(After quoting a previous entry that was supportive of choosing
candidates
that will work against abortion, "Fr. Tom" writes: )
This is exactly where the issues get so confused. If it were
only that easy,
we could make a simple choice in the ballot box. If your voting
criteria is
the candidate "who has the best chance at helping to decrease
abortion" then
the candidate is the Democratic candidate, not the Republican.
Abortion
rates drop by as much as 25% when Democrats are in office. You
can find
these stats at the National Right to Life website: www.nrlc.com.
Why does this happen? Because there is an undeniable connection
between
poverty and abortion. When you address the issues of poverty,
as the
Democrats do, the number of abortions go down. Abortions reached
an annual
high of 1.6 million in 1988 under President George H.W. Bush.
During
Republican administrations in the last 30 years, they have never
dipped
below 1.55 million. They reached their lowest point since 1977
under
President Clinton with a low of 1.31 million in 2000, and averaged
around
1.36 million during every year of his administration, roughly
25% fewer.
This is not an endorsement of a Democratic candidate. We must
stop looking
simply for the lesser of two evils and start actively working
for a true
pro-life candidate. I am constantly encouraging people to greater
political
activity.
The bottom line in today's world is that it doesn't matter if
you are a
Democrat or a Republican - neither party supports Catholic values
and
Catholic social teaching. But, here's the mystery - Catholics
make up the
single largest voting block in the country. Twenty-five percent
of the
electorate are Catholic. The problem is that we don't vote our
faith; we
don't vote as a block. If we, as a group, said that being truly
pro-life is
important to us, there is no way that all parties wouldn't listen
to us.
The sad reality is that we simply don't do that. The solution
- if you're a
Republican, lobby your representatives, lobby your candidates
- tell them
that being half pro-life isn't enough. They need to truly support
a culture
of life. If you're a Democrat, lobby your representatives, lobby
your
candidates - tell them that their support for abortion has got
to go, that
they need to bring all their political thought in line with something
that
is truly pro-life.
We have lived in this middle ground for too long; we've been
forced to make
poor choice after poor choice for too long. We have to become
the change. To
the youth reading this - consider becoming politically active.
Be a pro-life
Democrat; be a pro-life Republican. If we can't find the candidates,
become
the candidates. Change is in our hands. We have to turn the frustration
of
this and all the other elections before it become Catholic Political
Action.
Since this is my first post, I guess that's enough for now. I'll
step off my
soap box now.
God bless!!
Fr. Tom
Sorry, Fr., but I strongly disagree with you
posted by csbowl99
<http://www.seanforrest.com/community/ContentDisp.asp?pid=34&user=csbowl99>
(10/15/2004)
I don't think John Kerry is going to help abortion decrease.
Take a look at
the facts. Look at the platform of the Democratic Party! On page
35, it
states, "The Bush administration has put ideology over science,
skewing
information about everything from WOMEN'S HEALTH to scientific
research...
President Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher
Reeve,
and Americans across the land for assistance with EMBRYONIC STEM
CELL
RESEARCH. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy
offers
hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses
- from
Alzheimer's to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson's."
On page
38 of the platform, it states, "We will defend the dignity
of all Americans
against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the
privacy and
equality of women, we stand PROUDLY for a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE,
consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to
pay. We stand
firmly against Republicans EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE THAT RIGHT. At
the same
time, we STRONGLY SUPPORT FAMILY PLANNING AND ADOPTION INCENTIVES.
ABORTION
SHOULD BE SAFE, LEGAL, AND RARE."
Also, "We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families
in the life of
our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections
for
these families...We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort
to politicize
the Constitution by pursuing a 'Federal Marriage Amendment.'
I didn't say that
posted by FrTomOFM
<http://www.seanforrest.com/community/ContentDisp.asp?pid=34&user=FrTomOFM>
(10/15/2004)
In fairness, I didn't say that John Kerry was going to help abortion
decrease. I merely pointed out that we can't be so naive as to
believe that
George Bush will. The facts speak for themselves. I think I clearly
stated
that I'm not supporting either candidate here - as that would
not be
appropriate in my role as a priest - I am saying that the issue
is very,
very complicated and that we as Catholics can't simply back someone,
we need
to be active in the process in both parties so that they will
represent us
and our Catholic views. I don't pretend for a second that John
Kerry will
forward the pro-life cause. What I'm saying is don't pretend that
George
Bush with either. The numbers don't support the rhetoric.
Peace,FT
Fr. Tom
posted by csbowl99
<http://www.seanforrest.com/community/ContentDisp.asp?pid=34&user=csbowl99>
(10/15/2004)
Your views are very liberal and it scares me that a PRIEST is
telling people
that Democrats are actually decreasing abortion when that is not
the case.
Haven't you read the news or watched these debates? Kerry is going
to block
any chance of changing Roe V. Wade in the courts if he is elected.
He will
elect pro-choice justices and even worse, says he is going to
elect some
pro-life justices as long as they don't change the position of
abortion.
Sorry, but what you wrote on here is very liberal and it scares
me.
Easier than you think
posted by apocalips
<http://www.seanforrest.com/community/ContentDisp.asp?pid=34&user=apocalips>
(10/15/2004)
To claim that Democrats have caused a decrease in abortions is
insane, if
not dishonest. Abortion on demand has led to the death of 44 million
unborn
children. It was legalized by a slim majority of Supreme Court
Justices. Any
attempts to change the court's disastrous decision through presidential
appointments have been blocked by a small group of liberal, democratic
senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by, pseudo-Catholics
Ted
Kennedy and Pat Leahy. Indeed, there are 5 federal judges being
blocked from
even having a committee vote by these radical left-wingers right
now. And
they are being blocked for one reason - they are against abortion.
One, judge William Pryor, was specifically blocked because he
is a
practicing Catholic. Speaking in favor of these politicians is
actually
supporting anti-Catholic bigotry. You should know better, Father
Tom. The
lesser of two evils is the one not holding rallies with NARAL
Pro-Choice
America but instead has the support of Family Research Council
and countless
pro-life and Catholic lay organizations.
Again, I disagree
posted by csbowl99
<http://www.seanforrest.com/community/ContentDisp.asp?pid=34&user=csbowl99>
(10/15/2004)
I encourage you to ask Mike Forrest to send you the email of
all the laws
passed under George Bush. There are so many, you would not even
believe. And
saying that I am pretending George Bush will do something about
it is , when
I have seen all the laws he has passed including the Partial Birth
Abortion
Ban Act "In an interview in his residence here, Archbishop
Chaput said a
vote for a candidate like Mr. Kerry who supports abortion rights
or
embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that must be confessed
before
receiving Communion." Also, you are saying President Bush
hasn't done
anything for the pro-life movement? Go to www. prolifepresident.net
.
A few facts...
posted by apocalips
<http://www.seanforrest.com/community/ContentDisp.asp?pid=34&user=apocalips>
(10/15/2004)
Presidents have limited authority to deal with the abortion issue,
however
George W. Bush did: Sign the Partial Birth Abortion Ban ActSign
the Born
Alive ActSign the Unborn Victims of Violence ActSign presidential
orders
forbidding the use of US Taxpayer dollars for UN Population Control
programs
that promote abortion, Sign a presidential order banning federal
dollars
from funding abortions on military bases. These are just off the
top of my
head. In contrast, President Clinton twice vetoed the Partial
Birth Abortion
Act and reversed every ban on abortion that Presidents Reagan
and Bush 41
had enacted within their authority. There is a difference! Watch
out for
pseudo pro-life organizations like National Right to Life. They
actually
blocked a state law that would have made abortion illegal in South
Dakota.
See www.thomasmore.com
Still didn't say that
posted by FrTomOFM
<http://www.seanforrest.com/community/ContentDisp.asp?pid=34&user=FrTomOFM>
(10/15/2004)
Again, I really don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm not
saying that
President Bush has done nothing, or will do nothing. I'm very
glad that he
signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban into effect. As a matter
of fact, the
pastor of my parish was present for the signing, which was a great
honor.
ALL I'M SAYING is that the things that he has done do not qualify
him to be
called Pro-Life. He's done some good things in the Pro-Life direction,
but
does not deserve our blind support in this regard.
As a matter of pure statistics, there are only 650 partial-birth
abortions
performed annually. As a matter of pure statistics, during the
Clinton
years, the number of abortions was between 200,000-300,000 fewer.
My point,
once again, is this: WE NEED TO ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE ALL MEMBERS
OF ALL
PARTIES TO BE PRO-LIFE. THERE ARE VIRTUALLY NO MEMBERS OF ANY
THAT ARE TRULY
PRO-LIFE (Certainly not in the Presidential election). That is
my point.
Please tell me that there's someone on this board hearing what
I'm actually
saying and not merely putting words in my mouth?
I have to say I'm a bit shocked at the name calling on this board.
I'm
merely trying to make a point, something that I would say that
I'm doing in
a very respectful and polite manner and in the course of a few
moments, I
have been name called by at least two of you. I am not a liberal
or a
conservative, I am a Christian. And, especially on this issue
I'm as
conservative as you can get. I DESPERATELY, DESERPATELY WANT A
PRO-LIFE
CANDIDATE.
I agree with everything you have all said about John Kerry on
this issue.
He's not going to help the issue. But, remember in the debate
just this
week, George Bush also said he would not seek to overturn Roe
v. Wade. When
will we get a candidate who will? I'm not trying to convince any
of you of
anything other than this - the issue is complicated and you are
by and large
over simplifying it. I'll finish this discussion, but you've probably
convinced me not to participate further in this board.
hey
posted by ImFree
<http://www.seanforrest.com/community/ContentDisp.asp?pid=34&user=ImFree>
(10/15/2004)
Hey Fr. Tom keep posting don't stop posting! We want you to keep
on
discussing with us, the more the merrier!
Don't worry
posted by outofthisworldgirl75
<http://www.seanforrest.com/community/ContentDisp.asp?pid=34&user=outofthisw
orldgirl75> (10/15/2004)
He'll be back. most likely. Come on FT! God bless
No offense Father tom :)
posted by seanforrest
<http://www.seanforrest.com/community/ContentDisp.asp?pid=34&user=seanforres
t> (10/15/2004)
Hey father, Welcome to the site! Just making sure you don't feel
upset by
some of the passionate responses you have been receiving. Be excited!
Its
God's youth speaking out about catholic teaching. Not a bad thing.
:)
It's an honor to have another Priest join us so thanks! As for
the subject
at hand, the Church is very clear that you cannot vote for a candidate
who
is pro-choice unless there is a candidate who is less pro-choice
then the
other or if the other candidate was going to institute infanticide
or
something outrageous like that. I appreciate what you are getting
at and
agree with some of what you said about needing a totally pro-life
candidate!
Lets all pray!
I believe some of your stats are off as well compared to the
ones I have
seen way more the 650 partial birth abortions happen every year.
Having
studied the works of Father Frank Pavone, I think he would agree
with me on
that one. Even if it was true that less abortions happen underneath
Democratic control (I would debate that too if I had the time)
it still
would be morally wrong to vote for a candidate who strongly believes
that
abortion is a good thing. There is something very evil in promoting
someone
who believes that ripping a baby apart limb by limb is a good
thing.
It sends out a violent message to people that it is okay and
that kind of
morality is acceptable. Even if fewer abortions happen under Democratic
control there would be a rise in the death of morality. Openly
supporting
someone who is pro-choice breeds spiritual decay and death. You
have
forgotten to factor that into the equation.
(Your) stats may show less abortion but they do not reveal the
spiritual
significance of voting pro-choice. Hey! Some studies show that
condoms
prevent pregnancies so let's vote for that to be available in
schools as
well. Forget about all the abstinence stuff! That abstinence stuff
doesn't
lower pregnancies but condoms do so let's start preaching that
from the
pulpits too! Let's lower the bar a little more! How about if we
try to turn
the Churches teachings on birth control as well!
The pill in some studies shows a decrease in abortion in some
areas!
(Obviously I am being sarcastic. :) ) You see the stats cannot
tell us how
much spiritual harm has been done to us by the use of contraception.
The
stats may show that its helps with some STDs but it doesn't show
how it
increases divorce rates and promiscuity. Voting for someone who
is
pro-choice because you think it could possibly limit the amount
of abortions
is like telling people to use birth control because it may help
stop
abortions as well. The foundation of that argument is broken.
It' stands on
a lie.
1 2
3 4
Michael
Forest responds