Who Will You Vote For And Why

[Hananiah]

Right, but Bush is only partially against them, whereas Peroutka is, like us, against them absolutely.

[qfnol31]

How do you mean that he's partially against them?

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 6 2004, 01:23 AM'] Are you sure since he wasn't instated before 2001, the year from whence he stopped all funding. [/quote]
A ban was instituted on the govt funding the production of embryos for the purpose of soley creating embryonic stem cells without intension of using them for pregnancy, which was never removed since the 80's because the embryo must be destroyed to get the cells and this created a moral dilema. Bush allowed in 2001 for government funds to be used for researching those embryonic stem cells privately produced for "therapeutic" properties only, which gets around the law and somewhat eases the liberal lobyists calling for all out research funding by the government. There is still controversy over research universities recieving some funds as well as some hospitals that harbor fertility research. This is why he is considered a moderate; right-extremists Cheney or Ashcroft on the other hand might have actually torn up the legislation.

Edited August 6, 2004 by M.SIGGA

[qfnol31]

[url="http://www.lifenews.com/bio377.html"]LifeNews.com[/url]

This doesn't sound like him supporting it.

[Hananiah]

Bush believes that homosexuals should have civil unions, and that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, etc.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Aug 6 2004, 02:04 AM'] Bush believes that homosexuals should have civil unions, and that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, etc. [/quote]
You sure?

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/"]CNN.com[/url]

[url="http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm"]issues2000.org[/url]

[quote]Bush opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life. He’ll try to seem non-threatening, respecting others’ views without backing off his long-held “pro-life” position. He previously had said he would not demand that his Supreme Court nominees be anti-abortion. It’s even conceivable he’ll choose a running mate who supports abortion rights, Bush said. “I’m going to talk about the culture of life,” he continued. “I’ve set the goal that every child born and unborn ought to be protected. But I recognize [that many] people don’t necessarily agree with the goal. People appreciate somebody who sets a tone, a tone that values life, but recognizes that people disagree.“ He pointed out that those gun-toting killers at Columbine High School did not value life; they ”devalued“ it.
Source: George Skelton, Los Angeles Times Jun 5, 2000[/quote]

I think his abortion in rape cases, etc. stance is just politics, and I don't believe he really wants those to take place either.

[gopherball33]

I'm 17, so I'm one year too young to vote (grr, missed it by 1 year :angry: ), but if I were a year older I would vote for George bush because John Kerry is pro-choicec. I really do not want another pro-choice president.

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 6 2004, 01:59 AM'][url="http://www.lifenews.com/bio377.html"]LifeNews.com[/url]

This doesn't sound like him supporting it.[/quote]
next time read his transcript: [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_080901.htm"]bush & stem cells[/url]

he restricted govt funding to 60 lines of embryonic stem cells at privately funded fertitlity plants but I believe it reached as many as 80 lines. Instead of immediate destruction that should have occurred these cells were experimented on and pulled apart for "therapeutic" purposes and we all paid for it.

[quote]I think his abortion in rape cases, etc. stance is just politics, and I don't believe he really wants those to take place either.[/quote]
Bush prays about everything he says publicly, so I'm sure he means it lol.

[qfnol31]

[quote]Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.

I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts or creating life for our convenience.

And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means. [/quote]

[quote]As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research.

I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made.[/quote]

Again, it seems he is against it, and he can't do anything about the embryos that are already dead. In fact, it seems to make sense that he allow it on all embryos gone before his Presidency, but that's just me. I may not agree with it, but I can't see too much wrong with it. I could probably come up with an argument or two, but why would you say it's wrong? I know that embryonic stem cell research is wrong because it promotes the abortions of babies.

Now, what he and I are for is the research of animal and adult stem cells. He mentions that in there.

[White Knight]

Considering this is my first General Election to vote in, I am absolutely postive that I will cast my vote for George W. Bush, Why? Because I believe he needs more time to fix this huge problem were in and he hasn't had enough time to acually do it, and I believe he can accomplish most of this huge problems sutiations within another 4 years.


Also, George W. Bush is the most pro-life canadinate of the primary three. Hes Also the one who can run this country better with its Economy and Military than any other one of the people on the list.


Most of all I believe hes a Godly President, stands up for what he knows to be true and for what he believes in, Hes got a "Clearer" Vision for the good old U.S.A. unlike the others. Also He expresses his Faith the most out of any other president we've had since Reagan and even pior to Reagan.

GWB All the Way.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Aug 6 2004, 02:25 AM'] Bush prays about everything he says publicly, so I'm sure he means it lol. [/quote]
I'm starting to think that it's more he's uneducated on these matters. In the case of the mother's life being in danger, it's not really an abortion. (Well, it's most likely not).

I think he's trying not to counter everything at once. He even admits to contradicting himself at one point. I think he's playing politics so he can get his foot in the door...

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 6 2004, 02:32 AM'] Again, it seems he is against it, and he can't do anything about the embryos that are already dead.  In fact, it seems to make sense that he allow it on all embryos gone before his Presidency, but that's just me.  I may not agree with it, but I can't see too much wrong with it.  I could probably come up with an argument or two, but why would you say it's wrong?  I know that embryonic stem cell research is wrong because it promotes the abortions of babies.
[/quote]
No it [b]is[/b] the killing of human life and using the remains in an undignified manner. The Church said these should not have been experimented on despite personal opinion, but disposed of in some sort of dignified manner and because this was disobeyed, this is why it is wrong. Utmost respect for human life and dignity would have compelled the president to dispose of these embryos like many of the rest instead of using these select few lines as a political tool temporarily appeasing liberal hollywood lobbyists and the media. I don't buy it's right because he prayed over it.

[quote]Now, what he and I are for is the research of animal and adult stem cells. He mentions that in there.[/quote] This is fine but it has nothing to do with the prolife debate.

Edited August 6, 2004 by M.SIGGA

[qfnol31]

My personal opinion is that I don't agree with it, but can see why he did it.

Edited: Seeing who told him no though, I question if he has some leeway.

Further: It seems that one of the arguments is similar to saying that a person who is murdered can't donate organs.

Again, I'm not condoning this, but one of the arguments I ran into seemed that way.

Edited August 6, 2004 by qfnol31

[Apotheoun]

I have voted for the Constitution Party before, although in California it's called the [url="http://www.aipca.org/index.shtml"]American Independent Party[/url]. The Constitution/AIP party is prolife, and I agree with many other positions within their Party Platform, but I won't make up my mind on who to vote for until closer to the election. The only thing that I have decided is that I will not, in fact, I cannot, vote for John Kerry, because of his positions on various moral issues.

Peroutka sounds good, but he has one mark against him, he's a Calvinist. Sorry, I just couldn't resist that little playful jab at the expense of our favorite Phatmass Calvinist, ICTHUS.



God bless,
Todd

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 6 2004, 03:39 AM'] In the case of the mother's life being in danger, it's not really an abortion. (Well, it's most likely not).

[/quote]
Can you clarify this statement please?

[MorphRC]

GO NADER GO

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 6 2004, 08:02 AM'] GO NADER GO [/quote]
Please tell me you are joking.

[MorphRC]

No. Im Being Serious. Very Serious. So Serious That Even Though I Dont Live In The US, I Am Going To Vote For Nader.





btw wb from the ban

[St. Catherine]

I will vote for George Bush. (At least most likely.) I will consider voting for Michael A. Peroutka because in Utah George Bush will win. As for those states where the vote could go either way I would definitely vote for Bush, just to eliminate the risk of Kerry winning the state.

As for those who say that voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote; the only wasted vote is the one that is not cast. (Unless it is for Kerry )

[AnomilE]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 5 2004, 10:33 PM'] It's a shame when people do not know how to use the brain that God gave them.


The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. When there is no chance for Poroutka to win, it's a wasted vote.

ALL Catholics have a responsibility to vote.

A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility
[url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html"]http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/b...pStatement.html[/url]


Those who vote for anyone other than Bush might have their hearts in the right place, but their head is up.... let's just say "not in the right place".

45,000,000 babies. Once the next 45,000,000 are safe, then we can talk the lesser things.

God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
You know what- I'm offended by you dude.

Here are some faithful catholics who are displeased with a republican who cannot produce a truly pro-life platform and all you can do is run us down.

[color=red][Edited by dUSt: Criticism of the magisterium][/color]

I for one will not roll over and vote for a man who does not completely support where my Church stands- period. And if you call that braindead- then so sad for you my friend.

AnomilE