Posted on 10/03/2004 10:21:55 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
Patrick Madrid, a Catholic apologist does an excellent job using scripture to explain why ALL Christians are called to vote in defense of life—and why it IS INDEED a sin to vote for pro-abortion politicians.
I believe our Protestant brethren will agree with this presentation as well.
The video file is 10 Megs and 10 minutes long. IMO—it is excellent and I recommend it be forwarded to as many as possible, especially fence sitters.
I'm tired of those who would pretend for a moment that a human life is not every bit as unique and alive at the moment of conception as it is once born or possessed of a family and children of its own. Our knowing that life increases its value to US, not its Creator.
No Christian in their right mind thinks this way, anyway. And no scientifically minded sort would premise a life's worth on how many folks are acquainted with the life or can recognize it with a naked eye as "fully" human. In fact, it's science -- not faith -- who understands well the reality and the import of both the Seen and the Unseen, the Known and they Yet-to-Be-Discovered.
Even if protocol at present is to kill embryos and clones by the "Date of Implantation" (as if personhood were premised on abortifacient birth control somehow) ... Bush set "killed by" date limits only on his own research project of 60 lines (and growing ... everyone's hot to be a part of this gravy train given Bush's DOUBLING of the NIH's budget!)
If the "best and the brightest" he assembled end up unlocking some profitable use for embryonic stem cells, it's just a matter of time before California makes good on its intent to become the world's premier supplier of embryos for "destructive research." As a Catholic that will mean that Bush was practically singlehandedly responsible for a death toll that will make that of the "Roe" court pale by comparison.
I know it seems weird to others, not you perhaps, that I see no Essential difference in the killing of a zygote or embryo, fetus or infant. But perhaps that's because I cut the zygotes and embryos some slack in that they simply haven't had the time necessary to develop the beating heart and terrified posture necessary for us to perceive the physical manifestation of whatever spiritual horror or suffering is associated with the summary execution or indefinite Suspension of a human life already begun and full of promise.
I'm certain that one other essential element of the equation we can't perceive is the impression this loss makes on He who knows the number of hairs on the heads of each of us ...
... or so we Christians like to believe when it suits us to perceive of God as a personal God who desired each and every one of us Equals be created in the first place.
____________________________________________
Back to "it's a sin" ...
But you're just encapsulating what appears to be the general consensus here: that it's a sin to vote for a pro-abort politician (or, and I know you didn't say this, a sin of omission somehow not to exercise one's "solemn duty" to vote).
Voting is a privilege, not a duty or even a right. I still maintain it should be a privilege restricted to those who deserve it like property owners, for instance.
I don't think your comment about "tearing down without offering alternatives" is fair.
As far as faith is concerned: it's best placed somewhere OTHER than the realm of politics or politicians. While George W. Bush's decision on ESCR may be an extreme example of a politician's actions being in direct contradiction to his alleged personal convictions -- that life begins at conception, that Christ is his favorite philosopher or that he himself is a Christian with some comprehension of the Second Commandment or the Sermon on the Mount -- the fact of the matter is that nearly every so-called "pro-life" politicians has abandoned those "values" for which they were elected when push came to shove.
Does no one remember anymore the way Republicans "split their consciences" and voted in FAVOR of the Schumer Amendment? They told us it was going to be a tie and that they couldn't possibly risk candidate Al Gore's getting good press coverage from the liberal media for breaking same. That would-be "tie" ended up a trouncing with only some 11-13 senators opposed and 87 in favor. (I can only hope none of the Pubbie pro-lifers skinned a knee in the rush to split their conscience and switch their vote.)
This would be the same "GOP Senate" by the way, that "sent a message" by ratifying Roe v. Wade on a day McKeating was conveniently out campaigning as the Incredible Hulk ... ready to perform abortions himself, if he had to, in order to make George "It's Up to Her" Bush look pro-life.
So ... that's for starters. I don't like confusing the Non-Negotiables of a perfectly Rational and Scientifically sound Faith with a belief that a vote for an allegedly "pro-life" politician somehow translates to a Good Work where the unborn are concerned.
Second ... I don't believe abortion is rightly a "single issue" but only one of the logical and patently lethal consequences of that birth control mentality whereby Christians who purposefully exclude God from the most intimate act of holy matrimony like to keep their "pro-life" convictions focused solely on the issue of abortion or the word "marriage".
I don't see anyone arguing that the State should roll back its sanction or decrease its funding of birth control. I don't see anyone holding George's feet to the fire for having taken the UNPRECEDENTED step of not only legimitizing human research on Excess manufacture lives but PROMISING us he'd pursue the work until it hit "humanitarian" Paydirt. Unlocking the secrets of embryonic stem cells and proving indeed that excess manufacture of Potential People promises to be a utilitarian gold mine of a readily Renewable Resource is "Pro-life"?
Actions speak louder than words.
Voting is not an "action" for which anyone should earn any especial "pro-life" laurel ... particularly when that "pro-life" vote carefully limits its focus SOLELY to abortion and not the birth control, artificial reproduction, euthanasia, homosexual marriage and assisted suicide also a part of voting "for the children" or with all due respect for human life. I'd rather see a couple go off birth control and thereby evidence their trust in God and His will than vote "pro-life" and place the brunt of their trust in politicians while yet maintaining perfect control over the Planning of their "pro-life" Family.
I just don't like seeing the voting process (which now has practically zero accountability) elevated to the same level as your work, for example, which -- courtesy of the Holocaust Museum, for example -- actually educates people and changes hearts on a daily basis from here on out.
I guess I can't offer "alternatives" primarily because it's hard to think of a "faithbased" work quite so shallow as wrapping a "pro-life" mantle around a "personally opposed, but" party who had no troubles last time around making the funding of the NIH and the farming of human life like a cash crop the FIRST order of business.
You know well that I believe abortion -- like the Viet Nam war also making a big comeback in this year's election season -- has been used the most calculated fashion possible for over 30 years now. Particularly given the fact that DEMOCRAT politicians are not only allowed but EXPECTED to actually vote and by their "Litmus Test" personal beliefs on subjects like abortion ... it renders the populace a perfectly predictable and perfectly manipulatable source from which to draw this year's "Mandate" for this year's Comus Queen.
Do we need a "buffoon" like Clinton to live-fire the Federal police forces for which Republicans like Danforth may be counted upon to provide airtight excuses under cover of election crisis? Do we need a Carter to give away the Panama Canal? They're available as necessary.
The fact they've pulled out all the stops and are practically deafening us on the two single issues used in the most calculated fashion possible tells me -- along with a raft of Gore-like mistakes and inexplicable missteps by the Kerry contingent -- that both parties realize how critical is a GOP win this year given the way the one has managed somehow to squander the unity into which the nation, and even the world, was melded by 911.
I'm not worried about the "pro-lifer" winning and neither should you. But because I'm not nearly as active as you in service of the unborn -- regardless a lifelong devotion to and intermittent service as well -- I do worry about whether I'm committing sins of omission where my Faith and core beliefs are concerned.
This strangely constricted emphasis on abortion (birth control and the artificial reproduction which provided Bush his "already killed stem cells" are "non-negotiable" too, you know) is less than honest and certainly less than "Catholic."
I believe the courting of Catholics in the last election which has become an all-out assault this election is part and parcel of the "politicization" of the faith every bit as reprehensible to me as liberation or process theology deformations of Catholicism in service of the revolution.
Sorry ... I'm one of those who brings a big purse to Mass so I can take ALL of the literature mentioning parties or politicians OFF the table in the vestibule. I'm all for "Catholic Voter Guide" type literature which unabashedly identifies abortion as just one of the logical ends of the contraceptive mentality and only one manifestation of the deathist bent so consistent in the 1967-1970 introductions to Congress of the eugenicists appointed to head our government's key scientific and "humanitarian" agencies.
But, having educated myself to the facts of the matter, hypocrisy would be the greater sin for me and I can no longer pretend for even the length of an election season that there is any such thing as a "pro-life" politician save for the dozen who voted against the Schumer Amendment or Ron Paul of Texas who -- like most of the libertarian bent -- seem to forget that in a "democracy" (as opposed to a Constitutional Republic) adherence to strictly Constitutional principles is a sure shot in one's own foot allowing the success of the Leninists and their illumined counterparts who know only too well that "separation precedes federation."
"Schwarzenegger is not 100 percent pro-abortion -- he is to some extent, to a large extent, pro-life," Gracida said of the California governor. "Same way with Giuliani. Therefore, one must be careful not to issue a sweeping condemnation of everyone who has reservations about one or another aspect of human life and to recognize that it is only those like John Kerry who are 100 percent pro-abortion who deserve condemnation."
Hoo-boy ... the circus is definitely in town.
So I gather from this that he is NOT a Christian. They are a living sacrifice. They are a new creature that walks in the Spirit. How do you turn off your Spirit to walk in the flesh and still call yourself Christian? He is refered to in the Bible as double minded. Some might even give him the credit for being "luke warm." The Bible warns us of the "wheat and chaff", goats and sheep, but tells us to discern the difference by their fruit or works. Killing babies is not good fruit. Sanctioning gay marraige is not good fruit.
These questions are easily answered by the most basic newbie Christian. Kerry believes that these questions are "deep" and require years of exploration and discussion. The problem is he is still in rebellion and doesn't follow God. Simple,..... he prefers to sin over following God.
"...or Ron Paul of Texas ...."
Great! We can agree on Ron Paul. I would truly love to see that man as President. Sadly he has as much chance as Pertrouka.
Yes the "Schwarzenegger" comment was way off by the bishop.
But it does not invalidate his message, he simply was ill-informed on The Terminator of the Unborn.
"On Our Civic Responsibility for the Common Good"
--Archbishop Raymond Burke
http://www.archstl.org/letters/100104pastoral_letter.pdf
If anyone needs a ten minute video to convince them that abortion is murder, they are lost already...
If a country harbors and/or supports terrorism, it is just as guilty as the terrorists. Likewise with abortion.
What's interesting about the rats is that they don't see homosexuality or abortion as key contributors to their downfall as a party.
Not only to the majority of the people of the country not agree with homosexuality or abortion, but they are aborting their future voters and gay people can't procreate. Children tend to be of the same party as their parents, so if they kill their children, the number of rats decreases over time.
All voters should think for themselves.
Not be part of the herd of sheeple who need to be told what to think and how to vote.
I believe abortion is the single worst sin against God and man that anyone can do.
=== But it does not invalidate his message, he simply was ill-informed on The Terminator of the Unborn.
Just as most are woefully uninformed as to which party it was first pitched abortion, which party it was first made abortion the linchpin of our comprehensive population control program and which party first divined the "right" to predetermine the sex of one's children on which Bush's ESCR decision ultimately was based.
(Without such a "right" there would be no Excess Manufacture embryos to use for Human research lest they be "wasted" like so many unsold body parts of fetuses on which folks make a pretty penny these days.)
I don't think folks understand how the Sexual Scandal was but a game of Crack the Whip well in advance of the election.
The fact we have Bishops and Priests -- not to mention Cardinals -- making the case for Pragmatism where Non-Negotiables are concerned or weighing the "relative" percentage that a person is "pro-life" given his varying views on the CONTINUUM (not spectrum) from conception to death only reaffirms my suspicions in these regards.
Doesn't anyone else find it odd as hell that some of the most egregious bishops of all suddenly have a backbone -- for the length of the election anyway -- and are mentioning abortion and homosexual marriage (if not birth control, assisted suicide, euthanasia, etc.) for the first time in 30 years?
I sure do. I think they got their chains yanked but good and are now charged with playing us for suckers who -- Cafeteria Catholic style -- are just counting the pro-life carbs of candidates ... some of whom we know FOR A FACT have no concept of human dignity, respect for life or Just War.
Again I agree--Bush has numerous severe problems on defending innocent life.
The fact remains that ONLY Bush or Kerry will be sworn in next January and I am supporting Bush.
Also, please see:
Bush's Pro-Life Record as of May 18, 2004, by Fr. Peter West
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1140835/posts
Kerry Wrong for Catholics.com -- CATHOLIC ISSUES OVERVIEW by the RNC
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1214734/posts
In all likelihood the next president will appoint three (maybe more) supreme court justices. Bush has been firm that he will not appoint those who read things into the constitution. When decisions and laws are back in the hands of the people and our legislators, then men like Peroutka become viable options for Catholics. While the Supreme Court continues its reign of tyranny over us, it doesn't matter what men like Peroutka are right thinking in the minutia if they cannot be elected.
=== Bush has been firm that he will not appoint those who read things into the constitution.
Given his ability to "read into" the Scripture of his Favorite Philosopher that (1) not only should "Christian" parents have the "right" to exclude God from the marriage bed and force into being any number of Potential Children so as to assure themselves a More Perfect Child and (2) the best possible use of these Excess Potential Children is for-profit "humanitarian" purposed destruction in the lab, I have zero confidence in Bush's own ability to read the Constitution, much less understand fragments of the Declaration such as: "All men are CREATED equal."
This is my primary and only truly essential beef. The fact he seems to believe ours is or should be a "democracy" or has no problems rewriting the Constitution as he sees fit in order to make good on the bets of Cohen, Kissinger and others that Americans would "trade liberty for security" is fodder for another thread.
I'm kinda sick of the whole "we have the potential to change the courts" mantra. That plays, I'm sure, with bimbos like Ann "You Must Vote for Bush No Matter What He Does" Coulter but I'm not buying.
Actions speak louder than words. Bush and the GOP wouldn't know a "strict constitutionalist" if he went up in flames like Burning Man in Waco.
How is it Laura Bush gets her picture captioned "Pro-Life?"
Nothing is farther from the truth ... even if she doesn't actually stump FOR abortion "in the first trimester only" like her mother-in-law.
=== Askel, Bush does favor keeping abortion legal in some limited circumstances. However, Bush does not believe in a constitutionally guaranteed right to abortion.
I keep coming back to this.
Is this the same sort of premise on which the State reserves ONLY for itself the right to decide who will and who won't received the death penalty?
I'm not sure I understand how limited "human rights" or those accorded on the basis of sex, skin, age, sexual orientation and such work.
(Save to enshrine the State as Supreme Being in that it alone has the power to decide -- with all due pragmatism -- what is Good and what is Evil.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.