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."

[Kevin Curry]

LOL! Cuba? Castro?

* * *

HAVANA (CWN) - President Fidel Castro marked his re-election as president of Communist Cuba on Wednesday with a marathon, seven-hour speech that included a rebuff of Pope John Paul's urging to outlaw abortion.

During his January visit to the country, the Holy Father called on Cubans to outlaw abortion and put restrictions on divorce to aid the family. Castro said in his speech that while abortion is wrong, he doesn't want to "return to the Middle Ages and invent anew the chastity belt." He said Cubans should limit abortion through their own responsible practices, and the government will not outlaw it.

* * *

Judging from your posts, you could be Castro's speechwriter.

[Trailerpark Badass]

I repeat: according to RYM.org (and numerous other groups) 65% of Republicans are pro-choice. Something's wrong with this picture...

Knowing some of that 65% like I do, that support for abortion is a mile wide and an inch deep. Most "Conservatives" who support abortion are merely afraid of being labeled as "intolerant" or "fundamentalist" by their urbane fellows. If you really think a significant number of Republicans would go to the mat to save abortion rights, you're deluded.

[AppyPappy]

Meanwhile, why don't you assert that women who ovulate without getting pregnant are killing innocent lives?

Why don't you assert that pedophilia should be legal?

[Trailerpark Badass]

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.

At least his idea of "family planning" doesn't result in a "victim."

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>LOL! Cuba? Castro? <<<

With all sincerity, I thank you for educating me about Cuba. I was not aware of that. I guess they're already well aware down there of how hard it is to feed people that they are paid to take responsibility for. Most right-to-lifers I know couldn't give a rip about folks in the orphanages (to which they refer with more euphemistic names). They just want to keep raising funds by pretending to care so much about human life. Some have even convinced themselves that they DO care. Well believe it or not, I care a great deal about human life too. I think abortion's sick. But I've spent time in a country where it's illegal (although commonplace). We don't want that up here, and regardless, even most Republicans aren't about to let that happen. I wish we could channel right-to-lifers' impressive energies into more productive endeavors, such as making life better for those who have already been born. After that has happened, then come talk to us about those who haven't been born yet.

Respectfully submitted.

[AppyPappy]

(who might OTHERWISE vote Republican).

If the Republicans did support genocide against the unborn, I would say "forget them". But their national platform is PRO-LIFE. Read that again. The Republican platform is PRO-LIFE. YOU are the one who is out of step with the Republican agenda.

"Abortion on demand now takes the lives of up to one and a half million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will someday pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does." Ronald Reagan, Source: Speech in Orlando Florida Mar 8, 1983

[End The Hypocrisy]

In a pre-campaign-finance-reform world, it paid for politicians to talk out of both sides of their mouths like that. They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. That speech was made nearly 20 years ago. Laura Bush doesn't agree with it, based on what we've seen.

[End The Hypocrisy]

ME: Meanwhile, why don't you assert that women who ovulate without getting pregnant are killing innocent lives?


YOU: Why don't you assert that pedophilia should be legal?


ME: Once you've lost, you change the subject I guess?

[MHGinTN]

Actually, I've seen that America is roughly 50-50, and that the 2000 Presidential Election boiled down to one issue: To murder babies or not. #69 posted by ApesForEvolution Actually, if you're referring to the vote totals, only 20% of Americans voted for pro-choice with the goreghoul mantra of 'a woman's right to choose a serial killer' since less than 50% of Americans voted.

I'm convinced that the vast majority of Americans are moderates (I know Limbaugh claims there's no such, but he's always trying to create controversy for his own empowerment in Radio). The democrat position of abortion on demand is so very outrageous when one stops to consider the extremes they champion in order to --as they claim-- keep the right to have a medically necessary abortion available. How is it possibly we the people swallowed the heinous notion that in order to have an option (that has ALWAYS been available to a physician treating a woman to save her life) in medicine, partial birth infanticide must be legal? It's nuts, but sadly, too many Americans don't stop to reject such evil in search of moderation in support of life.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>> If you really think a significant number of Republicans would go to the mat to save abortion rights, you're deluded.<<<


Yeah, that's why abortion's illegal in the USA. (NOT)

[Kevin Curry]

I wish we could channel right-to-lifers' impressive energies into more productive endeavors, such as making life better for those who have already been born.

We do. Person by person, family by family. And we will never submit to winking at the outrageous evil of abortion and deluding ourselves into believing we "respect" life when we passively allow the irresponsible slaughter of millions of the most innocent and helpless among us.

It's a total effort, a moral battle fought on all fronts. Anything less would be hypocritical.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>We do. Person by person, family by family. <<<


Deeds speak much more loudly than words, of which I've seen a plenty.

[Palladin]

Pope Palladin says:

It's a mortal sin to vote for a Democrat!

[Trailerpark Badass]

Yeah, that's why abortion's illegal in the USA. (NOT)

Abortion is legal because SCOTUS ruled that it should be. It would rather pointless, don't you think, for anyone to attempt a legislative restriction on abortion, given the court's historical stance?

[Siobhan]

Your Holiness has struck upon the heart of the matter in my book.

;^)

[End The Hypocrisy]

I remember when Webster came out in 1989, curtailing abortion rights. But I can see why you would say that the SCOTUS made the decision to keep abortion legal.

I think abortion's an abhorrent "solution" to an abhorrent problem. Unfortunately, I haven't seen that there's a more suitable alternative. It's not about Hedonism; I've never caused an abortion to become necessary. It's about caring for those who have been born before extending charity to the unborn. But I think we have a lot of common ground. Abortion shouldn't be merely a means of birth control; there are alternative methods that are far less traumatic for the mother (and father, and surgeon). But the Pope doesn't even support birth control, even though people are NOT going to stop having sex, period.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>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.<<<


If such babies were wanted by me, they'd no longer be "unwanted". I don't want them because in all honesty I think I can do more good for millions than I can for just a couple. But I don't doubt that you're making an intelligent point here. Is it perhaps that the orphanages' bureaucracy is so extensive (and job-perpetuating for selfish social workers) that civil service reform's long overdue? No argument from me there.

[Palladin]

Bless you, my child!

[Trailerpark Badass]

Abortion shouldn't be merely a means of birth control;

What, pray tell, should abortion be?

BTW, I'm Catholic, so consider me tarred by your brush.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Is it perhaps that the orphanages' bureaucracy is so extensive (and job-perpetuating for selfish social workers) that civil service reform's long overdue? No argument from me there.

Perhaps you were in a coma when Newt Gingrich uttered the word "orphanage" in 1994?