Bush Is Not Pro-life...

[AnomilE]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:33 PM'] i saw that. his support of spector was done in order to further the pro-life cause: get someone who has influence and will support pro-life judges and get everyone else to support them so they got on the bench. those comments don't make him evil, just slightly wrong. would it not be a huge victory for the cause if some law was inacted that said abortion is only legal if you can proove you've been raped or the father is in your family? that'd save a TON of babies, alot more babies than a president who insists on a law that will never be passed through the house or senate that would outlaw abortion in every case. once the one banning it in almost all cases is in effect, we'll have legal precedent to site the unborn baby as a person and thus work to get it illegal even in those cases. i don't like his ABC idea, but that was a comment-- in action he has supported abstinence-only programs. [/quote]
I can't believe you are copping Bush out on those items. I am seriously questioning your allegiance to Church teaching over political party choice here.

What is this "slightly wrong" stuff. Does our Church teach anywhere that anything "slightly wrong" may be used to justify a good ends?

Why do you pledge allegiance to this man- because he throws you a few favors as a por-choice believer, or because he's UNABASHEDLY pro-choice (which he is not).

The fact is this- his funds went to support a man who is publicly pro-abortion. Period.

He is commiting America to allocate funds to promote the usage of condoms when deemed "necessary".

He is not seeking to end abortion in America because he sees instances where he feels it is allowable- and our Church does not.

CAN ANYONE PLEASE ADDRESS THE ISSUE AT HAND AND STOP BEATING AROUND BUSHES? (no pun)

[dUSt]

Is Peroutka going to ban birth control? If not, that is an intrinsically evil action, so therefore, according to your own arguments above, you are not allowed to cooperate with that evil.

If I become president, I [b]will[/b] ban birth control. So, I ask again, since I am [b]clearly[/b] a better moral choice for president, are you going to vote for me now? If not--why?

[AnomilE]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:37 PM'] So, you're saying that someone that will not profess to be obedient to the Vicar of Christ contains absolutely no evil? [/quote]
What I'm saying is that even people who profess allegiance to the total teachings of the Church can contain evil. It's an arbitrary point. All people can contain evil.

When it comes to the moral criteria for legislation- does our current president match up?

Who does? I'm suggestion someone who does. That's all.

[AnomilE]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:40 PM'] Is Peroutka going to ban birth control? If not, that is an intrinsically evil action, so therefore, according to your own arguments above, you are not allowed to cooperate with that evil.

If I become president, I [b]will[/b] ban birth control. So, I ask again, since I am [b]clearly[/b] a better moral choice for president, are you going to vote for me now? If not--why? [/quote]
Yes he will- I suggest you visit his site for yourself and check out all his stances- they come out clean.

[dUSt]

[i]"What is this "slightly wrong" stuff. Does our Church teach anywhere that anything "slightly wrong" may be used to justify a good ends?"[/i]

I don't see where Peroutka said he is going to ban birth control, so this is "slightly wrong" on his part. Does our Church teach anywhere that anything "slightly wrong" may be used to justify a good ends?

[dUSt]

[quote name='AnomilE' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:43 PM'] Yes he will- I suggest you visit his site for yourself and check out all his stances- they come out clean. [/quote]
Please show me where it says he will ban birth control. I couldn't find it.

[AnomilE]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:40 PM'] Is Peroutka going to ban birth control? If not, that is an intrinsically evil action, so therefore, according to your own arguments above, you are not allowed to cooperate with that evil.

If I become president, I [b]will[/b] ban birth control. So, I ask again, since I am [b]clearly[/b] a better moral choice for president, are you going to vote for me now? If not--why? [/quote]
Do you have the means to put yourself on the November Ballot?

Do your policies outside of moral criteria fit the needs of this Country?

These are things I do not know.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='AnomilE' date='Aug 5 2004, 12:08 PM'] Okay everyone- answer me this-

1. Can you ever cooperate with evil- lesser or greater- to bring about a good end?

If you correctly follow the constant teaching of the Church, the answer is no.

I cannot and will not even attempt to understand why faithful Catholics insist on crumbling into the Republican Party.

It is a superpower that has whetted all of your pallets by throwing you some bones to make you ahppy and go "well, at least they're doing something.

What if we as Catholics stood ground for once and said- "No that's not good enough"

When will that day come. We are Catholic before American- remember that always. [/quote]
As dust said, none of the candidates in are in communion with the Church, hence they all hold evil and heretical teaching. So in a sense, we can't vote for anyone, and that is a sin. As American citizens, we have that responsibility, to not do EVERYTHING we can to stop the evil of abortion, then we fail.

Can you cooperate with a lesser evil to bring about a good end? N...Yes. When there is no one good, then you must take the lesser evil.

The reason faithful Catholics insist on voting Republican is not in the fact that most are Republicans, but in the fact that the Republican party is the only party that has any hopes of winning and is the one that most closely relates to the Church's teachings. If a Democrat is anti-abortion and a Republican is pro-abortion, then all Catholics who could vote on the matter would be called to vote for the Democrat. The problem is it doesn't happen very much.

I think that 4th line was an attack at a party with no basis behind it.

Catholics have never settled for less, but neither have they went straight to useless demonstrations. To remove abortions we can't expect it to be instantanous. Realize that Pres Bush has been stepping in the right direction.

We are Catholic before American. We are also reasoning creatures before we fall upon our emotions. You disfavor the Repub. party, but aren't using reasoning. None of the independents have a chance to win. Reason before emotions leads to the best results.

[dUSt]

And you still haven't answered my question. I am 100% loyal to the church and publically submit to the authority of the pope. Peroutka doesn't. If you're voting on morality, I'm the better candidate. Will you vote for me or not?

[Aloysius]

there's a nice lil spot for a write-in, his name is Dustin Sieber

[dUSt]

[quote]Do you have the means to put yourself on the November Ballot?[/quote]
For the sake of this argument, yes.

[quote]Do your policies outside of moral criteria fit the needs of this Country?[/quote]
Yes. I told you my platform. Complete authority to the pope. I will allow him to make all the decisions.

[MichaelFilo]

I am seriously considering being MC Just or dUst when I grow up. They are my heroes!

Edited August 5, 2004 by MichaelFilo

[dUSt]

And it's not so much as "voting for the lesser evil". We must use reason to determine who has a legitimate possibility of becoming president and then "vote for the greater good".

By voting for Peroutka (who I admit would be a better president than Bush) you are basically voting to make a statement. My consciense will [b]not[/b] allow me to cast a vote that would end up benefitting a pro-abortion candidate (Kerry). I am not willing to take a chance of millions of more babies being slaughtered because of my "political statement".

Let's wake up. Putting an end to this genocide should take priority over any political biases we may have.

[AnomilE]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:43 PM'] [i]"What is this "slightly wrong" stuff. Does our Church teach anywhere that anything "slightly wrong" may be used to justify a good ends?"[/i]

I don't see where Peroutka said he is going to ban birth control, so this is "slightly wrong" on his part. Does our Church teach anywhere that anything "slightly wrong" may be used to justify a good ends? [/quote]
dUSt,

Here it is straight from the horses mouth:

Sanctity of Life

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 to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

To that end, the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established for "ourselves and our posterity." Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion. [u][b]We also oppose the distribution and use of all abortifacients.[/b][/u]

We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government - legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body.

In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation. Roe v. Wade is an illegitimate usurpation of authority, contrary to the law of the nation's Charter and Constitution. It must be resisted by all civil government officials, federal, state, and local, and by all branches of the government - legislative, executive, and judicial.

We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

In office, we shall only appoint to the federal judiciary, and to other positions of federal authority, qualified individuals who publicly acknowledge and commit themselves to the legal personhood of the pre-born child. In addition, we will do all that is within our power to encourage federal, state, and local government officials to protect the sanctity of the life of the pre-born through legislation, executive action, and judicial enforcement of the law of the land.

Further, we condemn the misuse of federal laws against pro-life demonstrators, and strongly urge the repeal of the FACE Acts as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power into areas reserved to the states or people by the Tenth Amendment.

In addition, we oppose the funding and legalization of bio-research involving human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells.

Finally, we also oppose all government "legalization" of euthanasia, infanticide and suicide.

[AnomilE]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:46 PM'] As dust said, none of the candidates in are in communion with the Church, hence they all hold evil and heretical teaching. So in a sense, we can't vote for anyone, and that is a sin. As American citizens, we have that responsibility, to not do EVERYTHING we can to stop the evil of abortion, then we fail.

Can you cooperate with a lesser evil to bring about a good end? N...Yes. When there is no one good, then you must take the lesser evil.

The reason faithful Catholics insist on voting Republican is not in the fact that most are Republicans, but in the fact that the Republican party is the only party that has any hopes of winning and is the one that most closely relates to the Church's teachings. If a Democrat is anti-abortion and a Republican is pro-abortion, then all Catholics who could vote on the matter would be called to vote for the Democrat. The problem is it doesn't happen very much.

I think that 4th line was an attack at a party with no basis behind it.

Catholics have never settled for less, but neither have they went straight to useless demonstrations. To remove abortions we can't expect it to be instantanous. Realize that Pres Bush has been stepping in the right direction.

We are Catholic before American. We are also reasoning creatures before we fall upon our emotions. You disfavor the Repub. party, but aren't using reasoning. None of the independents have a chance to win. Reason before emotions leads to the best results. [/quote]
Please cite one official Church teaching that states that you can employ any evil- even lesser- to obtain a good ends.

[Aloysius]

good, he opposes abortificients. will he illegalize them? will he act to stop them? and just abortificients, sounds like they don't oppose ALL forms of birth control. So he's [i]"slightly wrong" [/i]there

[AnomilE]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:55 PM'] And it's not so much as "voting for the lesser evil". We must use reason to determine who has a legitimate possibility of becoming president and then "vote for the greater good".

By voting for Peroutka (who I admit would be a better president than Bush) you are basically voting to make a statement. My consciense will [b]not[/b] allow me to cast a vote that would end up benefitting a pro-abortion candidate (Kerry). I am not willing to take a chance of millions of more babies being slaughtered because of my "political statement".

Let's wake up. Putting an end to this genocide should take priority over any political biases we may have. [/quote]
Look, my point is this- and it's the point that I started with.

I do not pledge my allegiance to Michael Peroutka- If I find something that does not check out with him then I will not vote for him either.

My point is that we cannot vote for Bush with a clear conscience and accoding to Church teaching. Prove how we can and substantiate it and I'll listen. Until then I stand firm.

[dUSt]

Michael Peroutka has not made it clear that he is against birth control (condoms for example). [b]If he is unwilling to completely ban the use, sale and distribution of condoms then he is cooperating in an intrinsically evil act.[/b] So that does not "check out" with him, so according to your own statement above, you cannot with a clear conscience vote for him.

[AnomilE]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 5 2004, 02:49 PM'] Michael Peroutka has not made it clear that he is against birth control (condoms for example). [b]If he is unwilling to completely ban the use, sale and distribution of condoms then he is cooperating in an intrinsically evil act.[/b] So that does not "check out" with him, so according to your own statement above, you cannot with a clear conscience vote for him. [/quote]
He has not been clear on weather or not he will or will not so it will need to be investigated further, but if he does not, then as I said above, I will not vote for him.

[dUSt]

[quote name='AnomilE' date='Aug 5 2004, 02:51 PM'] He has not been clear on weather or not he will or will not so it will need to be investigated further, but if he does not, then as I said above, I will not vote for him. [/quote]
So you are basically saying that unless a candidate is in full and complete communion with all moral teaching of the church, then we cannot vote for them--which is basically saying that we should not vote--which in turn would give Catholics no political voice at all.

Brilliant.