"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Obama was never IN Illinois!

Deal,

Thanks for your decision to state this plainly as a separate thread.

The consequences of Obama's support for abortion are infanticides. That his support is unusually extreme means only that his particular policies, if enacted, would result in rather more infanticide than those of more moderate Democrats than he (which is to say, nearly all other Democrats).

It might be worthwhile, to avoid misunderstandings by clarifying that, to whatever extent Obama's ignorance of the infanticidal nature of abortion is not willful ignorance, then to that same extent he is innocent of knowingly supporting infanticide.

But I think his ignorance, given his circumstances and intellect, cannot possibly be totally innocent and "invincible." So he is at least partly morally culpable.

And whether or not Obama himself is morally culpable for supporting infanticide, the Catholic voter who supports him is morally culpable for supporting Obama.

After all, the Church teaching about abortion is loud and clear. A Protestant might need to live in a cave to avoid hearing the Church's declaration that abortion is gravely evil; but a Catholic could not avoid hearing it, even in said cave.

So, Catholic voters cannot possibly claim ignorance of what Obama perhaps can: The knowledge that abortion is infanticide.

Catholic voters cannot, therefore, support Obama without, themselves, knowingly supporting infanticide.

There is but one way to escape this conclusion: It can be argued that a Catholic voter who...

(a.) concludes that Obama's policies and attitudes on all other topics are vastly better than McCain's; and,

(b.) concludes that these other policies and attitudes are so beneficial and important that, taken together, they constitute a benefit sufficient to outweigh the evil of even the extreme support Obama gives for abortion,

...can justify a vote for Obama, and still claim to be an obedient Catholic.

Since the Church has gone far, far out of its way to trumpet the trump-card degree of importance of the abortion issue over all others, item (b.) looks pretty iffy to me. But I include it for completeness' sake.

Apart from that one escape-hatch (which I predict will be popular to a degree vastly out of proportion to its plausibility), the Senator from Illinois is outside Catholic consideration.

I'm glad Bennett asked the question on CNN, in front of a national audience, because surely it is the question on the minds of millions of Christian Americans who might otherwise vote for Obama.

The response of Brazile shows how out of touch she really is not only with what the American voter thinks about, but from any sense of humanity.

If the Democrats keep treating baby killing as a "wedge issue", as the sort of issue only uneducated rubes who don't care about their own economic well-being care about, I'm going to vote for McCain out of spite.

If this represents the pulse of the party, all of the talk about socio-economic problems, capital punishment, etc. is hollow, meaningless, and insulting.

For anyone who can stomach this, here's the testimony of Jill Stanek, from Christ Hospital in Chicago. I wish I had enough money to post it in a full page NYT ad.


I know I repeat myself over and over on this issue, but how could anyone think that a man who would let newborn babies die in a soiled laundry room (see testimony) possibly care about the people of the United States. What greater injustice has America (and one particular IL senator) ever been guilty of? Wake up American, the guy is a FRAUD! His wife Michelle has also supported infanticide.

Google "testimony of Jill Stanek"


Obama needs prayers, not votes! His voting record is a "google" away; no reason to doubt the facts!

Only Ron Paul here has a firm stand against abortion that is consistent with real Catholicism. Abortion is abortion, so having exceptions in the case of rape, incest and threat to life of the mother are simply unacceptable. That is why the Catholic church has canonized people like St. Gianna Beretta Molla as an example for where we stand. To read more about her, check this site (catholic insight.com) then choose saints:



For the candidates' stand on abortion check below (obtained from catholic.org), check in politics then issues then abortion:

John McCain
McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade and banning abortion except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother. He has an anti-abortion voting record, and has promised, if elected, to appoint justices who "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench."

Barack Obama
Obama supports abortion rights. In the Illinois State Senate, he voted against a bill to ban late-term abortions. Obama said that he did not support the ban because it did not contain a clause to protect the life of the mother. During the April 2007 Democratic debate, Obama said that he trusts women to make their own decisions about whether or not to have an abortion "in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy."

Hillary Clinton
Clinton says abortion rights are protected by the Constitution but that there is "an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate." She says the government should actively try to minimize the number of abortions through better sex education and improved access to birth control. Clinton has praised religious groups for promoting abstinence. She opposedthe Supreme Court's March 2007 decision to uphold a ban on late-term abortions, calling the decision an "erosion of our constitutional rights."

W. Mitt Romney
Romney describes himself as "firmly pro-life." He says he believes that abortion should be banned except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Romney acknowledges that earlier in his career, he was "effectively pro-choice," and as governor of Massachusetts, he kept a campaign pledge to protect "a woman's right to choose" despite his personal opposition to abortion.

Ron Paul
Paul said he views the fetus as a "human being [with] legal rights … from the day of conception." He reconciles his anti-abortion outlook with his libertarian views, saying, "I do not say that because our homes are our castles that we have the right to murder our children." He also believes that "the states have the right and the authority" to make laws regarding abortion. In 2003, Paul said that the "solution" to the "ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling" is for the Supreme Court to "recognize that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction." A former practicing obstetrician/gynecologist, Paul states that he never found abortion "necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman."

Klaire,
You make an excellent point. How can one trust a fellow with the role of the presidency if he is willing to allow for the destruction of innocent human life.

Deal, great post. This information must echo throughour the nation. Everyone must know that the fellow calling himself Barack Obama is a cold calculating politician who will do whatever it takes to win - including a bold face lie to the Amercian people. This is a guy who has NO concern for the unborn. And he is getitng some people to miuslead Catholics on the most important issue of our time.

David,

Conspicuously missing from your list is the even stronger and more consistent pro-life position of Mike Huckabee.

After all, if left up to the states as Ron Paul wants, what's to stop some states from legalizing abortion while others don't?

We don't leave the right to make laws against the murder of born human beings up to the states. By saying that this is a state issue, it implies that unborn life isn't as worthy of universal protections of human rights.

Ron Paul has "issues" with the civil war, as a lot of right-leaning libertarians do, for the same reasons - slavery was a "states rights" issue and the federal government didn't need to get involved. Meanwhile Huckabee, on national television, rejected the "states rights" argument by citing Abraham Lincoln's rationale against the slave-owners.

And unlike Ron Paul, Huckabee does not propose to completely tear up the government in the name of liberty. I am not for more or bigger government, but I am against pulling the plug on so many dependent people until we have better solutions in place at the community level.

It would be an act of cruelty on par with the enclosure movement and the confiscation of Church property, upon which so many poor and dispossessed peasants were dependent, during the English reformation (the same acts condemned as pure evil by Saint Thomas More in his "Utopia").

Huckabee recognizes that life is just as important as liberty, and in his public statements on his pro-life position acknowledged - just as the left wants pro-lifers to do - that life does not end at birth and that society does have a responsibiliy to ensure a certainly quality of life for the born, and their mothers. That end would not be served by dismantling government programs overnight.

In short, Huckabee's pro-life position was based on a deeply held convicition in the sacredness of every life. I think Ron Paul is more concerned with the ideal of states rights vs. federal intrusion. Without a doubt Huckabee would have been the most suitable candidate for the Catholic vote.

Jill Stanek just emailed me to add one more fact to the Obama Infanticide story. In 2003, Obama refused to allowed the federal wording to be added to the Illinois bill. This is the wording that had been passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate in 2002. This is also the wording that Obama told Stanek that would have allowed him to support the bill when he was a state senator. For whatever reason, as Stanek points out, Obama doesn't recall his successful effort at keeping the federal language out of the bill. If Obama responds to questions in the presidential campaign about his opposition to the BAIP Act by saying he would have signed it if it had the federal language, he will run into a buzz-saw of self-contradiction.

Ooops, miss Huck's stand. Here it is, from catholic.org also. Hope you can elucidate further on what he means by undue focus on gestation.



Mike Huckabee
Huckabee is anti-abortion but says that some in the "pro-life community" put "undue focus on the gestation period" instead of caring for children throughout their lives. Huckabee has said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned but that its reversal would not eliminate abortion laws. "Some states would have very liberal abortion laws, other states would have very strict abortion laws," he said.

Well, I think it is pretty clear that Huckabee means what I pointed out in my last post - that our respect for life doesn't end with birth (the end of the gestation period). It means that society has more than an obligation to prevent the unborn from violent death; it has an obligation to provide aid and assistance to poor mothers who choose life over death in spite of the hardships they may face. It has an obligation to work towards creating social conditions that are condusive to life - a dignified standard of living.

This is what the social teaching of the Catholic Church teaches as well. The problem is when people can only associate the phrase "big government" with these tasks. I think, and I think the Church and probably Mike Huckabee thinks, that the local community should be empowered to make a difference in people's lives.

But it does NOT, as Ron Paul and his supporters propose, simply trust in the magical powers of the free market to solve everything. This view is completely incompatible with everything the Church teaches, and if you read the documents, you will see that it specifically rejects the elevation of individualism and markets to the highest priority.

It doesn't totally reject them either, but unfortunately some people must have "all or nothing"; such people will never be comfortable with a Church that teaches us that both market and state ideologies are to be subordinated to the common good.

OBAMA IS FOR INFANTICIDE. YOUR DENIAL DOESN'T CHANGE A THING! AND THIS "IS" A FACT!

John (#7):

All of the credit for my "excellent point" belongs to Mother Teresa. I learned it from her. She said it often, along with this "stop us in our tracks line."

"The fruit of abortion will be nuclear war"

It actually backs up her teaching that if we don't respect life in the womb, we couldn't POSSIBLY respect it outside of the womb. In InfanticideObama's case, he alreay has proven to us he doesn't respect it outside or inside, so God help us all if he is behind the "button" of nuclear decision.

Bobby Jindal; we need you NOW!

What?



What specifically are your disputing in this article?

Mr. Deal,
I am so grateful for the facts you provide and the light you bring to the dark corners of our society. Your articles have been source material for the "So What" section of my Sunday Homilies and the reason for the gratitude expressed by many parishioners who have been waiting for the pulpit to help them in their pro life fight.

Father Joseph: Did you mean to have a question mark after your comment rather than an exclamation point?

This is not the only thread in which Fr. Joseph has appeared, made a cryptic remark which is apparently related to the topic under discussion but impossible to parse into an obvious meaning, and then vanished in a cloud of double-takes and bewilderment.

I like it. I have no idea what it means, but I like it.

The worst part about all this is Obama's silence on this subject. Donna Bazile (who, believe it or not, says she is a Roman Catholic) must be financially connected to the Obama campaign, since she is following his instructions: "When abortion comes up, change the subject."

How offensive. I made the mistake (as many voters probably still do) of thinking that, with his evangelical background, that Obama would at least have some sympathies with pro-lifers. Maybe, if not against abortion rights, at least squeamish about elective abortion. But no, he seems perfectly clear on the subject. As many as possible, with as few restrictions as possible.

At least one would hope that, if he believes his position to be right, he would be unafraid to say so in public. It is a test of one's confidence in being right that one is willing to state one's position in the light of day.

Obama claims to be Christian. Yet every Christian knows the earliest believers went to their deaths by the thousands rather than deny their beliefs. It is an insult to the faith that a politician who claims to be a believer lacks even the courage of honesty to admit what is evidently his personal view.

Christianity doesn't mean free electoral votes. You have to earn that name, and it takes more than beating your chest and crying out for change.

Forgive my ignorance for posing this question, but I'm just a redneck from Virginia, and not too familiar with Illinois customs. Perhaps different logic is used up there. Why is a hospital with the name Christ Hospital performing abortions in the first place (late-term or otherwise)?

Obama's run for the Presidency means running from the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness issues. How in his mind and the minds of those who support him can these human rights be construed as "narrow" when they are so fundamental to our nation's founding?

To Obama the run for the Presidency means racing to personal power and greed. Now that's narrow!

He knows no shame. I don't trust him or his judgement.

Great article, Deal!

One of the sad consequences of the disunity of Christianity is that many call themselves Christians - and "are" Christians - only becuase they want to be called such.

There are lots of easy targets for a laugh and a tear: Episcopalians, United Methodists, etc. But the Church Obama belongs to seems to be a sort of hybrid of Christianity, Self-Help-ism, Racial Identity Politics, and Social Activism.

The idea of Obama as a "devout Christian" is... not the first conclusion I'd draw about him from his positions, friends, and most of all: his words.

The conundrum that boggles my mind is why he is so pro-abort when the PPF is building a mill on every MLK Jr Drive in this country. The elimination of his race is top priority to this organization. Martin must be rolling in his grave.

In defense of Fr. Joseph, his posts on other threads indicates his strong preference against Obama. I read his comment as mockery of Change's essentially impervious argument of "Nuh-uh!"

Obama refuses to protect the most innocent and defenseless among us. He refuses to protect fetuses. He also refuses to protect infants born alive as the result of botched abortions.

Who else will Obama refuse to protect?

The United States.

Father Joseph:

Now that comment, though just as brief as all the others, was perfectly clear.

MK:



I quite agree with you, with one caveat: As someone who served in a United Methodist Church as a worship leader and music director, let me point out that in that denomination, as among those American Anglicans who sought bishops in Africa, there are still congregations and pastors who still try to attend to the teachings of Christ and his apostles in an honest and rigorous way.

I had the privilege of serving under pastors who guided their flock well instead of leaving them to wander or leading them over precipices with mealy-mouthed modernism. Amusingly, the pastors in question specifically asked the creator of their church's website not to put links on it to the United Methodists' main site.

And we all know the difficulties conservative Episcopalians have with their hierarchy's heresies.

All that is to say: It might be more fair, rather than saying "Episcopalians, United Methodists, etc.," to say something like "the increasingly heretical hierarchies of the Episcopalians, United Methodists, and others." The particular Methodists I knew didn't deserve to be tarred with the same Modernist brush as Rowan Williams or Katherine Whats-Her-Name with the clown-suit vestments.

I find the information regarding the voting records of the candidates useful as can be.

Now, my question is:

If McCain's stance on abortion and voting history on the subject is at all accurately represented by the information presented in post 6... why is there even a debate among Catholics over which to support? I have been led to believe that McCain was far more... ambiguous on the subject.

Also, regarding the idea that devolution of abortion to the states... I think at that point we could at least have more input into the process. It has been my experience that local politicians are far more amenable to constituent suasion than national politicians.

I really only included the U.M. because where I live, one UM church runs a radio ad all time advertising their "services" as a place to be "casual, fun, and convenient" - and they mention about five times that they'd like you to come to the service - and say their mission is to "reach" people, and never mention God, Jesus, or anything remotely christian.

But you're right - people bang on me for silly things some Catholics do (the habit-less nuns in our chancery office mostly) and I should be more specific in my complaints.

In a fun, casual, and convenient way... of course.

I was just suggesting to "CHANGE" a line of defense for Obama. Or, you're right--perhaps I was asking if this WAS "CHANGE"'s line of defense.

Have I overlooked it--or has CHANGE decided not to attempt any further defense for Obama's support for killing BORN babies?

The reversal of Roe v. Wade would return the situation to the status quo ante--January 21, 1973--in which some states had legalized abortion, and others had not. This remains true today--although I believe some states have revised their abortion laws to "bring them into line" with Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade was REALLY decided when California and New York legalized abortion. Under the 14th Amendment, Presidents Johnson and/or Nixon SHOULD have sent federal marshals and federal troops to California and New York, to shut down any hospital performing elective abortions, and any abortion clinics. This SHOULD have happened under the same principle by which federal marshals and troops were sent to Little Rock, Ark., to Alabama, and Mississippi, etc., to stop a DIFFERENT form of discrimination--racial segregation.

Of course, it is inconceivable that it ever occurred to either Johnson or Nixon to do anything based on mere principle.

No one, to my knowledge, ever proposed such an action. No one, to my knowledge, ever suggested that California and New York should be expelled from the Union for flouting the U.S. Constitution, by denying a specific category of persons the protection of those states' homicide laws.

All the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade was ratify what the Executives of the federal and state governments had already demonstrated they would tolerate.

And of course, all Catholics who suggested that the pro-abortion legislators in California and New York should be excommunicated, or at least be denied Communion, were dismissed as kooks.

So now we have an Archbishop in Washington who implicitly dismisses Archbishop Burke--formerly Archbishop of Saint Louis, now the head of the ROMAN ROTA--as a kook and an incompetent interpreter of Canon Law. (Of course, in his truculent column written after the Nationals' Stadium scandal, which HE CAUSED by inviting a slew of pro-abortion Catholics to the Pope's Mass, Wuerl never acknowledged the existence of Archbishop Burke, or his now-famous article.)

http://tinyurl.com/ywr48p

Weurl doesn't DARE acknowledge the existence of Archbishop Burke's article, because as anyone who has read it knows, it leaves Wuerl (and other bishops who persist in manifest disobedience to Canon 915) shivering and naked in an Arctic blast.

I'll keep this short and sweet. Obama does not deserve any Catholic vote.
Vote for Obama and you frustrate the efforts of the Bishops' efforts on behalf of the unborn.
Vote for Obama and you check your faith at the door.
Personally, out of respect for Catholic teaching, I will not vote for any Pro-choice candidate be they of the Liberal Party or Conservative Party here in Canada. I simply won't vote if their is not a Pro-Life candidate on the ballot.
As Catholics we must be firm on this issue.
Tim in Toronto

Tim:
Well said. You are spot on. If a candidate is "pro-choice", they simply should not get our vote, period. I see from today's news that Obama is now distorting the facts on his vote as an Illinois state legislator on the "Born Alive" legislation, claiming that there already was a law in place stating that you would have to save the life of a child who survived an abortion. See http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080703/D91MKQ681.html. This is not the rationale he gave at the time of the vote. At that time, he said that if one had to save the life of a newborn who survived an abortion, it would effectively admit that a late-term fetus was a human being and therefore endanger the reasoning behind abortion rights. Obama is a fraud and must be defeated.

Tim:
Well said. You are spot on. If a candidate is "pro-choice", they simply should not get our vote, period. I see from today's news that Obama is now distorting the facts on his vote as an Illinois state legislator on the "Born Alive" legislation, claiming that there already was a law in place stating that you would have to save the life of a child who survived an abortion. See http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080703/D91MKQ681.html. This is not the rationale he gave at the time of the vote. At that time, he said that if one had to save the life of a newborn who survived an abortion, it would effectively admit that a late-term fetus was a human being and therefore endanger the reasoning behind abortion rights. Obama is a fraud and must be defeated.

Apples to Oranges

"I think that the hardcore, hard right conservative Catholics overreach on this one."says Illinois State Representative Rosemary Mulligan.

Comparing the federal bill passed by Congress in 2002 with the various Illinois measures proposed during Obama's tenure in the state legislature is a bogus enterprise meant to confuse people who lack the time and resources required to tease out the differences between them.

The only problem with Hudson's logic is that it requires comparing apples to oranges. The Illinois and federal bills differed not only in language, but regulatory impact.

Something else Deal Hudson fails to note in his critique of Obama is the fact that the 2005 version of the state bill, which passed, was a compromise bill free of any other measures Obama had previously opposed.

Here's you pull-quote of Obama:

>Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person
>that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause
>or the other elements in the Constitution, what
>we're really saying is, in fact, that they are
>persons that are entitled to the kinds of
>protections that would be provided to a -- a
>child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered
>to term. That determination then, essentially,
>if it was accepted by a court, would forbid
>abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would
>essentially bar abortions, because the Equal
>Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill
>a child, and if this is a child, then this would
>be an anti-abortion statute.

So what is he saying? Nothing here. He's making a larger argument but you've extracted this and recast it to smear him to say something he has not.

In fact, I've said the very same thing as part of a variety of legal explanations. It does not mean it is a position statement!

The article at http://tinyurl.com/6bvlvm thoroughly and directly debunks this article.

I wish you folks would concern yourselves with ALL human life. McCain supported a war that resulted in the loss of over 4000 US soldiers, half a milion innocent Iraqis, by some counts and an unknown number of private contractors. How about a little balance?

Is this true???


"Deal Hudson, who was compelled to resign from his role with the Republican National Committee after sordid details from his personal life were brought to light four years ago, now sits on John McCain's 80-person advisory board for Catholic issues."

You folks need to get off this website, do your own research and behave as if you are adults. Stop listening to this money grabbing moralist and do your duty as citizens. Read Sen. Obama's statements, fact check on your own, and QUOTE someone, ANYONE, other than the clown who runs this website.

Very good article by Chuck Baldwin, pastor and running under the Constituion Party...makes you think really who is the real pro-life candidate among all the 5 candidates.



http://tinyurl.com/635rv6

JOHN McCAIN PRO LIFE? WHAT A JOKE

By Chuck Baldwin
August 22, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Once again, "pro-life" Christians are doing back flips to try and justify their compromise of the life issue by trying to convince everyone (including themselves) that John McCain is truly pro-life. However, these same people know in their hearts that John McCain shares no fidelity to the life issue in any significant or meaningful way. Like many in the Republican Party, McCain's commitment to life is about as deep as a mud puddle.

Dare I remind everyone that the "pro-life" GOP controlled the entire federal government from 2000 to 2006 and nothing was done to overturn Roe v. Wade or end legal abortion-on-demand? When George W. Bush took the oath of office in January of 2001, over one million innocent unborn babies were being murdered in the wombs of their mothers every year via legal abortions in this country. And when George W. Bush leaves office in January of 2009, over one million innocent unborn babies would still be murdered in the wombs of their mothers every year via legal abortions in this country. Eight years of a "pro-life" President and six years of the "pro-life" GOP in charge of the entire federal government and not one unborn baby's life has been saved. Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, and abortion-on-demand is still legal in America.

Had John McCain and his fellow Republicans truly wanted to end legal abortion, they could have passed Congressman Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act. Year after year, Dr. Paul introduced this bill, and year after year, it sat and collected dust in the document room on Capitol Hill.

What would Congressman Paul's bill do? It would do two things: 1) It would define life as beginning at conception and, thus, declare the personhood of every pre-born child. 2) Under Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In practical terms, Dr. Paul's bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end legal abortion-on-demand. So, where was John McCain? Why did he not support Ron Paul's bill and introduce a companion bill in the U.S. Senate?

How can John McCain, and his fellow Republicans in Washington, D.C., look pro-life Christians and conservatives in the eye in 2008 and expect that we take them seriously when they say that they are "pro-life"? If the GOP had truly wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade and end legal abortion-on-demand, they could have already done it. They controlled the White House, the U.S. Senate, and the House of Representatives for six long years, for goodness sake. The reason they did not do it is because they did not want to do it. They merely want to use "pro-life" rhetoric as a campaign tool to dupe gullible Christian voters every election year. And the disgusting thing about it is--it works.


check the link for the rest of the article.....
http://tinyurl.com/635rv6

since 3,000 babies are murdered each day in this country, quoting numbers kind of makes the war in iraq look pretty tame. my husband is in the military. trust me, I understand the toll of war and yet I still find it almost comical that people such as yourself engage in this rhetoric. you want to compare war and abortion? oh, please!

EXACTLY!

So is aborting is fetus that is the result of rape or incest ok? If so, and I look at no other issues, then I guess I'll support Mr. McCain. If not, then does it really matter who we vote for based on this issue? Maybe we should also take a look at the candidates positions on caring for the unaborted. Who will better feed the hungry, cloth the naked, care for the least of amoungst them? Who will actually employ the just war theory before choosing to send our sons, fathers, brothers, sisters, daughters and mothers off to invade other countries? Which candidate is better aligned with Catholic Social Teaching? I'm not sure but these are the questions I'll seek answers to before making this important choice and I certainly won't choose based on one issue in which the President has very little sway in. After all, we have had 23 years of conservative Presidents who have not overturned Roe V Wade, why should we think that the next one will. Even if the next President is successful in apointing enough Supreme Court Justices to overturn, there is no guarantee that they will or that abortions will not still take place. There are some very intelligent people on both sides of this issue and perhaps a new solution, one that does not criminalize abortion,should be explored.

I am sick of those who exploit the term "pro-life" to define "anti-abortion" only. Pro-life means ALL lives, and if you are pro-life, you are against the death penalty, against war, against killing our planet, against euthanasia, and against killing wildlife. Pro-life refers also to the quality of life, meaning no torture, not ignoring those who are poor and starving to death, and supporting pregnant women not only through the pregnancy, but once the child is born too.

McCain voted against a bill that would have aided low-income pregnant women with food stamps and health care calling it "pork". He jokes about bombing Iran, as it killing God's children was funny, and had intentions to stay in Iraq another 100 years killing more people. He expressed that his only concern are American casualties, not any other person's life. How can anyone with that record call himself pro-life? God asks us to "love thy enemy" not "kill the enemy."

Does God not say in His Word "I knit you together in your mother's womb"? Abortion for any reason would do just that--abort God's plan. Aorting God's plan says we know best that takes Him off the throne and puts us on it. As for the war--would you prefer to speak Arabic or Farce or whatever other Muslilm languages are out there---do nothing and you will be. Their agenda isn't --live and let live, it's bow 5 times a day to Mohammad or die. They attacked our country--we responded. They ONLY got 3,000 lives in a couple of hours because people of honor on the flight that went down in a field aborted the evil plan to take out more Americans. Are you so selfish that you would have sat quietly in your seat seeking peace for yourself that you would have not interveened and that plane too would be free to take out thousands more of innocent Americans? Challenge yourself to think past your own comforts--PLEASE!!!

Obama stated at a March Town Hall meeting in Pennsylvania:
“Look, I’ve got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old, if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

He basically stated that it would be OK to have his own grandchild aborted/murdered! WOW! There are alot of very important issues on the table with the upcoming election, but THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE is L I F E. God made each of us, and it's up to HIM when He decides to call us home! The reason this world is in such shambles is because alot of people don't put GOD FIRST! What a shame!

Everyone should check out www.kofc.org (Knights of Columbus website) to view their new video being aired if they haven't seen it yet. Scroll down to:

"New Video Stresses Importance of the Catholic Vote
Catholics are an integral part of the United States of America, and the Catholic vote is more important than ever.

View the Video"


Also visit: www.CatholicVote.com

Vote for LIFE! Vote for LIFE! Vote for LIFE! for in God's eyes, we were all created equal!

I'm praying that God will change Obama's cold, stony heart!

"... whatsoever you do for the least of my people, that you do for me ..."
Matthew 25:40

'Least of my people' may also mean the smallest and unwanted of my people.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

Christ is Life, he said so himself.

At least Obama is upfront on his position. McCain tells you he is pro-life and you buy it, flock to him in support, and will see nothing in return. NOTHING. I would rather support someone who tells me that they do not completely see eye to eye with my position than someone who lies to get my support. And all of this "Obama supports infanticide" - please. Enough. I have heard Barack Obama speak on the issue of abortion, and stated basically that form a faith standpoint, he is NOT in support of abortion, but that from a constitutional standpoint the dictation of those rights should not within the executive powers of the president/government. And as much as I wholeheartedly am against abortion, I must agree with his stance on this. The United States is not a secular state, and mandating on issues which obviously have strong positions from various faiths plays into that. I don't like that Obama is pro choice, but I respect that stance from a separation of church and state standpoint much more than I do John McCain's convenient pro-life stance, which is phony to the bone. Go ahead and keep bashing Obama - I'm sure that McCain will do SO much more for the people who struggle to make ends meet for their families every day. I'm SO sure that he cares about underprivelaged schools and kids and families who don't have the coattails of privelage to ride on.

By the way, I am a lifelong Catholic, and in mass Sunday, our regular priest was absent. His stand in preached incessently on this "Catholic's moral duty to vote for John McCain" bit. If that is truly the stance of the church, I am afraid that I am leaving the church. It would be one thing if the candidate being 'guilted' upon me were an honorable man with true conviction on the right to life issue, but it definitely isn't. Sadly, John McCain is no maverick for the unborn.

Obama stated at a March Town Hall meeting in Pennsylvania:
“Look, I’ve got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old, if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

On the other hand:



.....Until one of his daughters gets pregnant. At that point, he will diverge from his "faith standpoint" to protect them from being "punished". This sounds like someone who is lying to get my support. He is not in support of abortion but he is in support of abortion. Whaaaaat? How is this any different or better than McCain?



No, that ain't truly the stance of the Church. What you had there was a "maverick" priest! In all the documents I have seen from www.catholicvote.com, the church has only given direction on how to form your conscience regarding the way to vote. They have, however, clearly put the life issue on the front burner.

If the Church were to endorse a candidate, they would lose their tax-exempt status, too. So, I'm pretty darn sure this visiting priest you had would be in some hot water (if not already) with the Bishop if he were found out by a disgruntled parishioner. (Hint, hint.)

~WELL~! I Hope Ya All Have Your Dancing Shoes Ready!!~(For The Lords Return)!!~Thats What I see Ahead For This Nation~If Obama Gets In ~Focus On The Souls Who Will Be Left Behind!~ Pray For Obama~ His family and anyone in his life he TALKS to~! Pray God Would Send Harvesters To Him!~Some one To Bring Him TRUE Godly Wisdom!!That He Would Open His Eyes ~Heart And Mind~!TO TRUTH!~
If He Gets In Without God At His Side~Its Just A Matter Of Time...... Prepare yourself and your family~!
Your Neighbors~Even Your Enimies~!That NO ONE WOULD BE LEFT BEHIND!!! John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand~* If You Are Gods You Dont Have To Worry!~ >>>ARE YOU READY!??

It has been my life experience to size people up not by what they say but by what they do.

The following facts are undeniable.

McCain has consistently voted on the side of life since he has been in congress.

Obama has consistently voted on the side of pro choice since he has been in congress.

McCain is anti abortion.

Obama is pro abortion.

Those are the facts.

You decide.

I take issue with some Catholics thinking that Protestants are blind to this issue. I was raised Protestant, I still practice my faith, and I was taught, by my parents and my church leaders, that abortion is murder. Period.
As a general rule, I don't vote a straight ticket on Election Day. I am a conservative, though, and vote as such. I identify with the Republican Party on more of the issues than I do with the Democrats. One of the primary reasons for that is the abortion issue. I can't stomach the thought of contributing to putting a pro- choice politician in office. (After all, it's always been my belief that the term "pro- choice" is misleading. How many of those babies CHOOSE to die?)
I've known many females throughout my life who got abortions. Whether you all like this or not, the majority of those were practicing Catholics. That's not to say that I think your religion is morally corrupt or lacking, it's just an observation.
This is NOT just a Catholic issue, but, rather, a Christian issue. If you follow the teachings of Christ, regardless of which sect, the answer is clear: Abortion is the murder of an innocent life.
God bless you all!

Has anyone asked WHY IN THE WORLD WERE ABORTIONS BEING PERFORMED AT "CHRIST HOSPITAL"?!!! IS THIS A CATHOLIC HOSPITAL? PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME!!
SARAH

you have your facts all wrong!!

Our ganrdson (Cash)was born 26 weeks gestation. (2.3lbs) Never needed oxygen. Breathed on his own. Was never sick or had problems while he lived in an incubator for 4 weeks before he went home with his Mother. He is now 2 and is still healthy.

"The most dangerous time in any child's life is his or her first nine months. That's because abortion takes one out of every four children conceived in America, making the route from womb to tomb very short for millions of unborn boys and girls."

"They [the women] are never allowed to look at the ultrasound because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn't want to have an abortion."

Every woman has these same two questions: First, "Is it a baby?" "No" the counselor assures her. "It is a product of conception (or a blood clot, or a piece of tissue). . .How many women would have an abortion, if they told them the truth?" -Carol Everett, former owner of two clinics and director of four, "A Walk Through an Abortion Clinic" by Carol Everett ALL About Issues magazine

"I was trained by a professional marketing director in how to sell abortions over the telephone and received extensive training period. The object was, when the girl called, to hook the sale so that she wouldn't get an abortion somewhere else, or adopt out her baby. We were doing it for the money." -Nina f secretary at a Dallas clinic under Dr. Curtis Boyd

"If a woman we were counseling expressed doubts about having an abortion, we would say whatever was necessary to persuade her to abort immediately."

"We tried to avoid the women seeing them [the fetuses] They always wanted to know the sex, but we lied and said it was too early to tell. It's better for the women to think of the fetus as an 'it.'

"Clinic workers may say they support a woman's right to choose, but they will also say that they do not want to see tiny hands and tiny feet..there is a great difference between the intellectual support of a woman's right to choose and the actual participation in the carnage of abortion. Because seeing body parts bothers the workers."

"One night a lady delivered and I was called to come and see her because she was 'uncontrollable.' I went into the room, and she was going to pieces; she was having a nervous breakdown, screaming and thrashing. The other patients were upset because this lady was screaming. I walked in, and here was this little saline abortion baby kicking. It had been born alive, and was kicking and moving for a little while before it finally died of those terrible burns, because the salt solution gets into the lungs and burns the lungs too. I'll tell you one thing about D& E . You never have to worry about a baby's being born alive. I won't describe D & E , other than to say that, as a doctor, you are sitting there tearing, and I mean tearing- you need a lot of strength to do it- arms and legs off of babies and putting them in a stack on top of the table." -Dr. David Brewer of Glen Ellyn Illinois

"I got to where I couldn't stand to look at the little bodies anymore" -Dr. Beverly McMillan, when asked why she stopped performing abortions

"We know that its killing, but the state permits killing under certain circumstances" -Dr. Neville Sender, abortionist