Skip to comments.
Archbishop Says It's Immoral to Vote for Pro-Choice Candidates
EWTN News ^
| October 29, 2002
| EWTN
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."
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; catholiclist; chaput
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 281-282 next last
To: garv
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20021104-4406725.htm
"Slightly fewer people registered Republican this year than in 1998: 22.7 percent, down from 23.2 percent. Mr. Gans said Republicans are gaining members in the South but losing elsewhere in the country, "because they are moving to the right and the country is not." "
To: G Larry
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20021104-4406725.htm
"Slightly fewer people registered Republican this year than in 1998: 22.7 percent, down from 23.2 percent. Mr. Gans said Republicans are gaining members in the South but losing elsewhere in the country, "because they are moving to the right and the country is not." "
To: Campion
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20021104-4406725.htm
"Slightly fewer people registered Republican this year than in 1998: 22.7 percent, down from 23.2 percent. Mr. Gans said Republicans are gaining members in the South but losing elsewhere in the country, "because they are moving to the right and the country is not." "
To: AppyPappy
>>>An egg is not a human being. A fetus is.<<<
Says who? And on what grounds do you draw that distinction? It's possible to fertilize an egg cell withOUT a sperm, and it has been for decades. I believe only a woman can result from such a "trick insemination" but unlike some people I consider women to be equals.
Meanwhile, are you saying parentless children's centers don't exist in this country? The euphemistic nomenclature may evolve from decade to decade, but the concept hasn't, and won't as long as some people's policies aren't given a rest now that it's clear that the law won't sanction them.
To: fatguy; patent
To: End The Hypocrisy
An egg, if left unmolested, will not become a human. You can watch an unfertilized chicken egg all your life and it will never hatch a chicken. Once a human egg is fertilized, there is a good chance it will become a human being, especially if you don't dismember it at 9 weeks.
Still waiting on those orphanages full of babies. I have several friends waiting to adopt. Don't disappoint them.
To: victim soul
Mornin' VS. Appreciate the info posting, unlike the repeated nonsense of the disruptor (uh, is that XBob come back in anoher inane signature?). Isn't it amazing how the champions of serial killing try to marginalize those who believe life is an endowed right from the Creator? Sort of proves for whom they work, whom they serve, who is their father.
227
posted on
11/04/2002 7:34:29 AM PST
by
MHGinTN
To: End The Hypocrisy
Yes.
To: End The Hypocrisy
End,
Are you freakin dense? Yes, if you vote for ANYONE who advocates and celebrates the killing of the unborn, you are, by definition, immoral and evil.
The Brain
To: End The Hypocrisy
Is that supposed to mean something? If it is I guess this preceding paragraph would mean something as well.
Mr. Gans said Democrats are losing some of their conservative supporters in the South to the Republican Party. He also said fewer were registering with the party, because Democrats "are defining themselves by polls and therefore don't have a durable message" and because "they're defining themselves to the middle class," which means they're losing support with two other important Democratic constituencies: the poor and the young.
However, neither statement is worth a damn. Just as your nonsensical, unsubstantiated poll numbers and amatuerish organizations like RYM don't mean a damn either. The day the Republican party abandons the unborn is the day it ceases to be viable. The party is stupid, but commiting self-abortion crosses the line.
230
posted on
11/04/2002 7:45:06 AM PST
by
garv
To: garv
>>>Mr. Gans said Democrats are losing some of their conservative supporters in the South to the Republican Party. <<<
The South does not a nation make. We lost the popular vote in 2000 and the economy's much worse now.
To: victim soul
To: AppyPappy
>>>Still waiting on those orphanages full of babies. I have several friends waiting to adopt. Don't disappoint them.<<<
The Dept. of Health & Human Services can lead them to one in their area, then, wherever that is. It's the HHS, after all, that publishes how at least 10% of parentless kids NEVER even get placed with (tax-subsidized) foster parents.
To: matthew_the_brain
>>>Are you freakin dense? Yes, if you vote for ANYONE who advocates and celebrates the killing of the unborn, you are, by definition, immoral and evil. <<<
I don't need to vote for them, the majority of Republicans do, and nearly all Democrats do as well.
To: End The Hypocrisy
"He also said fewer were registering with the party, because Democrats "are defining themselves by polls and therefore don't have a durable message"Since you seem so impressed with Mr. Gans, (for what reason I don't know) explain how the Republican party abandoning its 26 year commitment to protecting the unborn fits into creating a "durable message" and your use of, ahem, questionable poll numbers to justify that position would not lead to charges of "defining themselves by polls..."
235
posted on
11/04/2002 8:36:37 AM PST
by
garv
To: End The Hypocrisy
HHS never told me there were orphanages full of babies. YOU did.
To: AppyPappy
>>>HHS never told me there were orphanages full of babies. YOU did.<<<
I'm sorry that you've already forgotten the HHS-related official posting above in this very same thread.
To: garv
>>>Since you seem so impressed with Mr. Gans, (for what reason I don't know)<<<
Our own fiscally conservative The Washington Times printed him, did it not?
>>>explain how the Republican party abandoning its 26 year commitment to protecting the unborn<<<<
What commitment? Have they passed a bill banning abortion in the Republican-dominated House? No. Pro-life Republicans compose about 35% of the Republican base, and even the RNC has confirmed this. To appease the 35% that cares more about the unborn than the born (judging from their inactions at orphanages, where fundraising's tougher I guess) the pro-life concept has been given lip service in the party platform time and time and time again. But as they say, platforms are what parties run on prior to the nomination and run away from immediately thereafter. Has the White House proposed a ban on abortion? Of course not. They'll never forget the sting of losing the popular vote even before the economy went South.
>>> fits into creating a "durable message" and your use of, ahem, questionable poll numbers to justify that position would not lead to charges of "defining themselves by polls..."<<<
It's one thing to switch with the polls every few weeks; it's quite another to adapt to political realities over the long term. Maybe 18% of American registered voters are pro-life. Perot got 20% of the vote in 1992, and it was impressive. Why not start a "Life at any cost, and at others' expense" party and see if you can attract as many votes? There are far more fiscally conservative Democrats who would subsequently vote Republican than there are intolerant pro-life Republicans that would be lost to the new proposed political party. Now that campaign finance reform will kick in later this week, proposals like these will resurface more and more. Count on it.
To: End The Hypocrisy
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965), passed by the House on July 24, 2002, 274-151. The Weldon-Stupak-Brownback legislation to ban all human cloning, including the cloning of human embryos (H.R. 2505, S. 1899), passed by the House on July 31, 2001, 265-162.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503), a bill to recognize as a legal victim any unborn child who is injured or killed during commission of a federal crime, passed by the House on April 26, 2001, 252-172.
The Child Custody Protection Act (H.R. 476), to make it a crime to take a minor across state lines for a secret abortion, if this abridges her parents' right to be involved under their home-state law, passed by the House on April 17, 2002, 260-161.
The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 4691), to prohibit state and local governments from discriminating against hospitals and other health care providers for refusing to participate in abortions, passed by the House on September 25, 2002, 229-189.
The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 2175), which was signed into law by President Bush on August 5, 2002. This bill, backed by NRLC, establishes that any infant who is fully outside his or her mother and shows any signs of life is a legal person for all federal law purposes. Daschle allowed the bill to clear the Senate on a voice vote because pro-abortion groups decided not to actively oppose it.
It would seem the Republican controlled House has taken a strong pro-life legislative position and that these bills would have all been signed into law by the President (just as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was) if the Democrat-controlled Senate had not blocked them.
That leads to a question: If, according to you, 65% of Republicans are pro-abortion and the party would be better off jettisoning the pro-life "fringe", why are a vast majority of elected Republican representatives pro-life?
A. Because they believe in protecting the rights of the unborn
B. Because their constituents are pro-life and elect them to represent that position.
C. Because they could not be elected without the pro-life vote.
D. You and your poll numbers are a bunch of crap.
I'm taking all of the above.
239
posted on
11/04/2002 9:55:49 AM PST
by
garv
To: garv
>>>It would seem the Republican controlled House has taken a strong pro-life legislative position<<<
Oh yeah? Then why didn't they ban abortion?
>>>That leads to a question: If, according to you, 65% of Republicans are pro-abortion and the party would be better off jettisoning the pro-life "fringe", why are a vast majority of elected Republican representatives pro-life?<<<
Because campaign finance reform, making individual donations less unimportant when compared to soft money, doesn't kick in until this Wednesday. Meanwhile, family planning rights advocates don't believe that Republican politicians are sufficiently liberated from soft money, and Republican politicians know this. Thus, until they can persuade the fiscally conservative, social moderates that they're not going to sell out to the religious right after getting the family planning rights' groups' votes, they may as well continue using the religious right in exchange for token symbolic gestures (without banning abortion, mind you).
As for your comment that: >>>You and your poll numbers are a bunch of crap.<<<
Most voters consider the religious right to consist of "creatures of emotion, but not necessarily much reason." And we wonder why Jeffords got so much political cover and cheers when he switched allegiances in the Senate, despite his slimy, pork-laden (milk subsidy) motivation that he had for doing so. I'm not a bunch of krap; I speak for the majority of Republicans and you may as well get used to hearing it after campaign finance reform kicks in. Not even Laura Bush sided with you guys, and abortion was never even banned by the Republican House BEFORE Soft Money became so greatly restricted. It will become even more restricted with time, so the pro-lifers may as well dedicate their energies to finally caring for the lives of folks in orphanages who have already been born (even if such an activity isn't as good for their fundraising endeavors).
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 281-282 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson