Posted on 11/01/2002 4:07:40 PM PST by fatguy
DENVER, Oct 29, 02 (CWNews.com) -- In his second blunt message in as many weeks on the responsibilities of Catholic voters, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver has insisted the issue of abortion should provide a clear-cut choice.
"I will vote for no candidate Republican, Democrat or third party -- who is actively 'pro-choice,'" the archbishop wrote in his regular weekly column for Denver's archdiocesan newspaper.
Archbishop Chaput dismissed the argument that abortion is only one among many issues to be considered in an election year. He explained: "abortion is separated from other important social issues like affordable housing by a difference in kind, not a difference in degree. Every abortion kills an unborn human life -- every time. No matter what kind of mental gymnastics we use, elective killing has no excuse. We only implicate ourselves by trying to provide one."
In this respect, the archbishop drew a distinction between the abortion issue and other political questions, on which reasonable people might differ. The difference, he said, is that "every abortion is a grave act of violence."
The archbishop repeated his complaint that proponents of legal abortion are seeking to silence Catholics, and others who are opposed to the practice. "The only way to stop this coercion is to send the right men and women to Congress," he said.
Voters cannot remain neutral on the issue, Archbishop Chaput continued. He reasoned: "No violence is ever private. That includes abortion. What we choose to allow, we choose to own."
Every legimate poll (if there is such a thing) not undertaken by groups that have an expressed purpose of subverting the Republican party's pro-life platform show that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose abortion on demand. Banning PBA, parental consent laws, waiting periods, mandatory counseling, etc, all have majority support.
As a previous poster noted, rape incest and life of the mother are the only instances in which the majority support legalized abortion. Why don't you drop the facade and admit that your not "as concerned about abortion" as the rest of us and lose the diversionary "pro-lifers won't adopt every unwanted child" nonsense (maybe we can't, according to your buddies at RYM we only make up 30% of the population) and tell us why YOU support unfettered abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion. Thanks.
You just go along being a good Nazi because all the other Germans agree.
Give me a better arguement than "they all do it".
Are you related to a past Idaho Gov.? (J.T. McCLURE)
Not to the best of my knowledge.
Time to switch to the party that supports your values
You want me to switch to Libertarian? 8^)
James R. McClure Jr.
Sir Knight of Columbus
Are you related to a past Idaho Gov.? (J.T. McCLURE)
Not to the best of my knowledge.
Time to switch to the party that supports your values
You want me to switch to Libertarian? 8^)
James R. McClure Jr.
Sir Knight of Columbus
But, you can be sure if the Vatican will not make him a cardinal, they won't make Chaput a cardinal, either.
The Cardinalate is not conferred on "favorite sons."
No, the problem is that 96% of the people that are "pro-choice" cannot give even the rudiments of the pro-life argument, and as often been said, if you can't give your opponent's argument--you don't understand your own. "Evil?," no---intellectually vacant?, absolutely.
The fundamental question is not one of "choice," but of the nature of the child that is killed. Is it a child? Is it human? Does it suffer?
Just once before I die I would like to hear a "pro-choicer" declaim on the subject: "Resolved: That the entities in the womb which are stabbed and bludgeoned until they perish, do not suffer."
I'm not holding my breath. While I've met a lot of smart pro-choicers, I've never met one with enough applied brain wattage to take it on.
Instead, the pro-choicers apply 90% of their grey matter to finding ever more ambiguous vocabulary to describe their position, hoping to lose everyone else (and maybe the grating of their own conscience) in the fog of their sloppy, half-formed language.
My latest favorite in dim-witted abortspeak is "reproductive rights." What in tarnation could that possibly mean? Reproduction means to give rise to another human being, not to mash one in the process. But these dear folk can't bring themselves to call it what it is, namely, the "right" of non-reproduction.
Personally, I'd have more respect for them if they would fess up and plainspokenly state "Since these are our little $hits that are getting in our way, we can squash 'em if we like."
Lincoln could have gotten more votes by supporting slavery too.
Not at all. The only moral choice is to vote for the anti-infanticide candidate. If the Dem candidate wins, at least he will preside over the murder of babies without your consent.
Winning elections is not what matters. Doing the right thing in all circumstances is. You can only control your own actions: if the voters of the State of New York want a baby-killer for a governor, that's their problem. Let the blood of the murdered children be on their heads. The majority wanted Barabbas released instead of Jesus, too.
Compromising with evil is still evil, even if the motivation behind it is not. Better to do the right thing and let God's will be done.
Those that support abortion-on-demand or justify looking the other way as the innocent millions are slaughtered, are--at a minimum--profoundly deluded.
Does it make you uncomfortable to be included among the profoundly deluded? It ought to. Now try to understand why, and do something about it.
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.