Rudy, the proabort
By Alexham Posted in Life Issues — Comments (93) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"After months of conflicting signals on abortion, Rudolph W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights . . . ."
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable . . . . *
Two things:
(1) If you are a Catholic, you cannot, in good conscience, vote for Rudy Giuliani in the Republican presidential primary; certainly not when there are other staunch pro-life candidates like Senator Sam Brownback. Now, if you want to delude yourself into to believing that there are "proportionate reasons" for supporting Rudy notwithstanding his proabortion stance, then have at it. But please understand that you are either flirting with or committing a grave sin in doing so.
(2) For my non-Catholic prolife friends, who admire but understandably do not feel bound by the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion, I would simply ask you to consider whether you believe it is truly in the long-term interests of the Republican Party to nominate a man who is so openly hostile to the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.
Let me be blunt: If Rudy becomes the Republican Party's presidential candidate, it will destroy the party for the foreseeable future (and let's face it, we're already not doing that hot as things stand). In a closely-divided electorate, the Republican Party simply cannot afford to have a significant portion of its base stay at home or vote for a third-party candidate. It's that simple. And even if you think that I am mistaken in this regard, are you really willing to take that risk? For Rudy? He is not worth it, folks. Yes, Rudy's leadership in the wake of 9/11 was nothing short of Churchillian. He was the right man, in the right place, at the right time. But that hardly qualifies him to be president of the United States (especially when one considers that his personal history is nothing short of despicable).
And I am, quite frankly, disgusted by those who, all of the sudden, don't believe a president's personal character matters anymore. It matters greatly. After all, this is a man who has publicly stated that he would pay to have his own grandchild aborted. In what sick, twisted world could a man like that ever be nominated by the Republican Party to serve this noble country as its president? Let us pray that such a thing never happens.
*I've edited the Catechism quote above to better reflect/support the substance of the post.
« First Principles — Comments (34) | The sanctity of human life — Comments (10) »
Rudy, the proabort 93 Comments (0 topical, 93 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
More over it's a loose - loose approach. No one wants a politician who takes orders from a religious leader while in office. It's like choosing between evil and ridiculous.
We don't frankly care which you are, but when you get banned and you want to come back, you hit the "contact" button at the top. You *don't* just sign up again under a different username.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
what "loose-loose" is? I would have banned him just for that.
/pet peeve
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
Im with Darin on this one, that is a banning offense. I can deal with their/there and other common problems, but I dont understand how anyone can confuse lose and loose. They dont even sound alike.
On topic, I have voted for pro-choice candidates before, but they better be very, very strong on other issues. Rudy isnt. I wouldnt support him if he was pro-life.
it's not conducive to an environment for rational, respectful discussion.
My 0.02
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Is it wrong?
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
See what happens when you start throwing word bombs around.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
agencies, or done pro-life counseling for pregnant women, or worked for shelters for unwed mothers, etc?
Or is it just talk in the service of someone else's campaign, and whose?
My wife and I strongly considered adoption when it appeared that we could no longer have another child, but after some medical issues were resolved we were able to have additional children. We still have not ruled out adoption in the future. We have also discussed being foster parents to babies/young children while they are being placed with families or in need of temporary care.
My wife has served as pro-life counselor, and I have given a considerable amount of money to pro-life pregnancy centers and organizations over the years. My mother-in-law works full-time at one.
I have also served on the board of directors for a non-profit that provides housing and servics to women who choose life, so that they receive the support and care they need after making that decision, and I continue to provide that group with pro bono legal services.
As for campaigns, I like Brownback a great deal. He pays me nothing. Indeed, he has no idea who I am, I suspect. I don't think he can win, and I will most likely support Fred Thompson if he gets in the race, but I might be able to support McCain or Romney. In short, it's pretty much anybody but Rudy.
Does that answer your questions?
Ordinarily, I agree that it's none of my business. But when you tell people how they must vote based on your edited version of the Catechism and an interpretation that most Cardinals of the American hierarchy would not make, and say that you do so as a pro-life zealot, YOU make it everybody's business.
The peremptory tone, tenor and visceral hatred for Giuliani in your blog are utterly inappropriate for the type of community the Directors claim they want to build here.
They are appropriate for a political blog that wants to commit suicide. While I concur with the teachings of the Catechism on that subject, too, that is your right and your funeral.
BTW, FT is mildly pro-choice.
Just to be clear: I provided a link to the entire section of the Catechism. I edited my quote for one reason: I did not want to imply anything about whether Rudy, through his public actions, has already excommunicated himself. The Catechism and the links I provide make clear that my post does nothing more than state the teaching of the Catholic Church. Keep in mind too, that I qualified my post to note that Catholics who voted for Rudy in the Republican primary, with full knowledge of his abortion position, were either "flirting with" or "committing" grave sin. There are conditions that must be met in order for an action to constitute a grave sin, and I in no way meant to convey that voting for Rudy in the Republican Primary=grave sin. That having been said, it is certainly risky business in light of the Church's teaching on the matter.
One other thing, re: Thompson. Whatever statements he made in 1994, his voting record in the Senate was solidly prolife. And to me, that is what matters.
I am, in fact, a "zealot."
Oh, and I know that Rudy says that he's personally opposed to abortion, but under this theory, there's not a "proabort" person in DC, including Hillary!, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
but isn't it fun to pile on especially since you are a front page poster as well who is working for another campaign.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
you hate genocide but you still won't do anything about the people disappearing from your community? That didn't exactly prove itself to be a successful approach in the Nazi era.
And would you say the same thing were the issue slavery?
What you're really saying is that abortion isn't really that big a deal, and on that you and I fundamentally disagree.
What you're really saying is that abortion isn't really that big a deal
We have never met, nor spoken. You've no standing to speculate on what I think.
You are a front page writer for a respected conservative community weblog. IMO that carries some responsibility for setting the tone of discussion and debate.
You seem keen on picking a fight. I'm not interested. I've said my peace; let us agree to disagree.
Fair winds and following seas...
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
You called me out for the post, which is fine. You contend that my use of the term "proabort" is shocking and inappropriate; but what you have failed to do is explain why the label is in any way factually incorrect. If one supports abortion rights, then one is supporting abortion, right?
Bottom line: I am not inclined to soft-pedal the truth so as not to offend a man who was willing to pay for his own daughter's hypothetical abortion or provide public funding for abortion, or, for that matter, those who would support such a man.
You share this house with the rest of us. Yes, you are a frontpager. You have leave to post what you want. And, while I am a regular guest, I'm still a guest. But, I spend a fair amount of time and creative energy here.
I resent you borrowing the credibility that all of us in Redstate have spent years building, so that you can use it as a platform to launch rude barbs.
Adults are polite and show respect. You are being very rude here to Mayor Giuliani. In my opinion your behavior is beneath the dignity that this site has worked so hard to build.
Who told you that our credibility was yours to put at risk? If you want to write diaries like this one, why don't you create your own site and not drag us in with you?
And as for me responding to your characterization of Mayor Giuliani, when you state it in a respectful manner, I might respond. Until then, no.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Look, if you want to make this personal that's fine. But you have yet to explain why it is rude for me to call Rudy a proabort when he has consistently expressed his support for abortion (even public funding of them). You may not like the term, but Rudy is proabortion, and there's no getting around that.
Given the stakes in the upcomming presidential election, I have no intention of refraining from calling Rudy what he is just because it offends your precious sensibilities. The man favors a procedure that results in the wholesale slaughter of innocent unborn children. If you think for one minute that I am not going to call him on that, then you are sadly mistaken.
So, if you want to debate the merits of my post, please do so. But let's drop the "I speak for the entire RedState community" attitude, shall we?
on what I choose to comment on. Go ahead and call threadjack if you wish.
Look, if you want to make this personal that's fine.
Oh please. You know precisely what my point is here, and you're ducking it.
There is a way to criticize, even harshly, Mayor Giuliani and pro-choice advocates without resorting to ugly language. You are letting all the rest of us down, and trashing the virtual house we live in, with your conduct. You also strike me as very and deliberately rude---something that's very distressing to see in a frontpager.
But you have yet to explain why it is rude for me to call Rudy a proabort when he has consistently expressed his support for abortion (even public funding of them). You may not like the term, but Rudy is proabortion, and there's no getting around that.
Sigh. I can't believe I'm about to write these words to a Redstate frontpager---but here goes. If you refuse to treat fellow Republicans with respect, you've little ground to demand such respect for yourself. When you write for the front page of any site, people take your words and your tone to speak for that site.
We are about to enter a long, harsh Presidential campaign. Showing respect for one's ideological adversary is critical. The immature tone and gratuitous rudeness of your article doesn't conjure up images of a Lincoln/Douglas debate. It conjures images of plug-uglies throwing bricks through a window. It makes me doubt that you are ready to participate in the kind of ideological give-and-take---respectful but firm, biting but dignified---that good democracy calls for.
Tell me, Alexham. Once the election is over, why would you expect any "proabort" to ever be willing to work with you again, on anything? Do you want to work with your fellow "proabort" citizens in the future?
If you want to behave as a child, then please go somewhere else and do so. Build your own site. Call it "Plug Ugly" if you wish. But, if you insist on doing it from the front porch that I share, I'll continue to point out that your conduct threatens to make us all---and this site---look bad.
All emotion, I see
Odd choice of words from someone who chose to title a Redstate front page article as "Rudy the Proabort."
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
The problem here is that you and I see the world through an entirely different lens. I believe that abortion is the civil rights issue of our time, and that the practice is so evil that it cries up to heaven for justice. You obviously don't. You may strongly disapprove of abortion, but you obviously don't see the issue the same way that I do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so offended at my use of the term proabort.
And to prove my point, let me ask you this? Would you still be offended if the issue were slavery, and I refered to Rudy as proslavery? I suspect not.
All issues are not equal. Abortion is a grave evil, and those who support the practice should be taken the task for doing so. To do anything less is to treat the issue as something other than what it is: the taking of innocent human life.
One other thing, at no point in my post do I remotely suggest that my views are those of the entire RedState community, and only an imbecile would interpret them as such. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly purported to speak for the entire RedState community. So, in case you were unaware, let me clue you in: You don't. There are, no doubt, people who share your opinion of this post, and that's fine. I am a big boy, and am willing to take the shots. But if you think that I am going to bow down to your personal code of blogging, then you are kidding yourself. The only one here behaving like a child is you, so make your point and move on. Your silly banter has become tiresome.
I am certainly not going to suggest that you walk away from your keyboard, after all you are a front page guy, but this particular comment does strike me exactly the kind of thing that led me to Redstate in the first place...
It had no place here.
The last few weeks have certainly brought us to a new level of nasty that previously, it seemed, had been carefully kept in check through banning and warnings. Lately though the tone has changed and maybe it's just me that's not getting with the program.
I miss the days when this type of nasty earned a prompt response from the moderators.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
So as someone who can post directly to the front page here, do you or do you not think that you should be held to a higher standard here than the rest of us?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I am perfectly fine with that. My only point was that the criticism being leveled was a tad one-sided.
If there was only some way for its victims to have a say. They are the ultimate minority and victims. They can't speak for themselves and are completely dependent on the kindness of strangers.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You, on the other hand, have repeatedly purported to speak for the entire RedState community.
No, Sylvester, I never claimed to speak for the entire Redstate community. I spoke as a member of that community---a community which, based on the other posts I'm seeing, is not all that impressed with you.
But if you think that I am going to bow down to your personal code of blogging, then you are kidding yourself.
Well, you do have the martyr thing down to a T
The only one here behaving like a child is you
Gee...DBrooks and strange guy and bee and stebbij and streetwise and Adam C and Air Force Colonial and Demophilus don't seem to agree.
so make your point and move on. Your silly banter has become tiresome.
My, aren't we the arrogant one! You've no standing to tell me to move on. Did someone tell you that you own this place, now?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I failed to hit the reply button.
The Times of London maybe but not the rag from New York. I am not saying they are wrong, I will just wait to hear it from a more reputable source. (Like the weekly world news)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
See, e.g., this post.
I am very prolife. I just don't see McCain or Romney as significantly better. I won't elaborate as there has been far too much trashing of our own.
The one thing I am certain of though is that I will have no problem voting for the GOP nominee over The Ex or The Empty Suit.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Like Rudy may or may not be coming out this way...but if it's not too late for him to change course now, it will be very, very soon; as York said, we will know more in 24 hours.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Where is the excommunication of Catholic politicians that fight for abortion? Politicians that attend church services regularly and use their Catholicism to help get themselves elected. It seems to me the total lack of action there puts the church itself on very similar ground to those who would vote for a pro-choice candidate. If the church doesn't take it seriously, why should the voters?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I am sick and tired of so-called Catholics militantly supporting "on-demand" abortion.
The Pope needs to make a head-on, straight up, affirmative statement.
Make it clear that:
"On-demand" abortion is a sin and it trumps all other political issues (death penalty, same sex marriage, etc.). Politicians who support it are enablers. They will renounce their support of this hideous act or they will be publicly excommunicated and will not take communion in any Roman Church anywhere around the world. Furthermore; any person who willingly supports the empowerment of such enablers with their money or votes is commiting a sin and is directly defying God's will.
Either put up or shut up.
The Protestant leaders aren't afraid to call people out, and that is why their churches swell while Catholic churches die.
"Life is too short, can't we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?"
But my understanding is that the Catholic church is relatively unambiguous on this point.
And it's not exactly as though Protestant demoninations are doing a bang-up job of enforcing church discipline, either.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
You obviously know very little about this Pope or the Catholic Church's hard-line, and unchanging, stance against all abortions (no exceptions).
They maintain their "hard-line stance" at the same time they are enabling pro-abortion politicians by allowing them the use of their Catholicism to win votes.
Why hasn't Kennedy been excommunicated? Why does he still receive communion? Because the church isn't aware of his abortion advocacy? Doubtful. Because they don't want to rock the boat? Much more likely.
If the Catholic voter who overlooks a candidate being pro-choice is in grave trouble, I fail to see how the church itself is in any better position.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Excommunication is a complicated matter, and whether or not one is excommunicated, there remain spiritual consequences to supporting, directly or indirectly, the evil that is abortion
That it is too much trouble? They might have to change a law (even though that assertion would seem to be in direct conflict with the quote in your post about excommunication)? If excommunication is too much trouble, what about the lesser penalties available to the church?
I think if you are going to approach this topic from this angle, you have to deal with the church's complete lack of willingness to actually do anything about its own indirect support of abortion. It talks a good game, but where is the action? If there are "spiritual consequences to indirectly supporting abortion," where does that leave the entire church hierarchy?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The church doesn't indirectly support abortions or "enable" pro-choice Catholic politicians. The Church has been more consistent on the issue then any Protestant denomination.
The church should be reluctant to excommunicate people because it emperils their souls. I strongly disagree w/ Ted Kennedy's abortion position, but I don't necessarily wish him to go to hell for eternity. I'm not saying that anyone who is excommunicated will go to hell, but the inability to partake of the sacraments is a very serious matter that shouldn't be used as a political tool.
Maybe the church should excommunicate these politicans. But it isn't something the church should rush into. The church always works slowly and with good reason.
The church doesn't indirectly support abortions or "enable" pro-choice Catholic politicians.
It lends them credibility by allowing them to continue to claim to be a Catholic in good standing for the purposes of winning votes from other Catholics. That's every bit as enabling as the Catholic voter who decides to vote for Rudy or someone other candidate in spite of the fact that they are pro-choice. The church could do something about it, but they simply choose not to.
I strongly disagree w/ Ted Kennedy's abortion position, but I don't necessarily wish him to go to hell for eternity. I'm not saying that anyone who is excommunicated will go to hell, but the inability to partake of the sacraments is a very serious matter that shouldn't be used as a political tool.
And the killing of innocent children is just politics? That's the only way I could see this being viewed as a "political tool" and something being used lightly. I think this ranks as a little more important than that.
As far as I know, excommunication does not mean you are going to hell. Your destination in the afterlife is not for the church to decide. Of course, if we are talking about dedicating your life to ensuring millions of innocent children can continue to be slaughtered, that might not be looked at too kindly. Either way where someone ends up is not our call to make.
Maybe the church should excommunicate these politicans. But it isn't something the church should rush into.
They aren't taking their time about it, they aren't doing it at all. There's no indication it has ever been considered. If it has been considered, there's every indication it has been rejected. Lesser punishments haven't exactly been handed out, either.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"It lends them credibility by allowing them to continue to claim to be a Catholic in good standing for the purposes of winning votes from other Catholics."
A Southern Baptist wouldn't be kicked out for being pro-choice, nor Methodist or most other members of Protestant denominations. Hillary, Obama, Edwards, et all claim to be Christians and aren't being kicked out of the churches they belong to. Maybe there are Catholics who vote for a politician because he's Catholic but I don't know any.
"As far as I know, excommunication does not mean you are going to hell. Your destination in the afterlife is not for the church to decide."
As far as I know it doesn't guarantee it. But the church teaches that the sacraments confer grace and if you go without them you're separated from God. Of course pro-choice politicians are already separating themselves from God through sinning.
"There's no indication it has ever been considered. If it has been considered, there's every indication it has been rejected."
It's discussed frequently. Every election it's debated about in the press by Catholics with Bishops often weighing in. Pope Benedict just commented on it. There's no indication that that there's never been an indication that it's been considered.
I really think that by your own logic in these threads you could say that the Bible supports abortion since someone could claim that it supports it, and therefore use the Bible to garner the votes of Bible-believers.
If the Catholic church "enables" abortion then why is it that most Catholic countries (Brazil, Poland, Ireland, Italy) have much stricter abortion laws than Protestant countries like America or Canada?
I suppose we could say that Christianity as a whole promotes abortion since Christian countries have more liberal abortion laws, as a general rule, than Muslim ones.
A Southern Baptist wouldn't be kicked out for being pro-choice, nor Methodist or most other members of Protestant denominations. Hillary, Obama, Edwards, et all claim to be Christians and aren't being kicked out of the churches they belong to.
The Catholic church isn't organized like most other churches. It has a hierarchical structure so it can actually do something about these people, as opposed to a lot of other churches where there's no central governing body making the rules that everyone ultimately has to obey. It's a totally different situation and not at all comparable. With all that control comes plenty of accountability.
It's discussed frequently. Every election it's debated about in the press by Catholics with Bishops often weighing in. Pope Benedict just commented on it.
Talking isn't the same as action. There's never been any shortage of talking. I don't think Teddy or any of the hundreds of others like him are concerned anything is going to happen to them. They are free to continue crusading for the right to kill millions of children, then show up the church picnic for a photo op.
Maybe there are Catholics who vote for a politician because he's Catholic but I don't know any.
Well, they certainly exist. Not the majority, of course, but enough to make a difference. The religion of the candidates can certainly play a role in people's votes. Many people will be more inclined to vote for someone of their own religion than someone of another religion. It's natural. The politicians think it matters. Do you think all of Romney's Mormon support has nothing to do with the fact that he is Mormon? Of course it does. So does Catholic Democrats' Catholic support.
If the Catholic church "enables" abortion then why is it that most Catholic countries (Brazil, Poland, Ireland, Italy) have much stricter abortion laws than Protestant countries like America or Canada?
I'm not sure where this comes from. At no point did I accuse them or actively promoting abortion. I just pointed out they themselves are guilty of passively "enabling" through their inaction on the issue, so it seems unreasonable to hold the same kind of passive "enabling" over a Catholic voter's head without addressing the Church's role.
I really think that by your own logic in these threads you could say that the Bible supports abortion since someone could claim that it supports it, and therefore use the Bible to garner the votes of Bible-believers.
I suppose we could say that Christianity as a whole promotes abortion since Christian countries have more liberal abortion laws, as a general rule, than Muslim ones.
Then you need to put down the crack pipe and reread what I said because this doesn't make a lick of sense.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"The Catholic church isn't organized like most other churches. It has a hierarchical structure so it can actually do something about these people, as opposed to a lot of other churches where there's no central governing body making the rules that everyone ultimately has to obey. It's a totally different situation and not at all comparable. With all that control comes plenty of accountability."
Most Protestant churches are hierarchical. Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists all have Bishops. Southern Baptists and many other evangelical Protestant groups have conferences every year where church leaders get together and discuss doctrinal points, organizational issues, etc.
"Talking isn't the same as action."
Talking is a form of action. Exhorting someone to do something is very different from passively sitting by and saying nothing. You said that there's no indication that the Church has ever considered doing anything about pro-choice politicans and I'm saying that there is proof that the church has considered doing something about them and I pointed to all the talk from Catholics about doing something about it as proof that it's been considered.
"I'm not sure where this comes from. At no point did I accuse them or actively promoting abortion."
Well you've said that the entire church hierarchy has indirectly supported abortion.
Talking is a form of action. Exhorting someone to do something is very different from passively sitting by and saying nothing.
They've had decades to actually do something about it and have made the choice not to do anything. Maybe that will change. We shall see. I would say the odds are strongly against them doing anything in America on this. The motivation for that isn't necessarily insidious. It's probably just fear. There would certainly be some kind of backlash in response to any action on this issue. It's easier to just stick to the status quo and pretend you know nothing about what kind of things guys like Teddy spend the rest of their time doing.
"I'm not sure where this comes from. At no point did I accuse them or actively promoting abortion."
Well you've said that the entire church hierarchy has indirectly supported abortion.
My whole point is that their "indirect support" of abortion, due to their inaction on abortion proponents, seems every bit as bad as any "indirect support" of abortion by a Catholic voter voting for Rudy in the primary. I really don't care for this whole line of argument found in the original post, but I thought it needed to be pointed out that the church has NOT done everything it could do here. So it seems completely unreasonable to heap blame on an ordinary Catholic voter for that without taking the Church to task as well.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Within the Southern Baptist Convention (and some other protestant dominations) the primary unit of governance is the congregation. There are state and national conventions, but they are relatively weak. There is no kicking someone out of the SBC short of booting their entire congregation, which can happen (although they usually leave on their own well before that). That congregation then joins some other baptist convention that will accept them.
I know of some SBC churches that might be willing to kick out a pro-abortion politician, but I cant imagine said politician being a member of that church to begin with.
Jeffrey Turner is not only poorly informed. He is an anti-Catholic bigot. The Catholic religion says that anybody who has an abortion is commiting murder and a mortal sin. The person must seek absolution before participating in the Sacraments.
Zuiko....The Catholic tradition in the U.S. is that there is always a very strict separation of church and state and the Pope doesn't get involved in U.S. politics. A priest is not supposed to even express any political view from the pulpit.
The Pope cannot order Catholics to vote soley on the basis of the abortion issue anymore than any Protestant minister, or Jewish rabbi could. Canon law delegates the question of whether or not to refuse the Sacraments to a Catholic, to the local bishop or archbishop. Popes only ex-communicate Catholics in very extreme circumstances where somebody preaches heresy or apostosy, or poses a threat to the Church's welfare.
The last pope kept whining about preemptive war. And what do you think the Catholic Churches position is going to be on illegal immigration?
I think it's best just to remind Catholics to vote on the first Wednesday in November. :)
I have serious problems with this post on a number of levels, but not just because it displays absolutely no understanding or familiarity with the Catholic Church (while I'd love everyone to be a Catholic, I've come to accept that y'all haven't managed to jump on the ship).
My biggest problem is that you just haven't read Drudge recently. The Church has for millenia been unambiguously pro-life (abortion is a sin for which one receives automatic excommunication), and just a few days ago the Pope said any Catholic politician who supports abortion will be excommunicated (see here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070509/wl_nm/pope_abortion_dc)
P.S. I'm sorry for the tenor of this response, I know this site is usually more high-minded than this, but I get defensive when people stupidly attack my Church.
"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."
You've already condemned the man based on what he might say.
Can't you at least wait until he actually says it before breaking out the long knives?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Alexham, as you know, I very much sympathize with your point of view. As a constitutional matter, Roe v. Wade was a bogus decision, and there is nothing in the Constitution that says whether abortion must be legal or illegal. As a policy matter, it's clear to me that abortion should generally be illegal after an embryo becomes a fetus (8 weeks after conception), because it is very possible that a human being has by then emerged. States should be allowed to generally ban abortions even before that point. Abortion is just a nasty practice, even before a human being has emerged. So, you can see I am very, very, very sympathetic to your point of view.
But (you knew that a "but" was coming), I do not think it's helpful to emphasize the religious aspects of this controversy. There are plenty of reasons to be vehemently against abortion rights, beyond the fact that the doctrine of a particular church rejects abortion rights. It seems like it would be more helpful to emphasize those other reasons.
For example, do we really want to get into the business of analyzing the Mormon Church's views on abortion, and using them as a reason to support or oppose Mitt Romney's bid? How about the views of McCain's church, or the church's of the other candidates?
Instead of emphasizing what a particular church has said, how about emphasizing biological facts? The risk of miscarriage decreases sharply at the beginning of the fetal stage. At this point, all major structures, including hands, feet, head, brain, and other organs are present, but they continue to grow, develop, and become more functional. When the fetal stage commences, the heart is beating. The fetus bends the head, and also makes general movements and startles that involve the whole body. Brain stem activity has been detected as early as 54 days after conception. Some fingerprint formation can be seen from the beginning of the fetal stage.
Jim Gilmore deserves a lot of credit for at least trying to stick to biological facts here.
No doubt, the point of conception has biological importance too. But perhaps it's not as critical a point as some say. Yes, the DNA and genetic make-up of the child are noramlly determined at that point. But what if a human being is cloned? In that case, there is no unique genetic make-up of the child, so it cannot be said that the unique genetic make-up occurs at any particular point in time.
I'd really urge that we try to stick to biology AND morality, without getting into church doctrine. As much as I respect the doctrines of various religions, they do not belong front and center in a political and legal debate, IMHO.
But Rudy is Catholic, and my post is, in part, directed to Catholic Republicans. You'll note that I also address Non-Catholic prolifers, the vast majority of whom are no doubt very religious. For better or worse, religion, even specific denominational doctrines, are part of the political process, and I personally don't see a problem with that.
Rudy is a fallen-away Catholic. Due to his divorces, he is not supposed to receive communion anyway.
Our midwestern town is two-thirds Catholic, Lutheran and Methodist. They are not that fond of the Religious Right. The way that they fight abortions is by not having any local doctors who will perform them. They are interested in health care, immigration, agribusiness, economic growth, and the Iraq War. Abortion is low on their list of priorities.
I disagree that religion, especially specific denominational doctrines, should be part of the political process. Barry Goldwater was right. You don't use the ballot box to promote religious beliefs.
The last candidate who emphasized abortion and gay marriage over other issues, got trounced. The local Religious Right caused a big internal fight in the county Republican Party. The Catholic chairman quit in disgust. Traditional Catholics and Evangelical Protestants agreeing on abortion and gay marriage is not the basis for a successful political campaign.
Well, it's certainly legitimate for the voice of the Catholic Church to be heard. I just worry that if it's heard too much, that gives ammunition to liberals who say that abortion is simply a religious issue, and that the people of one religion are seeking to use the government to impose their views on other people, contra the First Amendment.
I am a lifelong conservative and a Catholic, and I will be supporting Rudy Guiliani for the Republican nomination. Perhaps Alexham feels comfortable speculating and posturing about others' moral commitments or "grave" sins. I have been involved in politics for a long time--long enough to ignore such weightless bleating. If Alexham feels that he can't in good conscience support Rudy Guiliani, and that Guiliani's stance on abortion is an immediate disqualifier, I understand his feelings, and I can accept that. What I can't accept is someone mistaking their personal feelings and views for absolutes, and then using that false justification to berate others' faith, deeply considered decisions, and relationships with God. You need to take several very deep breaths.
As for the sophmoric politics of your comments--well, in spite of claims to the opposite, Rudy Guiliani will be immensely preferable to any Democratic alternative. To argue otherwise is misguided, small-minded, and counterproductive.
But if you follow (and read) the links in my post you will see that my post does nothing more than state the teachings of the Catholic Church on this matter. They are not my "personal feelings" simply because you wish to characterize them as such. So, if you care to dismiss the fundamental teachings of your own church in order to support a man like Rudy, then by all means have at it. That's between you and God.
One other thing: I never said that a Catholic could not vote for Rudy in the general election. Indeed, given the dems' wholeheated embrace of abortion on demand, and Rudy's promise to appoint originalist justices and judges, there would almost certainly be proportionate reasons to vote for him over the dem nominee. I will not do so, but I certainly understand why others might choose the lesser of two evils.
I think it's time for me to take a break from RedState before I say something I'll later regret.
I enjoy this site. I really do. Even the posts like this one, with which I disagree, are at least very well-written and thought provoking. However, I can no longer tolerate the daily barrage of "night of the long knives" against the big 3 candidates.
It makes sense to have debates about our candiates and their positions on the issues most important to us, but it appears that the language is, at times, over the top and not conducive to discussion. "Proabort"? Really? Is Rudy running for the scissors himself, with a smile on his face and a kick in his step? It's all just too much. By the time the primary season heats up, each of the leading candidates will be so bloodied and the supporters so disgusted with their rivals' rhetoric that we will have an even less chance of winning in the general.
By all means, let's have debate about the candidates. But please, let's tone down the language just a bit. In the mean time, I'll take that break. Not that I'll be missed, but I imagine there are others like myself. Keep up the great work this site is known for and best of luck to you all.
"Pro-abortion" is not a wholly inaccurate comment, unless one accepts the premise that Planned Parenthood actually provides unbiased advice (and therefore "pro-choice") to pregnant women.
Most pro-lifer do not accept that premise, and we therefore believe that contributors to Planned Parenthood are "pro-abortion."
We can accept (not embrace, but accept) a libertarian persective, but Rudy is about to implode his own campaign: http://www.kansasprogress.com/kansasprogress/blog.php?action=viewEntry&e....
I'm not positive, but I think the church's teaching is that it's a sin if you vote for a pro-choice politician BECAUSE of his position on abortion.
Abortion is not the only issue, although I think it's the most important one today.
I would never vote for Rudy and have posted blogs about why I think he shouldn't be elected and why I think he can't win the general if he is nominated.
As well-known, and highly-regarded, Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin has explained:
Many suggested Cardinal Ratzinger was giving his blessing to voting for pro-aborts if there were enough other good things about them. But having a number of good points is not enough. As the Cardinal indicated, there must be counterbalancing reasons proportional to abortion.
Such reasons are not easy to come up with, particularly for candidates seeking offices that have the ability to significantly impact abortion law. These include the presidents who nominate Supreme Court justices and the senators who confirm them.
One wants to weed out pro-abort candidates on the lowest level possible so that they can’t use their political track record to get elected to higher office, but the more impact the office has on abortion policy, the more weighty a reason must be to allow a vote for them.
What kind of reason would be needed to vote for a pro-abort candidate for president? Something unimaginably huge . . . Make no mistake: Abortion is the preeminent moral issue of our time. It is the black hole that out-masses every other issue. Presenting any other issues as if they were proportionate to it is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
To advise its congregants on how to practice their faith as public citizens. We have secret ballots, though. It's not like they can visit retribution on people.
Yeah, Rudy sucks! Mitt sucks! Tom Cole sucks! John McCain sucks! I see that Fred T checked a pro-abortion box once, now he sucks (opps, we are still pretending he is perfect)!
I once was very excited about this site and what it might become, but now it has been driven into the fever swamp.
Rudy has the support of a lot of conservative R's, does that mean they all suck as well. Do we all hate Bill Simon, David Vitter, Steve Forbes....as well!
I couldn't agree more with LangdonAlger, the tone and langague used against Rudy and the other front runners is what I would expect on the left wing sites.
What happened to decent conversations about our candidates and a focus on getting more R's then D's elected?
What happened to decent conversations about our candidates and a focus on getting more R's then D's elected?
So the party should be all about winning elections, at any cost to principle?
Run like Reagan!
Wow, so there are only 2 approaches for you? We either savage our candidates and paint them as evil people not worthy of our vote…or we sell out our principles?
I just can’t imagine why people claim conservatives are rigid and incapable of having a conversation that expands on more then a yes or no answer!
I have a suggestion for you, perhaps Rudy isn’t the enemy. Perhaps David Vitter, Steve Forbes….and the rest didn’t sell out there principles. Perhaps they are capable of evaluating the whole candidate and see what George Will said: “His eight years as mayor of New York were the most successful episode of conservative governance in this country in the last 50 years."
Can we disagree who is the best person in the Republican field, of course! That is what the primary is for, but why can’t we agree that the D’s are the ones we want to beat instead of our own party and do it respectfully?
That’s not selling out, that’s called politics. Maybe the perfect utopia where the libs live would be a greener pasture for you to graze in, that's where we get EVERYTHING we want and everything works out perfectly!
Let me suggest this to you: Once we admit that there comes a time when principle trumps victory, we have to ask ourselves: what issues do we draw the line at, and how far left can you be before you cross the line?
Many of us think Rudy goes way, way, way over that line if it's drawn at any mainstream Republican position.
You wouldn't see this kind of attack on Rudy if he held the compromise "rape, incest, life of mother" three exception position. Very few Republicians that I see are demanding that all Republicans take the extreme "life of mother only" exception to abortion bans.
Run like Reagan!
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
This thread has been fascinating to this non-Christian. I wonder how many political parties we'd have if, say, half the electorate insisted that it would only vote for candidates foursquare for every principle each voter deemed "fundamental" or bedrock. Me, I'd draw the line over tax policy; a candidate unwilling to keep the top marginal rate under 33.374% is morally unacceptable!
As someone who was brought up Christian (Greek-Orthodox in case anyone was wondering) and who now is at best agnostic and probably on the verge of being atheist, these abortion threads have indeed been very fascinating. Personally I have no idea when life actually begins. Is at the moment of conception? Is it at some point during fetal development? I have no idea.
I consider myself a conservative leaning libertarian. I am ok with abortion in the first trimester of a pregnancy, and I am ok with abortion in the case of rape/incest/danger.
Is there a place for me in the Republican Party?
First, on abortion you're to the right of the Republican frontrunner. And actually your views are within what is generally considered the "pro-life" camp. In fact, I believe Gov. Gilmore has very similar views on abortion. President Bush agrees with the rape/incest/life except but not the first trimester exception.
Second, and more importantly, if you think these issues are not in the Constitution then you are in the anti-Roe camp. Further, if you think abortion would be less of a hot topic if it were a legislative issue that allowed for compromises (like the one you outline), then you are in the anti-Roe camp. The anti-Roe camp is primarily full of Rs as well. And even if you were Rudy-like in support of all abortions for all reasons, if you at least thought the question of abortion should be decided by "the people" instead of "the Court" then you'd probably be able to get elected as an ally of pro-lifer (which is what many pro-lifers had hoped Rudy would do).
Third, Rs are more moderate on abortion. Every Democrat voiced their support for partial birth abortion (see here for procedure) which most Americans see as similar to infanticide. So when choosing between an R and a D, the "middle ground" on abortion is generally within the pro-life tent of "some restrictions.
Finally, both parties are coalitions of different interests that give and take. If you are a libertarian leaner then generally the Rs are probably going to be more receptive unless you're a fan of Government-Run Health Care, Higher Taxes, etc (i.e. not libertarian). Of course, there are some places where Rs are more interventionist than Ds but not generally on the big issues. Social Security personal accounts that given individuals ownership over their retirement instead of just a government promise is probably the most libertarian major policy idea at a national level since welfare reform. And the school choice movement is almost entirely within the R tent.
So all in all, yes. There is a place. But remember that no one and no party is going to agree with you in every case.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
It seems to me that if you believe in nothing more than the miracle of your chance existence then life ought to be at least as special to you as it is to those who believe in providence.
and sanctimonious derriere.
So your hubris isn't great enough that you order other Americans to vote as you want them to- but now you give RELIGIOUS edicts as well?!!
And just who appointed you G-d?!
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
I am simply informing my fellow Catholics of the Church's teaching regarding voting for proabortion pols. If you think that is the equivalent of issuing a "religious edict," then so be it.
It really is fascinating to me that so many folks here seem to think that the views I have expressed re: the teaching of the Catholic Church amount to nothing more than a personal opinion.
Indeed, please keep in mind that my post was directed at two camps: Catholics and Non-Catholic prolifers.
You will note that as to the first camp, I simply informed my fellow Catholics that they placed themselves in spiritual peril by voting for Rudy in the Republican primary. Having reviewed the relevant Church documents, I am convinced this is indeed the case. You may disagree with the Church's teachings, but they are what they are, and those who profess to be Catholic should take those admonitions seriously, because what is at stake is far greater than a simple election.
As to the second group, I did nothing more than ask them to consider the long-term implications of electing a proabort as president. They are free to heed my advice or ignore it, as you have chosen to do.
I hardly see how any of this warrants you asking me whether I have been appointed by God.
But since you asked, let me say this: I do believe that God expects me to be a voice for the voiceless; to stand up for the most vulnerable members of our society: innocent unborn children. If that means that I am not the most popular blogger here at RedState, then so be it.
Some things are more important than the praise of men or party loyalty.
Is there the possibility of you choosing a 'lesser of two evils' in the general election based on the abortion issue alone? Or would that single issue alone cause you to not vote at all? And would that not do more damage to the pro life movement?
While I am against abortion (for religious reasons, among others), I am struggling with the fact that this particular issue is not the single defining issue our country faces today. Unfortunately, there are not enough voters that make this their deciding issue in choosing among candidates. Until it does become the primary issue, IMO, I must ensure that the candidate I vote for will do the least harm.
To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge.--Disraeli
Yes. I do believe in a general election that prolifers can vote for Rudy in good conscience over a proabortion dem nominee. Rudy has stated that he will appoint originalist justices/judges, and those types of justices/judges are much more likely to rule in such a way so as to restrict or overrule Roe.
And just to be clear, this post is only meant to deal with the Republican primary where there are several solid pro-life candidates to choose from. The dynamics obviously change in the general if we only have two proabortion candidates to choose from.
That having been said, as much as I care about the judges/justice issue (I also blog at Confirm Them), I simply cannot being myself to vote for a proabortion Catholic candidate. If Rudy is nominated, I will abstain from voting, vote for a third-party candidate, or write someone else in.
want to be a single issue voter.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Sancity%20of%20Life
I think I'll stay right where I am, thank you.
I suspect that I've done more for the Republican Party than you'll ever dream of doing.
I suspect that I've done more for the Republican Party than you'll ever dream of doing.
Ooooohhhhhh......
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
The intellectual history and the complexities of Catholicism are rich. Its somewhat bothersome to see the Church and its teachings on abortion butchered by simplistic statements. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia provides a brief, but decent history of the Church and its position on abortion. Although brief, you can get an idea of the deep and complex history of its position.
As opposed to making generalized and conclusory statements.
I've provided plenty of links to support my position. If you care to dispute those sources (e.g. Jimmy Akin, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or Pope Benedict), then by all means lay your cards on the table.
I don't disagree with much of what you stated, I just think this is the wrong forum for theological discussions. These types of debates end up being counter productive. Same is true for threads that end up splicing and summorizing the LDS faith in one or two paragraphs and I'm not a Morman. Mormans, Catholics, Protestants and agnostics shouldnt be at each others throats over theological and doctrine issues.
My generalized statements were about peoples reactions to these types of threads, it definately is not about Church teachings. I wouldn't go there. I provide one like just because it shows how much thought goes into a question like this. There is an immense history. I would never be so arrogant to hold myself as the authority on something so grand.
will change my mind except possibly Fred Thompson.
...who is one of the more reasoned and thoughtful commenters in these pages.
Frankly, all these headshots at the R's bore the crap out of me. It's May of 2007. There's plenty of time. I'm not sure there's any advantage to being the frontrunner now; it's probably a disadvantage.
The thing that will advance abortion rights more than anything else will be if a Democrat gets to choose who fills the next 2-3 open seats on the Supreme Court. That's what we all need to fight against.
I want to have an R candidate for President in 2008 that has not been mortally wounded by his own party.
Politics is not a zero sum game. I would ask the pro-life "zealots" (not my choice of words, mind you) which scenario advances your cause the most:
- a strongly pro-life R candidate that gets smoked 35-65% by Hillary/Obama/Biden/whoever, or
- a winning Republican, of whatever stance on abortion, who has committed to appointing conservative SCOTUS justices.
Rudy's not my man, but I'm probably going to vote for whoever the R's nominate. And I want their candidacy to be viable.
who are leaner's BUT are certainly fed up with the pit bull attacks, front page proclamations of the absurd and the trashing of good men over issues that not everyone agrees on as strongly.
Not a word recently by the front page folks on what might happen to the country with the democrats in the oval office but hey look there's another hit job on Mitt on the recommended list.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)