justices, and a pro-life president can still appoint liberal justices. I believe that Mr. Ridge supports the partial birth abortion ban, and would agree to the kinds of limitations on abortion that congress has the power to pass ("parental consent," "age limits," "no federal funding," etc.). So the real issue is what kind of judges he would appoint.

Yes, the big fear is that a "pro-choice" republican president would cause the republican party to go pro-choice, which would relegate its pro-life members to minority status. But that may be a risk worth taking. For the first time since Roe v. Wade, we are in a position to get a conservative court. All we need is one more justice. Stevens is 88, Ginsberg is 75, and neither want to retire with a president in office that will appoint a conservative, but I assume Steven won't wait until he is 96. If Obama is elected, both (or more) are likely to retire and we may never have this chance again.

Terentia

I understand. I don't like the thought of a pro-abortion VP either. What I don't understand is how having a pro-abortion president would be better. Not only would we lose SCOTUS, we will lose everything we have fought for over the past 36 years. And if the Freedom of Choice Act is signed, as Obama promises, we will lose any opportunity to ever change things again. And that's just one of the issues affecting the prolife struggle. Obama lies about BAIPA, but he can't get away with it because leftists and their allies no longer have complete control over the dissemination of info. What happens when the "Fairness Doctrine" is put back in place, as Pelosi and Reid promise, when talk radio is government controlled, when the U.S. follows Canada's lead and prosecutes bloggers and Christian churches for "hate speech" for not going along with the abortion, homosexual and multicultural agendas? We are not just talking about 4 years and then we can get a 'real conservative, pure prolifer" in office.

Dan

With Obama, you can guarantee that he'll nominate pro-abortion candidates. It's a no-brainer here. We're never going to get teh perfect Catholic candidate. Better to have an incrementally better candidate than one with a 0% rating on the life issue (Obama).

Shane

SDG,

In complete charity and sincerity I would strongly urge you to prayerfully consider the reasoning you presented in your response to Curious.

The window that you say will be lost is far more than simply that. The court is currently one justice away from very possibly overturning Roe v. Wade, or perhaps even making abortion illegal in the United States or something else. That "window" is the chance to save millions of lives. In fact, if two pro-life justices are appointed, then that could very possibly even give the court what it needs to last beyond 20 years of pro-life politicians.

But I don't think that that is really relevant here. What is relevant is, what can I do right this moment? I think of the meditation that I made during a Rosary recently. Mary, the most holy and perfect human being ever to live (apart from Christ), was not able to discern what God called her to - not in the long run, anyhow. In all of the time that she most certainly spent seeking out God's will for her in prayer, she who most knew God's will out of all of us never came to what was ultimately the right conclusion. What she did do was know what God's will was for her at any given moment. She may not have discerned her ultimate vocation, but she discerned the call God was giving to her at that time in her life, and in following God's will each day, she ultimately had her life-long call revealed to her at the time of God's choosing.

Planning ahead is good. St. Paul commands us to do it. Yet trusting in God in each moment without looking to the future is also good. Jesus commands us to do that. I am not attempting to set up a conflict between these two ideas where there is none. I am attempting to point to the true reality that exists as some synthesis of those points, and which the Blessed Virgin lived out in her life, ultimately leading her to fulfill her role in the Incarnation.

It's a valid concern to worry that electing Tom Ridge as Vice President may lead to 20 years without any pro-life options, but it is also uncertain and ultimately merely a speculation. I could just as easily argue that no outright pro-choice republican could ever win a national election, and that Tom Ridge would never go beyond VP.

What is not a speculation is that the next four years will most likely bring about at least one new justice, and either John McCain - who has already stated that his nominations would be selected with the help of Sam Brownback - or Barrack Obama - who has made it clear several times that the right to abortion may well be the issue most dear to his heart - will select that justice.

What is not a speculation is the millions of innocent lives which are murdered each year, and the chance to save the majority of them. I think in this case, we have to follow Mary's lead. We don't know what next year will bring, or the year after, or the year after that. We do know that right now the chance exists to save many from abortion, and we ought to do that right now, trusting in God for the future.

Remember that Satan does not want pro-life justices, and he will do anything he can to prevent that. Please make sure that your line of reasoning does not spring from his tricks.

Forget that. Just make sure your line of reasoning springs from the Holy Spirit. If you do that, then nothing else is a concern.

Peace, and God bless

Blackadder

If McCain is elected President, his vice president will be well positioned to succeed him as the party's next presidential candidate (which could easily happen only four years from now).

Less, actually. The main way Vice Presidents become President is not by winning elections, but by the sitting President dying in office.

Granted, despite his age, McCain is in excellent health, and there's no reason to it likely He won't be able to serve a full four or even eight years if elected.

But Presidents do die in office with some regularity. It happened in 1841, 1850, 1861, 1881, 1901, 1923, 1945, and 1963. Statistically speaking, we're due. And as often as not, death has come not from old age or disease, but through assassination. Given the terrorist threat that's out there, I don't think we can dismiss this as a live concern, whether the President is McCain or anyone else.

All of which is to say that who McCain picks as VP is vitally important.

Blackadder

Should be "1865" not "1861", obviously.

Shane

All of which is to say that who McCain picks as VP is vitally important.

This is very true. That being said, it isn't vitally important enough to dismiss voting for McCain over the chance he might die. I mean, say McCain picks some pro-choice running mate. In that case, there are three possibilities:

1) McCain is president for a full term.
2) McCain dies mid-term and his pro-choice VP becomes president.
3) Obama is president, either for a full term or part of a term.

Regardless of what happens during a McCain term, the only way to get a pro-life president is if he is elected. If he dies and a pro-choicer rises to take his place, well that really stinks, but then you're just in the same position as if Obama were elected (well, probably better, because it would be almost impossible for someone to be as gung-ho pro-choice as Obama). If we want a pro-life president, in the current situation McCain is the only option, regardless of his running mate.

SDG

If he dies and a pro-choicer rises to take his place, well that really stinks, but then you're just in the same position as if Obama were elected

Except that that way the GOP wins with a non-pro-life ticket.

Brian Day

Let's not get the cart before the horse.

If and when Senator McCain chooses a pro-abort running mate, I will not vote for him. Until that happens, I am ignoring this as pure speculation.

-----------

Maybe his statements are purely political and part of the calculus of presidential politics. It would be sad that he has to play the game, but I don't think that making these statements is a disqualification. Make your decision on who he actually chooses.

bklyn catholic

I don't see McCain picking Ridge; it looked like posturing to me. I suspect he will pick Pawlenty (Gov-MN) who has working-class sensibilities and a pro-life record.

In any case, I'm not sure we will see strict pro-life judges willing to overturn Roe and Casey in McCain's presidency. The Democrats will control the Senate (probably with a 56-44 margin), and the House (probably by 30 seats) and that will allow them to filibuster any judges to the Supreme Court that they feel will overturn Roe.

Though McCain is pro-life, I don't feel that is issue number 1 with him, and I see him moving to other areas of his agenda instead of fighting the long, public, open-wound of a battle that will be needed to secure nomination of justices willing to overturn Roe and Casey.

With a McCain presidency, I see more Souters, Kennedys and O'Connors in our future.

Shane

Except that that way the GOP wins with a non-pro-life ticket.

Steve, who cares? This isn't about politics, not even the politics of trying to work out the best situation for the pro-life movement in the future. It's about saving lives. If McCain runs with a pro-choicer on his ticket, but he gets to appoint a pro-life judge while he's in office, then what difference does it make how he or his party or anyone else fared? We'll have an extremely good chance to have Roe v. Wade overturned, or even better. Countless lives will be saved.

If McCain wins with a pro-choicer and then dies or something before he can appoint any judges, like I said that stinks, but at least then there was a chance. If Obama is elected, you can bet your house that there will be two more pro-choice judges appointed before his term is out and it will - not might be, but will - be decades before another chance like this comes along. That's 20 million or more dead. As someone else has said, Obama would also no doubt make it much harder for any judge to ever make abortions a thing of the past.

So if McCain wins with a pro-choicer and then dies, we're in the exact same situation as if Obama wins, practically speaking. Sure, the GOP can say they won with a pro-choice candidate so maybe they'll try to put more up, but frankly I highly doubt that, and even in that case, like I said... we're talking about what we can do NOW to save lives NOW, not gambling about how to save them in the future.

I am reminded of people who never buy anything because they are always worried it will go on sale next week. We can't treat 20 million kids' lives that way.

Peace, and God bless

ital off

bklyn catholic

Also, Bill912, though you are correct in citing the rarity of electoral succession of VPs to the presidency, you did miss one. Martin Van Buren succeeded Andrew Jackson in the election of 1836 and had served as his vice president from 1833-1837.

The rarity, however, makes one wonder why any politican with Presidential ambitions would want the job.

bill912

Well, Martin Van Buren was easy to miss.

MLC

He's an AIPAC Zionist shill, just like Obhama, he deservesto be obliteretd

Anonb

>>I am reminded of people who never buy anything because they are always worried it will go on sale next week. We can't treat 20 million kids' lives that way.

Well put. It's clear the safest choice for 2009-20xx kids.

JohnE

SDG,
You captured my sentiments almost exactly. At what point do we vote 3rd party or write-in? Obama is clearly out. He claims he doesn't know when life begins so he's fine with firing the gun into a dark room. He supports death and the chaos of same-sex "marriage", while using words he thinks will appease those who don't, and appears to be outright lying regarding his the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act that he voted down.

McCain's support for embryonic stem cell research means the light is on in the room and he can see life in there but it's still ok to fire anyway. Not exactly an appealing choice either. If McCain picks a pro-abort VP, what should make me think that abortion is going to be of any importance when it comes to appointing justices? I can hear the spin already when the pro-abort justice is nominated -- how he had to unfortunately compromise on abortion in order to get a justice that aligns with other very important issues.

As bad as McCain is, I just might vote for him to keep Obama out, and I think there's a much better chance of persuading McCain against embryonic stem cell research than Obama. But if McCain wins it also sends a dangerous message -- you don't have to be completely pro-life to win. Will life issues become more and more non-issues in the political races? At what point do you vote for none of the above?

Brad

At the very least, one would have to vote for McCain going with the odds that any Supreme Court nominee would be a better alternative to ANY nominee that Obama would put up (from a pro life stand point). And next to abortion, which should be the number one concern for any Catholic, our national security would certainly be in better hands with McCain than Obama.

The Masked Chicken

The Pope was elected Pope at the age of 78. That seems to have worked out well. Also, it is an interesting question of timing. If McCain dies in his first year, who his VP is, if pro-choice, will probably a problem. If he dies in his third year, he will have clearly established policies which the new president would, probably, be loath to mess with (or else face the possibility of not being nominated for a second term). Given the lifespan of modern politicians, the odds are good that McCain will survive for at least one full term.

It would then seem to be a fight to see who could last longer: an aged president or an aged Supreme Court justice.

The Chicken

Randy

My feeling is McCain won't get a pro-life judge onto the court. The Democrats will have more seats in the Senate. To get a 5th conservative on there he will need to REALLY fight hard. I don't think he cares enough about the abortion issue or the conservative wing of the party to go to war on this. He has made compromises before that have enraged conservatives and wore it as a badge of honor. I can see him doing it over a judical nomination.

SDG

Let's remember that even getting another Roberts AND Alito -- and assuming that the Roberts and Alito we have live up to their billing -- and even overturning Roe doesn't automatically save 20 million lives. Overturning Roe is a necessary first step, but it's also just a first step. We need to be in it for the long haul. That's not going to happen if we don't have at least one party putting up pro-life candidates.

bklyn catholic

Nine SCOTUS Justices:
Thomas - Constitutionalist (therefore, anti-Roe)
Scalia - Constitutionalist (therefore, anti-Roe)
Alito - Constitutionalist (therefore, anti-Roe)

Roberts - Constitutionalist, but a strong believer in the legacy of the court. Has generally valued stare decisis. It is not entirely clear where he will stand when the chips are down and Roe is on the table to be overturned uncategorically.

Kennedy - voted in the majority in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, upholding nearly all the proscriptions of Roe v. Wade.

Souter - Conservative turned liberal and around for another term.
Breyer - liberal's dream, "living constitutionalist". around for a long time.
Ginsberg - soon to retire
Stevens - soon to retire

By my count (and perhaps weak analysis), both Ginsburg's and Stevens' seats need to be occupied by people that are strict Constitutionalists and to the right of Chief Justice Roberts, just in case.

Does anyone really think McCain has the ability to pull that off in the face of a strong Democratic majority in the House and Senate?

I suspect that abortion law will not change significantly at all if McCain is President, in much the same way that it did not change much at all in Bush43, Bush41, or Reagan's tenures.

bklyn catholic

Bill912, yes, Martin Van Buren is easy to overlook as are basically all the Presidents between Jackson and Lincoln.

Is anyone's favorite President, Franklin Pierce? But, oddly, brings up another point. Franklin Pierce stated at the beginning of his term that he would not run for reelection.

That may be the only way for a President to truly set-up his running mate as the successor of his party's platform. McCain, considering his age, could do so, and turn the party next to someone like Gov. Jindal or Gov. Pawlenty, or even Gov. Palin in Alaska. It would be an interesting way to remain noble and principled and put, as McCain always says, America first.

the radical moderate

Hello and great thread, all. Although I tend to agree with Shane, in a way I am quite happy that many others take SDG's position, as it creates a disincentive for nominating a pro-abortion-rights VP candidate.

BTW, maybe some of you can make some terminological suggestions. I'm unhappy with either "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion"-- the former is too vague, and the latter is too narrow because it excludes "personally opposed" people who nonetheless think abortion should be legal. On the other hand, "pro-abortion-rights" is clunky, and risks lending an undeserved legitimacy to the position by failing to distinguish between natural and politically-constructed rights. Thoughts?

the radical moderate

One more thought: don't you think McCain could get strong "conservative" Justices if he wanted to? If he sends two or even three consecutive nominations to the Senate, only to have them voted down, we might be looking at a year or two where the Court is operating with eight Justices. Many important cases will start being decided by (non-precedential) tie votes, the press will start complaining, and people will wonder if there's ever an end in sight. In that situation, wouldn't everyone (rightly) regard the Dems as being obstructionists, and wouldn't they be forced to confirm just about anyone a President McCain chose?

CT

The reduction of all judicial and constitutional issues to Roe vs Wade and other abortion law is a parochial trivialization of the jurisprudence of SCOTUS and of the American courts in general.

Jesus hardly seemed to have been as a mythic character a single-issue preacher. While lives were in jeopardy he didn't focus solely or even primarily on much less reductively obsess on such life issues. He preached about a wide array of issues.

Thankfully the approach of the US Bishops' Conference though in many cases flawed on the merits, is at least admirable for its acknowledgment of the wide array of issues that should be important to the American citizen.

Since that no issue where lives are not at stake could be as important as abortion is taken to be dogma based on a cold methodical calculus of numbers, let me pose this hypothetical. Suppose that there was a constitional amendment afoot in the state legistlatures and Congress which while it would have no actual force of law would enshrine in the Constitution a proclamation admitted as a singular exception qua mere proclamation to the 1st Amendment that God did not exist and that Christ taught immoral things.

Presumably some Christians would be concerned about such an amendment even though it is of merely a proclamative nature (like the San Francisco denunciation of the Catholic Church) out of their desire that God or Christ not be dishonored in their public documents. I suspect for some this concern may rival or outweigh in and of itself (outside of its implications for consequences that may follow from a slippery slope) their pro-life concerns. Yet for those who subscribe to the dogma that all political issues can be placed in quantifiable commensuration with the number of lives lost to abortion, abortion would remain without a second thought the all important issue. Pro-lifers end up devaluing life for the see nothing within a person's life or around it that is as important as or more important than the person's life itself. There are things more valuable than life -- shocking to pro-lifers as that may be -- that is why many noble men die for things that do not involve the saving of any other lives.

SDG

CT, your jaundiced reading of my comments is getting tiresome. I don't mind explaining where you misunderstand, but it would be nice if I got the sense you were trying to understand me in context. I have never reduced "all judicial and constitutional issues to Roe vs Wade and other abortion law," and nothing in this post gives you warrant for your mistaken assumptions.

John

A previous comment states "Sitting vice presidents rarely get elected president. The only 2 to do so before Bush41 were Jefferson and Adams."

That is not correct. Martin Van Buren, while serving as Vice President, was elected President in 1836. Richard Nixon, who served as Vice President from 1953 to 1961, was elected president in 1968. Then there are the Vice Presidents who became President through the death or resignation of the President. And let's not forget that McCain would be the oldest person ever elected as President. So, the choice for Vice President is significant.

Even so, I respectfully fail to see the logic in SDG's position. If Obama is elected, it is certain that he will appoint liberal justices to the Supreme Court. Even if McCain serves only four years, he will have an opportunity to appoint conservative Justices, and any who are appointed will influence the court for many years afterward. Even if the President after McCain favors abortion, he will not be able to undo the effect of any appointments that McCain has made to the Supreme Court.

In all of this discussion, however, it must be remembered that the only consequence of overturning Roe v. Wade will be to return the question to the states. Each state will be able to decide for itself whether to permit abortion or not. The Supreme Court has no authority to outlaw abortion. There are likely to be many states in which abortion will remain legal.

Biran

Hi, I am not from your neck of the woods, so to speak. I see your getting ready for the election. Talking about pro life and abortion. I am anti abortion. I don't know what it's like for you guys but here in N Ireland. I gave up voting years ago. The problem for me is that all the catholic parties say they are anti abortion yet they claim to be pro choice. Most of the Protestant parties are strongly anti abortion and pro life, but they are anti pope, anti Catholic Church. What is a person like me supposed to do? Do I go back to voting and vote for a catholic party that will bring in abortion with the stroke of a pen, or do I vote one of the Protestant parties and lend my support to people who are anti RC Church. I don't need to remind you of the years of devision there has been over here between us all. Its like being between a rock and a hard place. which do I pick. Anyway, good luck to all the anti abortion people, I just hope that voting one way does not mean you will suffer with another Bush even though he is anti abortion he has still caused a lot of other harm. God bless

Barbara

I was going to hold my nose in voting for McCain anyway, so if he chooses a less than desirable VP, I'll simply hold my nose, and my breath, and vote Republican.

I wasn't too enamored of Bush either, but in comparison to AlGore and Kerry, he wins, hands-down. He's no Ronald Reagan, but the alternative would have been far worse.

John

Another thing to be kept in mind: voting Republican does not always ensure that the correct moral view will prevail. Two of the four liberal Justices on the Supreme Court (Stevens and Souter) were appointed by Republicans. Roe v. Wade was decided by a 7-2 vote, and 5 of the 7 were appointed by Republicans. Ronald Reagan was no paragon of moral virtue either. As Governor of California, he signed the "The Therapeutic Abortion Law" and the Nation's first no-fault divorce law, and he was the first divorced-and-remarried person to hold the office of President. Ronald Reagan was also baptised as a Roman Catholic, so that is no guarantee of anything either!

John McCain, who cheated on his first wife, would be the second divorced-and-remarried person to hold office if he is elected.

Dan Hunter

We must all vote for the ONLY 100% pro-life andidate and he is:
The Constitution Partys Chuck Baldwin. Here is Chuck Baldwin on Abortion


Overturn Roe v. Wade
Baldwin favors overturning Roe v. Wade, noting the Republican Party is "phony" on the issue. "They have done nothing to stop abortion on demand, even though they had the entire federal government for six years," he said. "We feel that now the Republican Party is probably on the last legs of its existence."
Source: Charles Geraci in The Herald Journal, Cache Valley, Utah Jul 5, 2008

God begins human life at fertilization
The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments, and that certainly includes the office of the President of the United States, to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born. I affirm the God-given legal person hood of all unborn human beings, without exception.
Source: Campaign website, www.baldwin2008.com, "Issues" May 27, 2008

Abortion is America's national holocaust
My personal philosophy regarding social/political issues is quite simple. I believe abortion is America's national holocaust. It is the deliberate killing of innocent human life. Furthermore, it is absolutely disgraceful that while the so-called "pro-life" Republican Party controlled the entire federal government from 2000 to 2006, they did nothing to overturn Roe v. Wade and end legalized abortion.
Source: Chuck Baldwin Live column: "Strictly Personal" May 9, 2008

GOP did nothing to overturn Roe or end abortion-on-demand
Republicans tout themselves as being "pro-life." Yet, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for six years and did absolutely nothing to overturn Roe or end abortion-on-demand. Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades. And if Congress refused to pass Ron Paul's bill, I would use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office.
Source: Chuck Baldwin Live column: "If I Were President" May 2, 2008

Supports Sanctity of Life Act, defining fetus as person
A strongly religious man, Baldwin emphasized his belief in the right of all to choose the religion of their choice. He made note of his friendship and admiration for Roman Catholic Alan Keyes during his acceptance speech, mentioning that he had welcomed his opponent for the nomination to speak to his Baptist congregation. Perhaps the strongest of Baldwin's issues is the matter of abortion. He emphasized support for Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life Act" (H.R. 2597) that declares human life "shall be deemed to exist from conception" and bars the Supreme Court from ruling on the matter. Once legally defined as a person, insisted Baldwin, every infant in the womb would thereby be guaranteed the right to life--under the U.S. Constitution. He thundered, "If the Republican Party had been serious about life, it could have already ended legal abortion in America."
Source: John F. McManus Chuck Baldwin on Abortion


Overturn Roe v. Wade
Baldwin favors overturning Roe v. Wade, noting the Republican Party is "phony" on the issue. "They have done nothing to stop abortion on demand, even though they had the entire federal government for six years," he said. "We feel that now the Republican Party is probably on the last legs of its existence."
Source: Charles Geraci in The Herald Journal, Cache Valley, Utah Jul 5, 2008

God begins human life at fertilization
The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments, and that certainly includes the office of the President of the United States, to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born. I affirm the God-given legal person hood of all unborn human beings, without exception.
Source: Campaign website, www.baldwin2008.com, "Issues" May 27, 2008

Abortion is America's national holocaust
My personal philosophy regarding social/political issues is quite simple. I believe abortion is America's national holocaust. It is the deliberate killing of innocent human life. Furthermore, it is absolutely disgraceful that while the so-called "pro-life" Republican Party controlled the entire federal government from 2000 to 2006, they did nothing to overturn Roe v. Wade and end legalized abortion.
Source: Chuck Baldwin Live column: "Strictly Personal" May 9, 2008

GOP did nothing to overturn Roe or end abortion-on-demand
Republicans tout themselves as being "pro-life." Yet, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for six years and did absolutely nothing to overturn Roe or end abortion-on-demand. Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades. And if Congress refused to pass Ron Paul's bill, I would use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office.
Source: Chuck Baldwin Live column: "If I Were President" May 2, 2008

Supports Sanctity of Life Act, defining fetus as person
A strongly religious man, Baldwin emphasized his belief in the right of all to choose the religion of their choice. He made note of his friendship and admiration for Roman Catholic Alan Keyes during his acceptance speech, mentioning that he had welcomed his opponent for the nomination to speak to his Baptist congregation. Perhaps the strongest of Baldwin's issues is the matter of abortion. He emphasized support for Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life Act" (H.R. 2597) that declares human life "shall be deemed to exist from conception" and bars the Supreme Court from ruling on the matter. Once legally defined as a person, insisted Baldwin, every infant in the womb would thereby be guaranteed the right to life--under the U.S. Constitution. He thundered, "If the Republican Party had been serious about life, it could have already ended legal abortion in America."

God bless the murdered babies.

Brad

Dan... I get where you are coming from on this, but if the candidate is has absolutely no chance of winning, I believe the vote to be wasted and a cause for more damage if it allows for the election of a strongly pro abortion candidate.

Given the reality of our two party system today, like it or not, I think the best strategy is to push for these types of candidates (if they exist) in the primaries, and if they don't wind up being the nominee, holding our nose and voting for the candidate who has the most pro life position of the two.

It's frustrating for sure. Especially given the failure of most elected Republicans to do anything beyond just giving us lip service, and the failure of much of the Republican rank and file and fellow Catholics to make this moral outrage the number one issue in our political debate.

God Bless you, and have a great week.

John

Single-issue voting -- any issue -- is always tricky. For example, assume that you have two choices, and only two choices, as follows:

Candidate A is opposed to abortion under all circumstances. He also favors the prohibition of outdoor religious activities and would make it unlawful for Catholic priests to wear their collars in public, and would withdraw federal tax exemptions for all religious organizations. He also favors the legalization of same sex marriage. He also proposes that all parents be required to send their children to public schools.

Candidate B favors "choice" on the abortion issue, but has no problem with outdoor religious activities, collars, or tax exemptions. He also opposes same sex marriage.

For whom would you vote?

Dan Hunter

John, Right now the way things are in the world it is a one issue situation.

The non-negotiable intrinsic evil of baby murder trumps every other issue, by far.
No comparison.

" He also favors the prohibition of outdoor religious activities and would make it unlawful for Catholic priests to wear their collars in public, and would withdraw federal tax exemptions for all religious organizations. He also favors the legalization of same sex marriage. He also proposes that all parents be required to send their children to public schools."

There is no single candidate who endorses these platforms,of the major ones still running, so this is argument is pointless.

Abortion is by far the most important extant issue and we must vote for the one candidate who is actually against ALL forms of baby murder.
Charles Baldwin of the Constitution Party.
I know of thousands of peolpe in my state who will be voting for Baldwin come November.

If we do not have life we have nothing else.

Single issue it is.
Deo Gratias!

Dave Mueller

Dan,
I only hope that there aren't enough of you to shift the election to Obama on election day.

Sometimes the unattainable perfect ideal can be the enemy of the good.

bklyn catholic

But isn't the unattainable perfect ideal in this case the idea that a McCain presidency can end abortions in the United States, or even substantially curtail them? Up against the Democratic Congress, I see no way that he sits two justices in the vain of Scalia, Thomas, or Alito.

Additionally, McCain may well run a platform that only targets a complete overruling of Roe - a stand made by many pro-lifers who feel that supporting bills that limit conditions in which abortions are legal therefore acknowledges the legality of abortions under other criteria. This is, of course, a stand I find morally reprehensible, as it devalues the lives that could be saved now with the limitations on abortion for the a rosy and perhaps unattainable future in which no abortions take place.

Nonetheless, if this is the case, and McCain goes for all or nothing (as Bush largely seemed to do, or rather, he seemed to just do nothing), then would a moderate's campaign that called for government funding of programs that promote abortion alternatives (while not challenging Roe itself) be the candidate that is more likely to save lives now?

Going out on a hypothetical limb, at what point does it become possible that a "personally against abortion, but I support its legality under Roe" chicken of a politician actually be better positioned to save lives from abortion (due to his willingness to restrict abortions in some cases or for his support of programs that put poor women in a position where they feel they can support their child instead of terminating their pregnancy) than the pro-life candidate who wants an all-or-nothing overturn of Roe?

John

My hypothetical may not be as far fetched as it seems. In Mexico, legal abortion is restricted, but outdoor religious activities and Roman collars are prohibited. They made an exception for Pope John Paul II a few years ago, but the Mexican priests who accompanied him on the streets wore business suits. I saw the pictures in the newspapers.

When Vicente Fox was sworn in back in 2000, he made some casual reference to the Virgin Mary in his inaugural address, and it produced a storm of controversy that religion was about to be introduced into the government.

Compulsory public education was actually adopted by Oregon in the 1920's, but it was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Back then, most peoplew were opposed to abortion.

I can easily visualize a "secular humanist" running for President who finds abortion abhorrent but who thinks that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue, because "they are born that way and cannot help themselves." Playing up the recent scandals to which the church has been subject, he might persuade the public to reduce the tax benefits available to religious organizations.

What I am really trying to say is that to insist on absolute ideological purity in a political campaign is unrealistic. Practical choices have to be made, and we are required to do our best. Even Jesus was content to allow the wheat and the weeds to grow together until the harvest (judgment day).

Either Obama or McCain will be the next President of the United States. Chuck Baldwin has no more chance of being elected than I do. The truly "pointless" discussion is to assume that he does.

It is rather obvious to me what will happen to the Supreme Court if Obama is elected, and it will be many years, if ever, before the damage can be undone. Now, we might get lucky, and he might not get a chance to appoint any Justices (e.g. Jimmy Carter), but we know who is he likely to appoint if he gets the chance. To fail to get a better alternative merely because of a vice presidential selection seems to me, with all due respect, shortsighted.

Jamie Beu

Let's be honest: McCain is old. Granted, he keeps trotting his mother out for the cameras as proof of longevity in his genes, but let's get real: a vote for McCain is at least a 50% vote for his running-mate as President. That said, we can't gamble on a pro-choice VP, because it's all too likely he won't remain VP for long (either by natural causes or term limits - VPs tend to become Ps).

The Republican Party cannot afford to swerve pro-choice in the time of embryonic stem cells, a 4-to-5 life-to-choice ratio on the Supreme Court, and the Democratic Party getting ready to "embrace" pro-lifers. We are on the verge of turning the Roe v. Wade boat around - when the winds of change are blowing in your favor, you don't change course just because the waves are choppy.

Honestly, I wish the Constitution Party were more of a force in politics, but it just isn't so... yet. If McCain sways pro-choice, Obama will win this battle, but the Constitution Party may win a lot of support for the war for life.

Rafael

There is no way I am voting for John McCain. McCain supports Embryonic stem cell research. That is a moral evil. Stem cell research is one of the five non- negotiables of the Catholic Church along with abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, and cloning. I will not cooperate with moral evil, be it Obama's support for abortion or McCain's support for stem cell research.


MCcain is a liberal that will destroy the Republican Party even more than Bush did. I will be voting for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitutional Party.

The Republicans will have to trasform themselves into a real pro-life and conservative party after they get crushed. A renewed party can defeat Obama in four years and turn everything around for decades.

Bill Quinnan

As disappointed as I am with McCain, personally, I'll take the guy who I can at least hope will put pro-Constitution judges on the bench. (The judges wouldn't necessarily even have to be pro-life to make the right call -- if they really believe in upholding the Constitution, they will not uphold Roe v. Wade. But, all moral and decent people are pro-life, and it would be good to have moral, decent people on the court.)

That said, I can almost guarantee he will do nothing to reduce abortions except maybe partial-birth. He says he supports legalized abortion in cases of rape, but opposes requiring any kind of test to provide evidence that a rape has actually taken place. This means pregnant girls just need to say, "Oh, I was raped, but it was too dark to see who did it," and they are free to have their abortions. I have no doubt that anyone who would kill a baby would be willing to lie in order to do it.

JoAnna

Rafael -

You have been misinformed. McCain does not support ECSR. See here:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

JoAnna

That should be "ESCR" in my post above.

SDG

FWIW, if John McCain makes a credible VP choice, as long as he does nothing else hugely wrong by November, he's got my vote. That's pretty much what it comes down to for me at this point.

JohnA

JoAnna,

Mr. McCain supported federal funding of embryonic stem cell research as of last year - See below:
Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?
A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding.

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2007_GOP_primary_Reagan_Abortion.htm

Bill Quinnan

JoAnna,

All the page says is that he opposes embryo farming or cloning for ESCR. He has not, at this point, expressed opposition to embryo stem cell research on embryos initially created for other purposes.

JoAnna

Well, JohnA, I think that my source is more recent than yours. This is what McCain says on his official website:

Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases - hope for both cures and life-extending treatments. However, the compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease cannot erode moral and ethical principles.

For this reason, John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law.

As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines.

bklyn catholic

With ESCR, it seems to me that the research isn't really the issue at all. It is that they exist at all. I.e. that there exist these embryos that will be destroyed or discarded. I'm not sure using them to help cure disease is any worse than destroying them because we have no expected use for them.

Therefore, don't we really need to address how this accumulation of embryos took place? And, in the long run, therefore address potential farming for these embryos as McCain clearly does?

Rafael

The Pro-life movement dropped the ball when it came to IVF. IVF is a moral evil condemned by the Catholic Church. The fact that we have IVF clinics that create these frozen embryos is an abomination. To discard them or use them for stem cell researtch is wrong and an evil act.

McCain does not support farming or creating embryos for research, but he does support using embryos that are frozen and exist right now for stem cell research. That is why a Catholic cannot support him. ESCR should never be used under any circumstances.

bklyn catholic

Can the current frozen embryos be used in IVF right now? That is, can they be implanted in the uterus and still be expected to develop?

If yes, then we need an active cadre of women to give birth to these babies. If not, what is the best course of action? Keep them alive and frozen indefinitely?

Rafael

I believe that all frozen embroyos need to be implanted so women can give birth to them.

The most important thing is to stop any new embryos from being created. IVF needs to be declared illegal and all clinics shut down.

After that the gov't or the private sector needs to come up with a way to get all the existing embryos the chance to be born and live a human life.
The country being underpopulated, could use these persons in our society.

The Masked Chicken

Dear Rafael,

I realize that it is somewhat tangential to the thread, since McCain has, apparently, ruled out selecting a pro-choice VP, but, perhaps, talking about these issues might bring out some points of use for potential voters.

While I agree with your sentiments, there are a number of problems with trying to implement this.

First off, most people who use IVF are either not Catholic or very poorly catechized Catholics. As such, their views on the use of this "technology" is liable to be very difficult to change. Many people who use IVF methods are desperate to have a child, "their" child, by any means.

Secondly, there comes the matter of who "owns" the embryos. Are the donors considered the "parents". If so, it would be very difficult to get them to be implanted unless the "parents" would be willing to give up their rights. This might be like handing over one's baby for adoption, Even though most IVF advocates do not see the embryo as a baby, they still might be unwilling to give up the embryos because the DNA links it to them.

Thirdly, since the government is unwilling to define when ensoulment (or human life) begins, it would be difficult for the federal government to provide a rationale for providing the embryo any rights without undercutting Roe vs. Wade.

I am not up on all of the issues involved, here, so. perhaps, someone better informed than I can correct or extend my comments.

Unfortunately, with the recently developed possibility of using ESC to create whole blood, things regarding ESCR might have just gotten a whole lot more difficult.

Any biologists/medical people in the crowd want to comment on all of this.

The Chicken

Margarita

McCain has promised more wars, and I believe him. I am not a pacifist, but if he has already ruled out avoiding more wars, then it will be a self-fulfilling prophesy and unlikely to be a last resort. His track record of imprudently calling for military force in the past bears this out in my judgment. I will vote for Obama, notwithstanding Roe v. Wade.

We are moral agents in a less-than-ideal world with no perfect choices at hand. I think that our first duty is to refrain from affirmatively perpetrating evil ourselves as a society before preventing others from perpetrating evil as individuals.

bill912

"McCain has *promised* more wars..."

I note that you failed to offer any evidence to back up your statement.

the radical moderate

You probably know this already, Chicken, but the whole foundation of Roe is a refusal to deal with the question of when life begins, but instead to say that it is beyond the power of the states to make any such determination because doing so infringes on the rights of women.

That really doesn't make logical sense, as even many supporters of abortion rights concede. After all, if the state makes a correct determination about when life begins and legislates accordingly, how can that violate anyone's legitimate rights? So the opinion really boils down to a judicial declaration of when, for all intents and purposes, we will treat life as "begin"ning.

John

Regarding the comment, "I believe that all frozen embroyos need to be implanted so women can give birth to them."

Morally speaking, can we get there from here? Presumably, we need the consent of the woman in whom the implantation is to occur. But I see another problem.

Is it licit for a woman to bear a child who is not also the child of her husband?

We also have no idea what effect the long-term freezing has on the embryo's ability to develop. There might be genetic mutations or deformities. Is the woman required to assume the burden of that?

I absolutely agree IVF is immoral and that the embryo should never have been created in that manner in the first place. Since it was, though, I have no idea what the next step should be.

Does the case of an ectopic pregnancy provide any guidance by anaology?

JohnA

Joanna,

You write:

>> Well, JohnA, I think that my source is more recent than yours. <<

But which is more credible in trying to arrive at an objective reading of the candidate's position?

-- John

Kathy

To not vote for McCain is to give the advantage to Obama. This is not a logical course of action.

BobCatholic

The correct term is not "pro-choice" but "pro-abortion" as the unborn child does not have a choice and pro-abortion types don't want him/her to have one.

I see that the politicians get slimier each and every year, and the political parties just throw garbage at the voters. The big two political parties are so disdainful of the voter.

In Illinois, the GOP is a joke. The democrats are a joke with power. Within their party are two groups fighting each other in the state legislature.

Both major parties must reform themselves, and as along as we don't have a choice in the matter, there is no incentive to do so.

I think there should be a NONE OF THE ABOVE option.
http://www.votenoneoftheabove.us/solution.html

Unfortunately, the duopoly won't let that happen.

Matheus F. Ticiani
The correct term is not "pro-choice" but "pro-abortion" as the unborn child does not have a choice...

Dear BobCatholic

That's exactly the heart of the matter. Thank you BobCatholic, for putting it so clearly.

In Illinois, the GOP is a joke. The democrats are a joke with power.

And the irony is that they shot The Dark Knight in Chicago...

Jason

I wonder if this gets into one of those situations where one is taking an intrinsically evil action in hopes of bringing eventual good - that is, easing the election of a morally unconscionable candidate in hopes of bringing about the reform of a morally troubled political party. That's pretty clearly condemned by the Church, as I understand it.

On the other hand, you could look at it as taking an intrinsically good action - voting for a very good third-party candidate - that will likely have an evil effect - causing a morally unconscionable candidate to be elected. In that view, is there anything wrong with it?

SDG, you've given us a free ethical-debate topic. You didn't lose the answer key, did you?

Rafael

John McCain still supports ESCR. Here's an article from Lifesite News from last month in which McCain still supports and defends ESCR.

"McCain Takes Obama to Task on Abortion, Still Defends Embryo Destroying Research":

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071807.html

McCain supports murder. It is a softer gentler type of murder than the one Obama advocates with abortion, but it is still a moral evil.

I will be voting third party for Chuck Bladwin where I won't compromise and I can be proud to support my values.

Enough of the lesser of two evils spiel. Evil is still evil. Politics is a sideshow and the whole thing is rotten. Things will not change in the next four years no matter who is elected. Catholics need to get the bigger picture and work for the restoration of society to Christ the King and religious conversions.

The doctrine of the social reign of Christ the king must be our politics.

The Masked Chicken

Dear Raphael,

Oh, that we could be so unified as a Church in the U.S. so as to put that kind of pressure on society. The accommodationist mentality has been too great in American Catholics to hope for this, soon, however.

Remember, none of these people who are running for office is Catholic. One should not expect them to hold to or even understand Catholic social teaching. The more interesting question is: what is the best a Catholic can do in a pluralistic society? We can be leaven in the bread, but this is very difficult to add the right amount if the composition of the dough changes too quickly. I am afraid that modern society is like that. Too fast. I wish we had a contingency calculator that could see what would happen in different possible contingent societies so as to make the best decision for the particular society we happen to be in. The best we have to go on is faith and informed reason. This is the human condition.

Jason,

SDG left the answer key in the time machine.

The Chicken

CT

none of these people who are running for office is Catholic

Obama's VP, Biden, was introduced by Obama as a "committed Catholic."

Is it licit for a woman to bear a child who is not also the child of her husband?

What of the case of a frozen embryo whose mother changes her mind and now wants to "rescue" her own "child"?

Single-issue voting -- any issue -- is always tricky. For example, assume that you have two choices, and only two choices, as follows:

Indeed and I prefer with respect my own example to yours (though yours is good in its own right) for the following reason:

Catholic pro-lifers criticize consequentialist ethics; analyses of certain actions that turn on the consequences brought about by those actions.

Yet, when examining whether a pro-life candidate but for-proclamative-condemnation-of-the-Catholic-Church-ala-San-Francisco candidate would be preferable to a candidate who is pro-choice but not for such proclamative condemnations, the analysis doesn't seem to take in as input anything but consequences. IIRC, while JA's own analysis did not of course directly address my example here or above, JA's previous analysis of the "trump" property of abortion as a political issue turned wholly on the consequences of electing one candidate over another and mentioned only the fanciful hypothetical of global nation-state thermonuclear war as an issue of similar significance which may outweigh -- based on its consequences -- the issue of abortion.

This appears to be at best a lacuna in Catholic thought (based on all my experience, not limited to JA or this blog) and more likely revelatory of an internal incoherence or inconsistency in the Catholic world view.

I appreciate much more btw, the humility of one Catholic prelate who opined that AFA he knew the Church had not claimed to proclaim infallibly on a moral matter (in contrast to the CDF akpa the Holy Office, which has proclaimed that the Church has infallibly taught certain moral matters). If morality is in some manner an extension of the life of God and more than a collection of rules, then to claim an overarching understanding of morality necessary to be certain of certain moral matters seems to commit one's self to a claim of understanding the life of God suffienctly comprehensively to develop that overarching understanding. This problem is not an issue for those who do not tie their metaethical theory to theology, of course.

the radical moderate

Bob and Matheus, what do you think of people who say they believe abortion is immoral but should be legal? How is "pro-abortion" an accurate term for people who sincerely think those two things? (Leave aside the admittedly considerable number of people who simply say they are "personally opposed" for political reasons.)

It seems to me that thinking that something should not be illegal simply does not mean, logically, that you must be in favor of it happening. Examples are a dime a dozen. I'll give just one: if I think that desecrating relics or the Bible is morally reprehensible but should not be criminalized, that doesn't make me "pro-sacrilege."

I think most of us here agree that this is the #1 issue of our times. All the more important, then, to dot our logical i's and cross our rhetorical t's, so as to avoid coming across as far-out zealots.

the radical moderate

I should hasten to add that none of the above makes "pro-choice" an adequate moniker. NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc. are (thankfully) not in favor of choice in every manner, or they would be left saying there should be no criminal sanctions at all. On the other hand, everyone in the world is in favor of free choice some situations. So the name is both grossly over- and underinclusive-- 100% political sound bite and 0% useful descriptor.

Contrast this with "pro-life," which, if understood to refer only to human life, is a reasonably if not perfectly accurate descriptor of the philosophy it denotes (at least in Catholic thought)-- the legal protection of all human life, all the time, with only a very few, very narrow exceptions.

David B.

the radical moderate,

I'll give just one: if I think that desecrating relics or the Bible is morally reprehensible but should not be criminalized, that doesn't make me "pro-sacrilege."

Well, if the sacrilege happens on private property and is done to an sacred object which he privately 'owns,' it would be against the law to break into the person's home to stop the sacrilege. As much as I abhor the sacrilege, I can't tear down all the laws of America to stop it. As Thomas More said in A man for all seasons "I give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake."

OTOH, abortion is a violation of rights, the baby's rights, and cannot be condoned or legal in a just society. A woman's 'rights' cannot void the rights of an infant to protection from purposed death.

Matheus
Bob and Matheus, what do you think of people who say they believe abortion is immoral but should be legal? How is "pro-abortion" an accurate term for people who sincerely think those two things?

Dear TRM

I think you are confusing two different concepts. Such people you describe are "pro-abortion", indeed, because according to Natural Law the right to life is the most basic there is, without which all the other rights don't make any sense at all and could be thown into the garbage can. If they sincerely think that abortion is immoral but an unborn child may be denied the right to life, they are either in denial, or just being illogical. If this kind of people you mention heard from someone that "Rape is immoral, but shouldn't be criminalized", they would realize the inconsistency very quickly.

It seems to me that thinking that something should not be illegal simply does not mean, logically, that you must be in favor of it happening. Examples are a dime a dozen. I'll give just one: if I think that desecrating relics or the Bible is morally reprehensible but should not be criminalized, that doesn't make me "pro-sacrilege."

Now that's a whole different story. You are not talking about the right to life anymore, but of other kind of immorality out of the range of Natural Law. I, as a Catholic, don't need to defend its illegality, as long as it's done privately, because doing so would, I think, violate not only the free will of a person who is not breaking Natural Law, but also the separation of Church and State, a concept that founded by Christ Himself.

All the more important, then, to dot our logical i's and cross our rhetorical t's, so as to avoid coming across as far-out zealots.

I admire that, but for my part, I'm really past the time of being afraid to come across as "impolite" or a "zealot" by people who disregard Natural Law, sometimes maliciously and deliberately.

Tim J.

I'll just throw in with SDG. here.

McCain *may*, at this point, get my vote in November, though it is far from certain.

If he picks a pro-choice running mate, he will certainly NOT get my vote.

JoAnna
Obama's VP, Biden, was introduced by Obama as a "committed Catholic."

Obama could introduce me as Empress of the Universe and that wouldn't make it true.

A committed Catholic actually follows the teachings of the Catholic Church. Biden does not, as his public statements and actions seem to indicate. Therefore, he is not a committed Catholic no matter what Obama would like Catholic voters to think.

Nancy

Now that Sarah Palin is the choice, we can all breathe a little easier on this point. I heard her on the radio yesterday and was impressed overall. Even my 85 y.o. mom, a life-long true blue Democrat who has been totally grossed out by Obama's non-life stances, is genuinely excited to vote Republican (for McCain-Palin) this fall.

Gern

The whole government can go to hell in a hand basket, so long as abortion is made illegal. I'd willingly sacrifice the retirements of all middle class folk, send all my kids to war in the Middle East and drive my gas hog till the skies turn brown, so long as the babies are safe. It's all that matters to me. Nothing else the president does really matters.

Praise Jesus!

Trust in the LORD with all your heart, on your own intelligence rely not.
(Proverbs 3:5)

Think about it?

Would the country's collective point of view be different?

Ponder the following:

What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage,
including a three-month-old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage
daughter?

What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review?
What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating
class?

What if McCain had only married once, and Obama was divorced?

What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after she was
severely disfigured in a car accident?

What if Obama had met his second wife at a cocktail party and had a long
affair while he was still married?

What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to
pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable
organization?

What if Cindy McCain had graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five?
(The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of
corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the
larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)

What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?

What if Obama couldn't read from a teleprompter?

What if Obama was the one who had military experience that included
discipline problems and a record of crashing several planes?

What if Obama was the one who was known to display publicly, on many
occasions, a serious anger management problem?

What if Michelle Obama's family had made their money from beer
distribution?

What if the Obamas had adopted a white child?

You could easily add to this list. If these questions reflected
reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close
as they are?

This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes
positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities
in another when there is a color difference.

Educational Backgrounds

Barack Obama:
- Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in
International Relations.
-Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Joseph Biden:
- University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political
Science.
- Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

John McCain:
-United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899.

Sarah Palin:
-Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
-North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
- University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism Matanuska
- Susitna College - 1 semester
- University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism.


Jordanes

Great. It's THAT spam email again, posted by an automated Obamabot . . . .

What if your aunt had testicles . . . .

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31