Archbishop Says It's Immoral to Vote for Pro-Choice Candidates

EWTN News ^ | October 29, 2002 | EWTN

[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."

[ApesForEvolution]

have have=you have...

[End The Hypocrisy]

It's interesting how ApeMan would rather publicly lambaste others behind their backs here, instead of volunteer at any one of the many orphanages that our increasingly scarce tax dollars have to support due to how so many kids don't get adopted. But volunteering at orphanages would rob him of his chance to make "holier than thou" proclamations intended to self-aggrandize, and even fundraise. While we're talking about funds, how do you propose to feed all those additional hungry mouths that you want created considering how we now have a record high $6.2 trillion dollar national debt?

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Grow up.

[ApesForEvolution]

By the way, you've got it right. It's us, the defenders of those least capable to defend themselves, against you, those who believe 'might is right'.

Thanks for playing...be sure to vote for a baby-butcher party on Tuesday...and sleep well.

[ApesForEvolution]

Ok...how many un-wed mothers homes do you support? I started and 100% fund 7 homes housing 30-35 women at any given time in in 3 different states.

"Apeman...Grow up"

Even the animal kingdom would have more prescient rights and indeed has more support than little men and women do from godless cretins like you....little babies only ask for the right to grow up...I'm fully grown and very functional, thank you.

Again, thanks for playing.

Now, go make sure a baby reaps the desires of your godless, dark, hedonist heart. What's wrong with you, didn't momma love you? Daddy molest you?

[MatthewViti]

go crawl back under your rock

[ApesForEvolution]

We could reduce the debt by killing off all the non-producers in society like you that leach off of the producers using democr@ps to steal from the rest.

Yes, why stop with the little innocent babies and not go onto people like you? When you devalue life, you devalue your own along with all other life. How many abortions have you had/sponsored, anyway?

[Kevin Curry]

That criticism is that "Republicans will get you born, but you're on your own after that."

Pure BS.

Republicans want to make the family secure and strong, because that is where children thrive best. They don't favor welfare state politics that cripple the family and loose children into welfare-ghetto anomie and self-destruction.

Not only do pro-abort liberals (and some Republicans) strive to slaughter children before birth, they wish to cripple and stunt their development if they are lucky enough to survive the abortionist's scissors and caustic abortifacents.

There is no group more depraved and viciously anti-child than the pro-abort liberals.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>There is no group more depraved and viciously anti-child than the pro-abort liberals.<<<


How about the group that would rather preach and require that people fill orphanages, instead of volunteering to help those already shackled to them?

[Kevin Curry]

How about the group that would rather preach and require that people fill orphanages, instead of volunteering to help those already shackled to them?

I don't know what group you're referring to. But then, I don't move in liberal child-murdering circles. You kow who the highly-specialized sickos are among your group better than I do.

The fact that you consider the parent-child relationship to one of "shackling" shows just how warped your mind and destitute your moral sensibilites are.

[AppyPappy]

"[t]hat's right. Lincoln sided against slavery, and politicians favoring abortion rights should similarly side against the enslavement of mothers and fathers, who would otherwise be forced to involuntarily help procreate the species

Kinda like how the Germans would be forced to feed all those Jews if they had survived the camps.

No one is forced to feed a child. A mother can simply give it up at the hospital. Nice strawman but it doesn't fly.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>How many abortions have you had/sponsored, anyway?<<<


None. And meanwhile, your SUPPOSED contributions to help those in need are nothing in comparison to the need that would likely result from implementing your short-sighted policies (which most if not all other industrialized nations have rejected too).

As for my leaching, it's YOUR policies that are in need of taxpayers' financial $upport. I earn a non-leeching living and I would like to see those who currently fundraise by hurling condescending "holier than thou" insults to potential Republicans have to earn a real living too. Got the hint?

As for the significance of one's own perhaps less-than-ideal childhood which you've mentioned, those with bad childhoods can actually EMPATHIZE with the misery that results from your selfish fundraising activities. Why not volunteer at an orphanage for a while and then return and pretend to be omniscient? And be prepared to give us specific details so we'll know you're not (predictably) lying.

As for growing up, that retort pertained to your currently narrow mind (which I see that at least one supposed adult in this forum has). Meanwhile, let us know which houses you supposedly fund so we won't think you're another stuffed shirt, who selfishly helps give the Republican Party a bad name among mainstream voters. And you wonder why even President Bush won't fight for your selfish agenda... Due to campaign finance reform, things will only get politically worse for narrow-minded, insulting egoists like you who insist that others live as YOU think they should live. Keep on trying to fill (and predictably ignore) orphanages. It's too bad that the few churches that stand against abortion rights can't make as much money helping orphanages as they can with filling them for others to spend money subsidizing, or else orphans wouldn't be as bad off. Nice going.

[AppyPappy]

How about the group that would rather preach and require that people fill orphanages, instead of volunteering to help those already shackled to them?

There are no orphanages. You may as well argue that Auschwitz performed the service of reducing hunger by reducing the number of mouths to feed.

[AppyPappy]

You are the king of strawmen. There are no orphanages. They were eliminated when abortion killed children deemed "unwanted" by a single person.

The closest thing we have to orphanages are children's home which are generally filled by troubled children(bad childhoods) whom YOU prefer to be killed rather them letting them "suffer".

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>No one is forced to feed a child. A mother can simply give it up at the hospital. Nice strawman but it doesn't fly.<<<

Like that wouldn't really traumatize and stigmatize an unwilling biological mother who would have had it bad enough with the abortion decision, instead of the adoption one? All because her birth control didn't work, or she wasn't prepared for some overly aggressive date's sexual advances. President Bush has backed away from this increasingly unpopular cause (at Laura's request). When campaign finance reform kicks in on Wednesday, it will become increasingly clear how quickly the rest of the Republican Party will too. Abortion should be a STATE issue, NOT a federal one. Wouldn't your time & energy would be better spent volunteering at an orphanage? Curiously enough, they're often all-too-ignored by the supposed right-to-lifers. How hypocritical. (I don't mean to seem offensive to you personally, AppyPappy, as you and I have had a rational debate...but if you saw the stuff that ApesForEvolution has been writing, you'd understand why I'm starting to lose patience just like most Republicans have already done...which is why they've not proposed an anti-abortion amendment or anything even remotely as ambitious).

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>The closest thing we have to orphanages are children's home<<<


Ah, is THAT the euphemism that purported right-to-lifers use when trying to abort the nagging hypocrisy that plagues them and their fundraising-driven policies?

[Trailerpark Badass]

There are supposedly far more pro-life volunteers protesting (and fundraising) in front of Planned Parenthood facilities than there are volunteering at adoption agencies.

Was this baseless assertion offered as a quasi-fact, or was it just supposed to "make us think?"

[AppyPappy]

Like that wouldn't really traumatize and stigmatize an unwilling biological mother

Geez, it beats KILLING the child. Hello??? She would rather KILL her child than be "traumatized" by letting it live?? Rape victims are given drugs at the hospital to stop pregnancy so you as well drop that one.

Wouldn't your time & energy would be better spent volunteering at an orphanage?

Wouldn't your time be better spent riding a flying saucer to Mars because there are as many flying saucers as there are orphanages. There are NO orphanages. All babies are adopted at birth.

[End The Hypocrisy]

YOU: "there's no group more depraved than the abortion rights folks"

ME: How about the group that would rather preach and require that people fill orphanages, instead of volunteering to help those already shackled to them?<<<

YOU: I don't know what group you're referring to

ME: and yet you're supposedly clever enough to be able to comprehend and dictate how others should manage the size of their families, or handle their reproduction practices. Perhaps you would be happier in Cuba, where central-planning dictators needn't bother themselves with petty things like real elections?

[AppyPappy]

Name an orphanage. I'll wait patiently. Then call that orphanage and tell them that you will take any unwanted babies on the rolls. Let me know what they say.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>All babies are adopted at birth.<<<


According to HHS, at least 10% aren't. Have you not read this entire thread?

Meanwhile, why don't you assert that women who ovulate without getting pregnant are killing innocent lives? Ah, but you wouldn't want your policy to inconvenience YOU, only other people (who might OTHERWISE vote Republican). Good luck after this Wednesday (when campaign finance reform bans soft money from fringe elements that previously could exercise a disproportionate influence on national party politics).