James E. McGreevey and his State Legislature in New Jersey finds a creative way of killing. It is a pro-cloning measure. This horrendous bill allows the creation of cloned embryos, their gestation in the womb through nine months, and then their destruction. Why do democrats support the killing of 8- and 9-month-old cloned fetuses for research purposes?

New Jersey has become the second state (after California) to pass a bill explicitly allowing medical research on embryonic stem cells, including those created through cloning.

Catholics can't vote Democratic! Please, please, please make the killing stop!

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003

Answers

as a Catholic, i refuse to vote democrate for many reasons, this will add as another reason. the problem with what you say, if i may play devil's advocate, is, cloning itself is wrong. But beacuse cloning probably creates a person without a soul, then killing that person would probably not be a sin, however, because cloneing IS a sin, you are left with a delema. either way, just dont vote democrat and you will be in the clear. :)

-- joshua hlopko (yoshi_JT_42@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.

I have to repeat what I said on another thread ...

Although most Democrats definitely deserve to lose, it is WRONG for a Catholic to make a blanket statement that we cannot vote for a Democrat. We do not vote by party, but according to what the individual candidate stands for.

There are some geninely decent, pro-life, Christian Democrats -- running especially for governorships and the House of Representatives. We CAN vote for them. In fact, we MUST vote for them, if the opposing Republicans are pro-death (or less pro-life).

Examples of pro-life Democrats are the late great Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey and northern Michigan's current Representative, Bart Stupak.

John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.

Even pro-life Democrats receive a lot of pressure from their party to vote for pro-homosexual issues and to vote for against the Church's moral teachings on a number of other issues. No, the Democratic party is corrupt and I would not recommend voting for any Democrat at this time unless you really can vouch for the moral integrety of the person you are voting for and know for a fact they will not succum to pressure from their party (which usually is not the case with ANY politician).

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.

There is no such thing as a person without a soul. We have no choice in that matter. We ourselves can produce only the biological part of a person, but every time we do so, God instills an immortal soul.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 16, 2003.

Jmj

Bill, you evaded a crucial point that I made, so I need to press you on it ...

I said that, as Catholics, we MUST vote for a Democrat if he/she is more pro-life than all his opponents. I hope that you don't disagree with me. I mean, I hope that you don't recommend that someone vote for a Republican (or Independent) who favors more abortions than does his Democrat opponent. That would be immoral on your part, I believe.

Just as there are, in Congress, several RINOs, Bill -- Republicans In Name Only -- who ignore the GOP's platform, so there are some DINOs (quite a few in the House, at least one in the Senate [Zell Miller]), who ignore the Jackass Party's platform. The DINOs tend to ignore their party leadership on numerous crucial points, often including the "life issues." I recommend against anyone being a Democrat, but no one can say that zero Democrats deserve to be elected.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.

John said: said that, as Catholics, we MUST vote for a Democrat if he/she is more pro-life than all his opponents. I hope that you don't disagree with me. I mean, I hope that you don't recommend that someone vote for a Republican (or Independent) who favors more abortions than does his Democrat opponent. That would be immoral on your part, I believe.

Finding what is in a man's heart is tough for a voter. If you have a choice of a candidate who is a Democrat who says he is pro-life, and a Republican who says he is pro-choice, the moral duty ON THAT ISSUE is to vote for the pro-life one. (this is very rare by the way). Now comes the convoluted part. What if the Democrat says he is with his party line on everything else? That would make him against all kinds of other moral teachings? Murder is the major of the sins he probably can be involved with so one would still vote for him, I suppose. Then comes the intense pressure he will be from his party to at least abstain on pro-life issues. So if he says he is pro- life but turns up absent when the voting happens, do you still vote for him?

Again, luckily this is very rare and it is very easy to simply vote Republican. Again, for the most partthe Democrats have made themselves into the party of death and an anti-Catholic entity.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.

Bill,

It's not like Bush is the greatest of the pro-life supporters either. Oh sure he might have gotten the partial birth abortion ban passes (thanks be to God), but he also expanded money that can be used for contreseption and abortions in Africa. Sounds kind of like a contradiction to me.

Also to be pro-life also means to be against the death penalty. Unfortunatly Bush isn't. But to be fair I think only 2 of the 9 Democrats that are running for President are against the death penalty.

Catholics are in a sad state in the US since there are only two major parties and that neither one really fits with our teachings. Should we really settle for voting for the lesser of two evils?

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.

No, you can vote for the greater of two evils, if you prefer. That's what democracy is all about.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 16, 2003.

Bill, I am in almost complete agreement with what you said in your response to me. The only problem I have is with your statement about the Democrat getting "intense pressure" to abstain from voting on pro-life issues. I'd say, "Have no fear" about that -- because, if the Demo has enough guts to campaign as a pro-lifer, he is very unlikely to succumb to pressure later. (I won't say that it can't happen, because all of the following losers once claimed to be against abortion: Irrev. Jesse Jackson, AlGore, Slick Willy Clinton, Swimmin' Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich.)

Scott, you made an incorrect, or should I say incomplete, statement:
"... to be pro-life also means to be against the death penalty."

The correct statement is this: "To be pro-life includes being against the death penalty when it would be unjust or unnecessary." The Catechism reiterates the divine revealed truth that the state may use the death penalty when it is just and necessary. (I'm not going to get into the details, or into a debate, about this. There are old, long threads on this topic in the archives, which anyone can read.)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.

Oops! Forgot to say, "Dennis the Menace Kucinich" (as he was termed while the incompetent mayor of Cleveland many years ago).

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.

I guess the Republicans just stick to the old-fashioned ways of killing, like dropping cluster bombs on schools and hospitals in third world countries, or refusing healthcare to poor people.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 18, 2003.