Pro-Lifers Celebrate Recall

californiaprolife.org ^ | Wed, 8 Oct 2003 | Brian Johnston, Executive Director of the California ProLife Council

[kingu]

I'm glad to see that there can be education without using corpses for political gain. The resource for life page was wonderful.. Just a FYI, at my daughter's school, abortion is mentioned in her fifth grade human growth and development class.

[Drk4The1]

CP, you said:
Arnold Schwarznegger has self-identified as 'pro-choice.' But in supporting parental notification and opposing partial-birth abortions, he has taken a significant break from the monolithic abortion lobby. This has made him public enemy #1 at NOW and NARAL and CARAL. There are quite a few pro-life legislators that have rallied to Arnie's side. They are in a position to advise and influence him. He has said he wants that advice. He has appointed pro-lifers to his transition team.

My Comment: A great first Pro-Life task for the new CA Governor.

Do you think that maybe Arnie could make mention of what a great job Jeb Bush is doing in Florida to see that no person in Florida is dehydrated or starved to what is certain death? This might be upstaging the president such that he rings in on his promises of a Culture of Life in America and that everyone has the INALIENABLE Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Inalienable defined means "that which cannot be given or taken away."

So if Life cannot be given or taken away, why is that Judge Greer down there in Clearwater, Florida abusing his power as if playing God, and about to effect to first Legal Civil Murder of Terri Schiavo by State Perpetrated Intentional Dehydration and Starvation until DEATH of a disabled but VERY CONSCIOUS criminally abused, neglected and exploited adult?

In Canada, today, it was announced that the countries Immigration Minister, David Coderre is considering granting "temporary asylum" to Theresa Schiavo until the matters is the US courts can be resolved.

At 1:30PM EST in Federal Court, Tampa, Florida we shall see how much weight Governor Bush's joining with Terri Schiavo herself to win her right to life will bring to bear on the judicial branch in Florida.

Governor Jeb Bush said that he joined Terri Schiavo's legal battle because he just didn't see a proper constitutional outcome coming from the judiciary. The Judges at the Florida Circuit,Appeallate and Supreme levels just can't agree, so the decision passes to Governor. He apparently is hopeful at the Federal level or he could have issued an Executive Order that would stop the whole circus and protect Terri and the Constitution by physically taking custody of Terri to protect and rehabilitate her first with sheriff's, marshal's or National Guard if necessary pursuant to his authority in Article IV, Section 1 of the Florida Constitution.

Pray and visualize the Governor's law enforcement interrupting the proceedings in Federal Court October 10th, 2003, Friday, and arresting Michael Schiavo for dozens of felony charges as well as every merchant of death: right to die movement member and accomplices. This movement and it's participant/accomplices because of what it is doing to take away the inalienable right to life from our constitution by overlaying the silly notion of right to die that everyone has been under their spell to buy into, on top of our state and US constituions, fits the profile of a subversive organization and is unlawful pursuant to Florida Statute 876.22 through 876.31 Anarchy, Treason, Terrorism.

These Merchants of Death are committing SOCIAL TERRORISM upon us all. Their desire is to make it constitutional and legal to commit CIVIL MURDER.

www.terrisfight.org
phenn@zimp.org
highway2health.net
www.worldnetdaily.com
www.CBN.com

Thanks to the many freepers who have been debunking this crime against Terri Schiavo and all her very supporters, The People.

Sincerely. Keep up the fight for LIFE as Inalienable and NO to death by dehydration and starvation for ANYONE being anything but a Capital Crime and not what our society or faith is to become or permit.

Get more informed and then shout until your heard. These merchants of death have been at this under our noses and disguised so compassinately as effecting the *allowing* someone to die. But when you CAUSE someone's death, that is NOT allowing someone to die -- IT'S MURDER, Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia, Mercy Killing or what has become Legal Civil Murder. AND THEY ARE ALL CRIMINAL !

[cpforlife.org]

Drk4The1,

I must clear this up. For the record, I did NOT write the article.

I simply posted it.

I am in Louisiana, but I pray for Terri and I try to speak about her God given right to life.

[cpforlife.org]

Try this: Politics isn't the answer BECAUSE of Christians who keep voting for pro-abortion candidates.

To me it was clear. Politics in and of itself isn’t the answer; people’s minds and hearts have to change. If abortion were banned tomorrow, that would not change the abortion mentality of this nation, which has steadily worsened over 30 years.

Abortion is a matter of life and death, it is not truly a “political issue”. Rather, it was co-opted by a group of secular humanists and turned into a “political issue” because these people saw the possibility of getting what they wanted from a corrupted court system.

The political situation, as well as the current “law” is a direct reflection of the voters—the will of the people. For thirty years, the voting populace has, as a whole, allowed an unprecedented holocaust to continue in what is supposed to be the most “just” nation on the planet. The system is broken. It cannot fix itself. Politics in and of itself cannot overcome this evil. This will change politically only AFTER a massive cultural transformation.

Can we honestly think that we can change a majority of the Christians that keep voting for pro-abortion candidates within the broken political system?! We haven’t for 30 years and there is no indication we will in the future.

The only positive change is happening where people are receiving basic information (education) on the truth of life before birth. The more people understand about the humanity of the Preborn, the more they reject abortion.

Now clearly this education will not happen in public/government schools.

But it could have been happening in Christian schools all this time, but in most cases it is not.

What will change the culture? At the heart of it, this is truly a basic problem and there is a straightforward solution. The sanctity of life is a simple truth that can and must be taught like any other subject. In Christian schools it should be the preeminent subject in religion class and receive the greatest attention and highest Respect. The war between the cultures of life and death is the single thing that has a bearing on the destiny of our nation and the very survival of our society. Every student beginning kindergarten is naturally pro-life. If the Christian schools were to nurture this gift and guide the proper formation of their Christian consciences with ongoing teachings while continuously building on successive lessons—over the course of thirteen years the vast majority of these students would be solid pro-life citizens. Protestant and Catholic leaders who control schools, Bible study, CCD etc. need only the will to make this happen. Each day this doesn't happen is another day of victory for the pro-abortion forces, because ignorance of the masses is the only hope the pro-abortion forces have for survival.

"...before nations can change, men must change"

[cpforlife.org]

LOL - It is pretty easy to think cpforlife.org might be California pro-life, but it's not.

CpForLife.org is the website for Christian Patriots For Life

And as the founder, I cordially invite you to visit.

[Qwinn]

ARRRRGH... I posted a huge reply to this thread... and then realized it went to the wrong thread, and I can't even -find- it now to copy and paste *sob* So much for my first Freeper post. *sigh*

Anyways... I want to throw my hat in this ring. By the way, for the record, I am a very very pro-life agnostic with a great deal of respect for the Catholic Church, and am quite familiar with the Catechism.

Maybe it's just as well - I'm no longer sure of my interpretation. Rather than state an opinion, I'm going to give some information and leave this in the form of a question. Maybe some of you could give me a hand here.

Anyone here familiar with Catholic Evangelium Vitae #73? Here's what it has to say:

"A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent in [some] nations particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation - there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter.

In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known could licitly support proposals aimes at limiting the harm done by such a law and lessening it's negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects."

Now, my reading of this is that a lawmaker could, for example, vote for a partial birth abortion ban, even if it affirmed legalized abortion in other cases, because it is effectively moving things in the right direction, and as thus is not an unjust law, but rather it is lessening the impact of an unjust law already in effect. I strongly appreciate this line of argument, and it is good that there is some level of pragmatism acknowledged for the sake of legislators on this issue - otherwise, a conscientious Catholic might be completely paralyzed by political realities and unable to achieve a significant restriction of abortion that would save many lives.

Now, please don't think I am trying to "stretch" this into ameliorating some position I've taken - if I lived in CA I would've voted for McClintock, but with a clear conscience because I pretty much expected that Bustamante would lose either way. BUT, in the case where a vote for McClintock would have really been a spoiler that could have enabled Bustamante to achieve power... and given an evaluation of such a political reality... and assuming for the moment that Arnold would actually move in the right direction (through PBA ban and parental notification)... and for the -same- moral reasons that apply to lawmakers, might not a Catholic remain in good standing for the same reasons such a lawmaker would? I mean, if you REALLY believe that as a result of the political system in place, a conscientious vote for McClintock would have the practical -result- of helping a Davis or Bustamante in power who would move the law in the -wrong- direction... could a justification in such a case be made for supporting Arnold? In effect, in a democracy, and taking the view that a voter is in a sense himself a lawmaker by choosing his representative to make those laws... if the voter TRULY FEELS that the practical outcome of a vote for the more pro-life candidate will result in the election of a fanatically pro-choice candidate...

I think #73 allows room for an argument here. Look, I really don't want to distort it, but I do think that the nature of a democracy and political reality does call a "problem of conscience" into question that applies to the voter just as much as it would for a lawmaker.

What do you all think? I'm very interested in opinions on this. Perhaps it's already been addressed.

Qwinn

[Aquinasfan]

The solution to ending the culture of death does not realistically lie with changing the minds of pro-abortion adults; it lies with preserving the 99+ % of children that are naturally pro-life on their first day of school

You're right. That's why I've always believed that the success of the pro-life movement depends upon removing children from government schools. That's why school vouchers are critical.

[votelife]

incremental victory is Arnold campaing for more GOP Senators and Arnold campaigning for Bush.

[Qwinn]

Boy, I really killed this thread with my question, didn't I? Heh. I posted that question about 12 hours ago.

It's a shame - I know there's a lot of Catholics here, and I was hoping for a good discussion on this subject. As I said, I am agnostic but with a great deal of respect for the Church, and if I ever do re-embrace religion it will certainly be with the Catholic Church (heck, I hold almost all of the same policy stands anyway - IMHO they all hold up under secular scrutiny just as potently as they do from a religious perspective).

I know my post is a tough read, but I do believe that Evangelium Vitae #73 is very very important, and deserves discussion.

Another question - exactly in what format is the Evangelium Vitae presented by the Church? I've found it on the web, but I haven't found it yet in my copy of the Catechism. I could be missing it though. Is it simply more recent? Is it going to be added to it? I honestly have no idea.

Qwinn

[Tribune7]

That's why I've always believed that the success of the pro-life movement depends upon removing children from government schools

Bingo. It's got to the point that one no longer has to just make the point that abortion is killing a baby but one also has to explain why killing a baby is wrong.

I blame MTV, too.

[Prolifeconservative]

By far, one of your best posts!!!

Amen!

[cpforlife.org]

Qwinn,

First let me welcome you to FR.

This will be followed by an answer to your great question from last night.

Please hang on, I'm busy at the moment......

[Reagan Man]

>>>incremental victory is Arnold campaing for more GOP Senators and Arnold campaigning for Bush.

I think Arnold will be tied up with California's problems for a while. If he does hit the road for Republicans, Arnold won't be campaigning on the issues of pro-life, pro-2nd amendment or in opposition to special rights for homosexuals and against amnesty for illegals. And the jury is still out on whether Arnold supports income tax cuts, associated with supply side economics, reductions in actual spending, associated with efforts to cut waste, fraud and abuse, and cutting back on social welfare entitlements to illegal aliens and societal deadbeats.

We shall see.

[cpforlife.org]

Qwinn,

Again, welcome to FR.

I read FR for a number of years then signed up 20 odd months ago.

It is great. IMO it is THE BEST place for an honest exchange of ideas where many visitors can come and read and hopefully learn along with us. Jim Robinson is a true Patriot and American hero.

As to your post: You did not kill the thread. I believe you took it to a much higher plane.

You said “I am a very very pro-life agnostic with a great deal of respect for the Catholic Church, and am quite familiar with the Catechism.”

I can only say…GREAT and that I will be very happy to discuss the mission of pro-life work, Catechism etc. with you!!

I myself am a cradle Catholic and am delighted to see such an in depth question on EVANGELIUM VITAE (The Gospel of Life)

In many ways it is one of the most important documents the Holy Father has given to the Church, and the world. I would also recommend study of a companion document, Living the Gospel of Life

You added: “Another question - exactly in what format is the Evangelium Vitae presented by the Church? I've found it on the web, but I haven't found it yet in my copy of the Catechism.”

EVANGELIUM VITAE is a document known as an encyclical. This is one of the most authoritative type documents a Pope can deliver. John Paul addressed it: “To the Bishops Priests and Deacons Men and Women religious lay Faithful and all People of Good Will” He closes with: Given in Rome, at Saint Peter's, on 25 March, the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, in the year 1995….”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church came out in English in 1994. It does not contain Evangelium Vitae. The sections pertaining to LIFE use other sources and references.

Now onto your question about Evangelium Vitae #73 with regards to the California election. First I must say WOW, I’ve never heard a Catholic ask such a question. You obviously do some serious reading. #73 is one section out of 105 sections. I think you ask a great question and you just about answer it at the same time.

But let’s look at 73 in it’s entirety: In red & bold

73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. "They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live" (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: "the midwives feared God" (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for "the endurance and faith of the saints" (Rev 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".98

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

The last 4 words “limit its evil aspects” is an important key. We should do whatever we can to stop evil using just means. When we cannot completely stop an evil such as abortion we should still attempt to “limit its evil aspects” of course with just means. So with that having been established, YES I can agree with your interpretation:

“if I lived in CA I would've voted for McClintock, but with a clear conscience because I pretty much expected that Bustamante would lose either way. BUT, in the case where a vote for McClintock would have really been a spoiler that could have enabled Bustamante to achieve power... and given an evaluation of such a political reality... and assuming for the moment that Arnold would actually move in the right direction (through PBA ban and parental notification)... and for the -same- moral reasons that apply to lawmakers, might not a Catholic remain in good standing for the same reasons such a lawmaker would? I mean, if you REALLY believe that as a result of the political system in place, a conscientious vote for McClintock would have the practical -result- of helping a Davis or Bustamante in power who would move the law in the -wrong- direction... could a justification in such a case be made for supporting Arnold? In effect, in a democracy, and taking the view that a voter is in a sense himself a lawmaker by choosing his representative to make those laws... if the voter TRULY FEELS that the practical outcome of a vote for the more pro-life candidate will result in the election of a fanatically pro-choice candidate...”

If you are still with me, I’d like to suggest a great pro-life website which also happens to be Catholic: Priests for Life

This great group is really Living the Gospel of Life. They have many online resources that deal with the subject of voting and the entire field of pro-life work.

Lastly, you said: “I am agnostic but with a great deal of respect for the Church, and if I ever do re-embrace religion it will certainly be with the Catholic Church (heck, I hold almost all of the same policy stands anyway - IMHO they all hold up under secular scrutiny just as potently as they do from a religious perspective).”

Based on my only impression of you I will say that you appear to be approaching the right path. I’d also like to suggest a little book to you and to all that might read this: THE LAMB'S SUPPER. Go here, then under Books select Mass/Eucharist

And one more website: EWTN

[nosofar]

But once it became apparent that McClintock could not win, the obligation for a conservative was to use their vote to help the candidate closest to our beliefs, and that wasn't Bustamante.

I voted for McClintock. I waited until the night before to decide. If the polls were at all close, I expect I would have voted for Arnold, but I also felt it was important for McClintock to at least get into the double digits. Politics is not only about winning, but also about sending a message. If everyone voted for Arnold and the conservative in the race got nothing, the message would have been that the Republican Party can always count on the votes of conservatives even if the candidate tends to be a little liberal on some issues. I don't think this would have been a good thing in the long run. I'm reasonably satisfied with the way things turned out.

[cpforlife.org]

Thank you very kindly.

[Prolifeconservative]

In my humble opinion, this is the key phrase: "when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law"

It was POSSIBLE through the candidacy of McClintock to completely abrogate a pro-abortion law. At the very least a vote for McClintock was a vote for "abrogating a pro-abortion law" through his governership.

I wish every TRUE Christian, had one of those WWJD bracelets on their arm before they cast that crucial vote in California. Yes, after glancing toward those wonderful initials who could have pulled the lever for anyone but McClintock.

Christianity is an absolute!

[luckymom]

I did mean Sam Maloof. I grew up in Ontario, CA. and have heard of him for many years. His work is remarkable! How exciting for you to have had the opportunity to meet him.

[b9]

How exciting for you to have had the opportunity to meet him.

It certainly was. I understand he often gives tours of his remarkable home, in Pasadena I think. Even the hinges on his doors are hand carved! Our daughter is a budding woodworker, carving out a niche for herself with a deep respect for all things 'Maloof.' So glad you know his work, too! :o)