Vote for President Bush in November to Advance the Cause of Lifegreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Vote for Presient Bush in November to Advance the Cause of Life
by Steven ErteltFor pro-life advocates, the choice in this November's presidential elections is clear: President George W. Bush deserves your vote. President Bush has compiled a record during his first term in office that can only be described as extraordinarily pro-life. When it comes to the key battles over the next four years, only President Bush can be trusted to advance the cause of life.
Read the rest of Life New's First Ever Editorial
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), August 08, 2004
bump
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), August 08, 2004.
Interesting editorial Bill. They managed to avoid even mentioning war and capital punishment. This is obviously a GOP front organization posing as an "independent pro-life group".
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 08, 2004.
i WILL pray-- that Kerry gets into office.... ...and i will pray that many choices to sustain and nurture life are made on a daily basis, rather than yanking a life out of a woman's body.
-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), August 09, 2004.
Oh yes, killing completely innocent children is morally equivalent to the state excuting criminals who have been tried several times and each time found guilty of heinous crimes...and its the same thing as a nation going to war and killing armed soldiers who are shooting back after given plenty of chances to surrender.Yes, vote for Kerry and pray piously that somehow children will be born and grow up in peace... or vote for Bush and KNOW that you've actually helpped that prayer come true.
Steve, you are a classic case of someone who strains out the gnat and swallows the camel! Far more people are killed by car accidents than by capital punishment in this country - and far more Americans are killed by criminals in this country PER year than Iraqis have died by the direct action of US military...but all are dwarfed by the million or so babies killed annually.
But you think capital punishment and war are morally worse than abortion? Killing the guilty and heavily armed who are shooting back is morally equivalent to killing the very definition of unarmed, defenseless, and innocent among us? How so?
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 09, 2004.
No, Joe, I did not say that at all. What I said was that this web page's supposed analysis of Bush's actions re pro-life issues is nothing but a long hagiography of Bush’s history as president without mentioning ANYTHING even slightly negative, or even neutral, as regards pro-life issues. Telling half the truth is telling a lie.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 09, 2004.
I will "pray" that God makes the decision on Election Day because He alone knows who should be President of the U.S.A. - I will pray that God's will be done - that we the voters are only used as God's instruments for His will.He knows the needs of the country and He, alone, knows what is in the hearts of every man. I will pray and offer up every mass I attend - for this purpose.
Marylu
-- MaryLu (mlc327@aol.com), August 09, 2004.
Neither Bush nor Kerry deserve to be president. One is a downright abortionist, and the other just talks a pro lfe game. I suppose Bush would do less harm, but don't expect him to push the pro life position with anything more than his mouth. The one percent guy is the only honest one, but that is why he only gets one pecent.
-- Douglas (Tremper@yahoo.com), August 10, 2004.
Politics is about what is possible given the circumstances. Bush has done more for the pro-life cause than any other president. But the executive can only do so much... Presidents can't make law - so if the pro-abort, so-called "catholic" senators refuse to repent, we'll not see pro-life legislation passed except in exceptional cases, such as partial-birth abortion bans (and even then many so-called Catholic senators like Kerry refused to vote pro-life.Judges. Bush has appointed many fabulous judges to lower benches - but many have been stopped from being confirmed by the Senate.
Executive Orders. The President has reinstated President Reagan's Mexico city policy that forbids the Federal govt from supporting Planned Parenthood abroad.
Faith-based initiatives: include organizations that provide alternatives to abortion!
None of the above would have happened under Clinton, Gore, or Kerry.
So as a Catholic, voting my conscience on moral issues of the maximum importance - Bush has my vote and I don't see how so-called Catholics can in conscience not vote for him - even if he's not perfect!
Yes I can imagine boatloads of other people who may make better presidents...but they're not on the ballot and they won't stand a chance so.....a voter has to go with who's best given the circumstances.
Kiwi and Steve would have us believe there is some moral equivalency between capital punishment and war and abortion, euthanasia, and stem-cell "research"... but nothing in Catholic theology or ethics could possibly lead them to conclude this: categorically evil things are not the same thing as something that may be good in limited circumstances.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 11, 2004.
“the executive can only do so much... Presidents can't make law” . Bush is the only president in living memory whose party has had a majority in both houses – but he has wasted this opportunity.“Steve would have us believe there is some moral equivalency between capital punishment and war and abortion, euthanasia, and stem- cell "research"... categorically evil things are not the same thing as something that may be good in limited circumstances.”
No, as I have repeatedly said, I would NOT have you believe they are "EQUIVALENT" or "the same thing" so please stop misrepresenting me. I’m saying that it is wrong to totally IGNORE war and CP when considering pro-life issues. And war and CP may sometimes (“rarely if ever” according to the Pope) be justified as a regrettable last resort, but they can never be “good”.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 11, 2004.
"I’m saying that it is wrong to totally IGNORE war and CP when considering pro-life issues. And war and CP may sometimes (“rarely if ever” according to the Pope) be justified as a regrettable last resort, but they can never be “good”."2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. [The 5th commandment only forbids the intentional killing of innocent people. Just government is required to use lethal force when necessary and to execute those guilty of capital crime.] The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
-- - (David@excite.com), August 14, 2004.
David, please don’t insert your own opinions into a quote from the Catechism, to make the Catechism appear to say something which it clearly does not. In fact the Catechism makes it clear that the statement you have inserted is quite wrong. A State is never “required to execute” anybody. On the contrary, the Church says it MAY be PERMISSIBLE for the State to execute somebody in very rare and circumscribed circumstances, but the State is always required to use non-lethal means unless execution is the only possible means to prevent an offender killing others.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 14, 2004.
"The 5th commandment only forbids the intentional killing of innocent people"A: And where are these "innocent people"? Innocent of what? Let him who is without sin throw the switch.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 14, 2004.
"...Let him who is without sin throw the switch. "Paul its not about "throwing stones." The man has been convicted and sentenced to death and exhated all appeals and 10 years later. The relationship of the State to the convicted murderer is not the same as that of a victim to an assailant. Come on you know this. Governors and Judges are responsible for mainting just public order. Their primary obligation is towards justice, but under certain conditions they may exercise clemency. In a careful discussion of this matter Pius XII concluded that the State ought NOT to issue pardons except when it is morally certain that the ends of punishment have been achieved.
The objective of "Justifiable Homicide" is not to punish the violators. The objective is to stop the perpetrators from continuing their violence against the defenseless.
-- - (David@excite.com), August 15, 2004.
The woman caught in adultery had also been "convicted and sentenced to death" according to the law of that time and place. But Jesus intervened anyway. I'll grant you that an adulterer is not the threat to society that a serial killer is.However, the objective of "Judicial Homicide" is not to "stop perpetrators from continuing their violence against the defenseless". That's what high security prisons are for. And those who would continue their violence within the prison system can be placed in solitary confinement. The purposes of judicial homicide are twofold - revenge and economics. And therefore such homicide is not justifiable.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 15, 2004.
"..The purposes of judicial homicide are twofold - revenge and economics. And therefore such homicide is not justifiable. "Wrong again Paul! Its not about revenge. How can a 65 year old Lady sitting on the jury have revenge on her mind? And as far as economics what do you mean? It cost a lot more to for a capital murder trial that it does to give someone life with out parole. Here is one little example: General Studies
A study done by the Sacramento Bee argued that California would save $90 million per year if it were to abolish the death penalty. The average cost of a capital trial in Texas is $2.3 million--three times the cost to incarcerate an individual for 40 years. The average cost of a capital trial in Florida is $3.2 million.
In Texas it cost three times the cost to execute someone than it does to lock them away for 40 years.
-- - (David@excite.com), August 15, 2004.
David,When a particularly heinous and brutal crime has been committed, the reaction of society at large is outrage, and the natural product of outrage is the desire for revenge. I don't see that the age or sex of a juror would make them exempt from such feelings. Jesus said it was not to be so among his followers. However most of society are not His followers, and even those who are can have their principles and right judgement obscured by extreme emotion. When such a crime is committed, outraged society demands an eye for an eye, and the judicial/political powers that be, whose positions and authority are wholely dependent on the approval of society, satisfy their blood lust. If capital punishment were not for the purpose of revenge, what would be the purpose of reserving front row seats for the family of the victim to enjoy the merciless slaughter of the one who mercilessly slaughtered one of their own?
Trial of any major felony is often lengthy and is always expensive. This is true regardless of the final sentence imposed. If the sentence is death, a long series of appeals is sure to follow. If the sentence is life imprisonment without parole, a long series of appeals is sure to follow. However, once the appeals are exhausted, one of two scenarios remains - either an execution, which terminates not only a human life but also all expenses connected with the incarceration of that person; or another 30 to 50 years incarceration at a cost of more than $30,000 per year.
Finally, if the death penalty is supposedly about protecting the innocent, how can we support a system which has undoubtedly resulted in the execution of many innocent citizens? In the last few years 143 people in the United States, incarcerated after felony convictions, have been freed when DNA evidence, unavailable at the time of their trials, conclusively proved them innocent. This included 13 people on death row. These are the ones who were still alive. What about the hundreds of other innocents who are no longer alive, having died in prison, either of disease or old age, or violence perpetrated by other prisoners, or by legalized violence perpetrated by the state in the form of judicial homicide?
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 15, 2004.
"..If capital punishment were not for the purpose of revenge, what would be the purpose of reserving front row seats for the family of the victim to enjoy the merciless slaughter of the one who mercilessly slaughtered one of their own?Trial of any major felony is often lengthy and is always expensive. This is true regardless of the final sentence imposed. If the sentence is death, a long series of appeals is sure to follow. If the sentence is life imprisonment without parole, a long series of appeals is sure to follow. However, once the appeals are exhausted, one of two scenarios remains - either an execution, which terminates not only a human life but also all expenses connected with the incarceration of that person; or another 30 to 50 years incarceration at a cost of more than $30,000 per year. "
Paul you can't compare the costs to a capital murder trial and appeals for life imprisonment. Even if its 40 years at 30 thousand thats only 1.2 million compared to the 3 million range for the capital murder trial and appeals.
I don't know were you live but my state you are allowed one appeal to the court of special appeals for life with no parole, after this is exhausted you can ask the states highest court to hear, the court of appeals but this isn't guarantteed. But when a death sentence is given out there are 10 years of appeals to go through. It even heads to Federal courts.
And as far as the front row seats are concerned why not? As Catholics we know death isn't the final answer. Do not murder. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." [Gn. 9:6] (Murderers –intentional killers of the innocent– are to be put to death. Just prior to the time this commandment was given, God had killed –caused the death of– all but eight of the earth's inhabitants. All of those who had been associated with grave evils. God sets only good example.
-- - (David@excite.com), August 15, 2004.
or another 30 to 50 years incarceration at a cost of more than $30,000 per yearit is way less than that. that number is greatly exagerated. ask anyone that works in prisons.
-- jr (foo@bar.com), August 15, 2004.
Actually, this figure is one of the lowest nationally. It is from the budgetary report of the California Department of Corrections, which houses about 11% of the incarcerated persons in the entire country, at an annual expense of $30,929 per prisoner per year. This figure represents an average for all prisoners held in all facilities; therefore the cost of housing the most dangerous offenders in the highest security facilities is obviously much higher. The costs also increase with the age of the prisoner; therefore those serving life sentences represent the highest total cost per prisoner, due not only to additional years of expense, but also to escalating costs as their age increases. The National Center on Institutions and Alternatives calculated the cost of confining an elderly inmate in prison at $69,000 per year.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 15, 2004.
"The National Center on Institutions and Alternatives calculated the cost of confining an elderly inmate in prison at $69,000 per year."Well Paul now I see I got you thinking a bit.:-) You have to use only " elderly inmates" . Well thats not the average is it? And if we use your grossly exagerated 69,000 a year for ederly you still loose the numbers game because if you take 69,000 per year times 30 years=a little over 2 million dollars. This is still 1 million cheaper to give life with no parole as a sentence, than to have the capital murder trial and execute the killer.
Even at 40 years its still cheaper dollar for dollar to lock up for life so your " economic statement" isn't true about the death penalty.
Take care and have a blessed Assumption day.
-- - (David@excite.com), August 15, 2004.
I repeat - you have to have the trial, with all of its expense, regardless of the resulting sentence. Therefore you cannot compare the cost of trial AND execution to the cost of confinement for life. Once the expensive trial is over and done with, you then face the cost of an execution vs. the cost of life imprisonment.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 15, 2004.
Good point Paul.But what does CP and war have to do with Pro-life issues when the point of pro-life activism is to spare completely innocent people from being killed by private persons without benefit of trial or diplomatic option to surrender?
You are never going to get rid of capital punishment or war...but you can get rid of government sanctioned abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell murder - the West got rid of those evils for nearly 1500 years!
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.
The point of pro-life activism is to give witness to the truth that EVERY human life is as valuable as any other human life, and that ALL human life is sacred.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 16, 2004.
Good Morning Ya'll. I am reading these posts and thinking that there are good points being made on both sides, but if I may I have something to say about both issues (abortion and capital punishment).Fifteen years ago, about 2 months after my first daughter was born, I discovered that I was pregnant again. I had just turned 16 a few weeks before. My mother who is a health nurse for our state health dept. told my husband and me that an abortion was the best solution to this "problem" because we had a tiny baby and were still just kids ourselves and couldn't possibly take care of another child. I took the advise and had my sweet baby killed. It was the most horrible time in my life. It has taken years and unending prayer for me to be able to feel forgivness from God or to be able to forgive myself. I was a child who had been taught all of her life that a fetus was nothing more than "a blob of cells" it had no life and couldn't survive outside of my body yet, but I still couldn't live with what I had done to my child or to myself, so I went home and decided to commit suicide. Luckily my husband found me and took me to the hospital where I was saved, but my mind and heart were still in torture. The point to this story is, if all women and girls who are contemplating having an abortion could talk to someone who has lived through it and suffered then maybe she would change her mind and go get some help from a Priest or pastor of a church somewhere.....ANYWHERE!
On the capital punishment.....I remember the day that my best friend's mother called me and told me that Cara had been killed by her boyfriend. He had gone into a drunken, drug induced rage and had raped and shot her. The entire time we watched his trial I kept telling myself, "I hope he gets death!" He was sentenced to death. Then I kept telling myself,"I'll be glad when they just go ahead and kill that man and get it over with !" They did. Six years after she was killed, they executed him. I sat with her family and held her mother's hand. Some of his family, including his parents were there. I didn't feel what I thought I would. I still had an emptyness inside of me because she wasn't there. Then I looked at his mother. It was my undoing. I just thought about what she was feeling and it was unfathomnable(sp?). I am still not sure how I feel about the death penalty. In some cases it seems justifiable, but what about in the case of a 17 year old boy who is under the influence of drugs and / or alcahol? Can he be rehabilitated? Can he be saved from himself? I just don't know......
I support men and women in out government who try to stop the needless killings of our innocent. No President or Congressman (woman) is perfect and all of what they stand for may not be what you would want, but in my opinion you pick the "lesser of the 2 evils" and the one who will do the most good versus the most wrong. We will never get someone on the ballot who stands for every person in the world perfectly. You have to decide what you stand for and what you believe then try to pick the one who has the most inline with your own morals. I am not always finding that Bush is in perfect harmony whith everything I believe, but I find that he follows more of what I find important (anti-abortion being #1) than Kerry, so I will vote for him this year. I think that President Bush has done a pretty good job. The best to his ability at any rate. I think for the most part he is honest and good in thought and deed and has good morals and trys to do what he believes is right.
We are so fortunate to live in this free and great nation. It is truly a blessing and a privledge to have the right to vote on men and women who lead our nation. If you don't like a candidate exercize your right to vote and put the one you want in office.
God Bless
-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), August 16, 2004.
Paul,Do you have any scrpture to back up whay you say? :-) [ Not another mans' opinion, unless its something infalliable]
NEW TESTAMENT QUOTES:
"Anyone who rejects the law of Moses is put to death without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses." [Hebrews 10:28] "Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." [Rom. 1:32] Both Jesus and Paul accept validity of execution. [John 19:10-11 and Rom. 13:4]
-- - (David@excite.com), August 16, 2004.
Paul,I ask for Scripture because, "All scripture * is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work." [2 Tim. 3:14-17] :-)
God bless you.
-- - (David@excite.com), August 16, 2004.
David,There is no doubt that what is in Scripture is inspired by God. (Which makes one wonder how the founders of Protestantism could throw out 7 whole books of inspired Scripture and try to throw out three more - but that's another topic).
There is also no doubt that what is in Scripture is useful.
So we agree - Scripture is (1) inspired and (2) useful.
Now, getting back to my question - where does scripture even hint that it is the sole source of Christian truth? Where does it say that everything we believe has to be "backed up" by a scripture passage? Obviously it could not say that because all essential Christian beliefs were held and preached by the Catholic Church for over 350 years before the Bible was even compiled. That's why the Church, not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of truth which Christians can rely upon for the fullness of truth. And that you CAN find in your Bible.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 16, 2004.
"You are never going to get rid of capital punishment or war" (Joe)You seem to have forgotten that almost EVERY other democratic country has had NO capital punishment for periods from decades to several generations. And their crime rates are lower than those of the USA! The few democratic countries who retain CP in their laws use it EXTREMELY rarely (eg. India [population 1 billion] recently passed down its first death sentence in over 20 years). And several countries have not had a government-sanctioned war for centuries. Just because the USA is much more powerful than any other country at present doesn't mean the rules don't apply to us.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 16, 2004.
Name the countries please so we can compare apples with apples.Switzerland is the only European country that hasn't fought a war in 400 years - but they've managed that by being a) a land-locked, mountainous country b) armed to the teeth. c) not involved in righting any wrongs or wronging any rights.
The USA could be isolationist too - just let the world go to hell. But geography and our situation really doesn't allow us to morally and physically do that - not that we haven't tried.
So now Europe is morally superior to us because they've largely done away with Capital punishment and haven't fought a war in 50 years huh?
I suppose the later has nothing to do with the fact that the USA HAS stationed 200,000 troops there since the 1950's, and defacto IS the sole defender of the EU. They CANT fight wars because we're the only ones with the means to wage war *(and that's a GOOD thing. Heaven only knows what EU would be like if they were actually armed! WW1 and WW2 proves that they can't be trusted with foreign policy).
Yes, so according to your opinion they're peaceful nature has nothing to do with the US running NATO and everything to do with their pacifism hmmm? I don't suppose you count the French wars in Africa or the UK war with Argentina in the mix do you?
And crime is so non-existent in Europe too right? Legalize drugs and prostitution and look - no violent murders (Oh, we can discount the dozen or so terror groups in Ireland, UK, Spain, Italy, and Germany...they don't count). Yes, without capital punishment, Europe is a halcyon refuge away from Cowboy's Wild West...except in Southern Italy....and Corsica...and Northern Ireland...and Spain....and the Balkans... yes, nothing bad happens in Germany, except the skinheads and neo-nazis... and white-slavery of course...
I'm sorry, I'm getting sarcastic. The lack of Capital punishment in Europe hasn't diminished violent crimes in the least. What skews the numbers is simply that the Europeans don't count their terror bombings and assasinations as part of "crime statistics". Here in the USA we don't have many terror killings or Mafia slayings, thanks to the FBI and current war on terror (fighting in Baghad is better than in Boston).
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.
Hi, Joe Actually europe has less crime, less murder and less terrorism victims per capita than the US. If you want to look it up, I recomend you websites like nationmaster.com or disastercenter.com. Of course there are manny others to provide usefull numbers. It is a common missassumption, that capital punishment influences the rate of murder in a positive way. But if you ask yourselve one simple question, it becomes clear, why capital punishment is absolutely useless, when it comes to preventing terrorism.Why would a suicide bomber fear the death penalty ?
In a way the same is true for murder. There are two types of murder. One is planed and the other one is comitted in a sudden rage. If you plan a murder, you most certainly only comitt it, if you are absolutely sure, that you will not be caught... else you would not do it.
And the ones comitted in rage... well do you really thing an enraged person stops, because he suddenly thinks about beeing caught and send to the electric chair ? You are not even capable of realizing that you are about to kill someone... how are you supposed to think two steps further then?
So how to explain, why there is so much less murder in europe, than in the US? When it does not make a difference if you have capital punishment or not?
I guess the answer lies in the general "feeling" of the society. A society, which perceves the idea of ending a human life on purpose as "tollerable" has no feeling of a "line never to be crossed". Ending the life of a human beeing is accaptable and "normal". In the perception of this societies people a human life has less value than in a society, which decided to NEVER cross this line. May it be in the general understanding, that war = death or that capital punishment = death.
Interestingly enough, the european societies are more likely to tollerate abortions. Why is that so ?
I think abortion is only acceptable for people, who don't see the 2 week old fetus as human beeing. For them it is just a bunch of cells with the potential of becomming a human in several months. So while these cells feel no pain and bear no conciousness, it is acceptable to "remove" them. Kind of like you would have your tonsils removed. It's still part of your body and for this short window of opportunity, those societies grand a woman the chance to decide for herselve if she want's her body to change in this drastic way.
I am not valuating this beaviour, I just try to describe the ideas behind it.
-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 17, 2004.
". . .is nothing but a long hagiography of Bush’s history as president without mentioning ANYTHING even slightly negative,. . ."
Bill Nelson posted something like that?!? Wow, hard to believe. He's always so fair and balanced:)
-- ElSegundo (BushWill Lose@reality.net), August 17, 2004.
Thanks for bringing some reality back, Awakening. I do wonder though why you say that “european societies are more likely to tolerate abortions”. It doesn’t seem that way to me.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 17, 2004.