Hi, This is the forum/question.

In a sense, you may have won. It does seem that a non-pro-life pres can not be elected.

So I personally am willing to throw one of my sisters rights to the wolves to save the rest of the rights/environment/national indepteness of my kids. I will say that supreme court justices that say the only liberties we get are those explicitly written done scare me.

So this would be where you would talk about it. If Kerry (a Catholic of sorts) had been moderately pro-life, say, except in cases of incest, rape, maybe another exception for under-age, and a waiting peroid for any law for 9 months after it got voted into effect, would you have voted for him?

thank you,

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), November 03, 2004

Answers

No, I would not have voted for him if he had been completely pro- life. For one he couldn't make his mind up on where he stands on certain issues and two I don't believe we would have had the security and safety with him as President that we have with President Bush. While I am not just over joyed with this war (I mean really, who is?) I support it. I think it was nessessary to to get Saddam out of there and to help those people have a better life and a safer country to raise their children in. Mr. Kerry voted to go to war then said it was a mistake to go. I just never know where he stands on issues such as homeland security, the war on terror, the economy, jobs, social security, ect..... I do however have a measure of respect for him that I didn't have before today. I thought he lost this election with honor and grace. He was very complimentary to President Bush and seemed more genuine than I have ever seen him.

I can never agree with a candidate who is pro-choice, pro-homosexual marriage, for embryonic stemcell research, and for cloning. I also can't see myself voting for a person just because he says he is Catholic. He really used that to try and further his advantage with the Catholic voter, and I just found that to be so wrong. He used the fact that he was raised Catholic and was an alterboy and then said he couldn't use his faith as a Catholic to vote on the Senate floor? What kind of person does that?

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 03, 2004.

The claim that Kerry "flip-flopped" on the war is simply not true. He did not vote specificaly for the war; he voted to give the President the authority, beleiving (mistakenly) that President Bush would use good judgement and would use war only as a last result and would try to get the full backing of the UN. Obviously he was wrong, and he spoke out against Bush's handling of the 3war. He was never against the war itself, only the way Bush handled it. Think about it this way: You give you kid a car for his birthday. By doing that, you are giving him the authority to drive that car. Now let's say three weeks later he is being irrespsonsible and crashes the car. Naturaly, you're going to take the keys and not let him drive, right? That's essentialy what Kerry did. He gave Bush the keys to the car, only this car was the most powerful military force on the planet, and when Bush acted irresponsibly, Kerry asked for the keys back. Kerry's only mistake was trusting a man who the last foru years have shown simply cannot be trusted. That was an error in his own judgement, but one which he has corrected and one which I'm willing to forgive him for.

Kind of pointless arguing this point after he has conceded, but whatever. Beats doing homework.

I too am pro-life, but I recognize that a federal ban on abortion simply is not constitutional. It is an issue that needs to be left up to the states.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 03, 2004.

Why should the youngest and most helpless Americans in some states be any more vulnerable to execution on a whim than Americans of the same age in other states? States are not allowed to legalize murder of any other age group (not yet anyway), so why should the violent deaths of these particular children be left up to the states? That makes no sense at all.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 03, 2004.

I too am pro-life, but I recognize that a federal ban on abortion simply is not constitutional. It is an issue that needs to be left up to the states. ----Anti-Bush

WHERE IN OUR CONSTITUTION DOES IT GIVE ANY WOMAN A RIGHT TO MURDER HER CHILD????????? When the Constitution was made it did NOT give ANYONE the right to murder! abortion is a court ruling not a right guaranteed by our constitution! That blather doesn't wash! If you are pro-life, let the world know it proudly!

And, Mr./ Ms. anti-Bush, the President had the same intelligence as everyone else when he called for war. Having not found these WMD's doesn't meant that they do not exist. Saddam had a very long time to move them to a new location while President Bush tried to gain help from other countries. There is no need in arguing this here though. This is not a political forum and I will not turn it into one. Have a good day!

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 03, 2004.

Sean, you said "So I personally am willing to throw one of my sisters rights to the wolves to save the rest of the rights/ environment/ national indepteness of my kids."

Not sure about what you're trying to say her, but if your sister chose to kill, say, her brother, would you support her "right" to do so?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), November 03, 2004.

Sean -your question is absurd and moot...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 03, 2004.

Actually it is not moot.

One of the best ways to accomplish things is to persuade both partys that it should be done. So if no one would have changed their vote, the Democrats mignt as well not bother.

So is your anti-abortion stance as important as the rest of the package? more? less?

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), November 03, 2004.

and this morining I am mad at you for flunking basic reading comprehension, and myself for potential biasing my sample.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), November 04, 2004.

"WHERE IN OUR CONSTITUTION DOES IT GIVE ANY WOMAN A RIGHT TO MURDER HER CHILD????????? When the Constitution was made it did NOT give ANYONE the right to murder! abortion is a court ruling not a right guaranteed by our constitution! That blather doesn't wash! If you are pro-life, let the world know it proudly!"

I suggest you read the constitution for a change. I never said it granted a woman the right to have an abortion. What I am refering too is the fact that the 10th Amendment states that all powers not specificaly delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people, respectively. Nothing in the constitution gives the federal government jurisdiction in murder cases. If abortion is murder, as you and I both beleive, the federal government has no buisiness outlawing abortion. Where is there a federal law prohibiting murder (other than killing a federal officer)? It's all left to the states. Your knowledge of constitutional law is somewhat lacking. It's your duty as an American to know your consitution!

"And, Mr./ Ms. anti-Bush, the President had the same intelligence as everyone else when he called for war. Having not found these WMD's doesn't meant that they do not exist. Saddam had a very long time to move them to a new location while President Bush tried to gain help from other countries"

Bush made claims (such as the story about Niger uranium) that were proven false, and he continued to repeat them verbatim even after he had evidence proving that they were not true. He also told us that there was a link between Saddam and al Quaeda, and that Saddam was behind 9/11, which was totaly unfounded. He just amde that one up. Cheney has admitted that there was no link, and now he's trying to claim that they never said there was one (even though there is footage from Meet the Press of him saying "Saddam helped Osama bin laden and was behind 9/11")...some might call that a flip-flop...

The point is Bush willingly misled the public, at least to some extent, about the reasons for this war, and 1,200 Americans are dead because of it. This is a man who did not deserve four more years.

"There is no need in arguing this here though. This is not a political forum and I will not turn it into one."

No, but this is an overtly political thread. You are the one who began arguing the merits of Kerry's platform, not I...

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 04, 2004.

Actually I understand Constitution quite well and I still stand by what I said. Legal abortion made into a law by liberal courts. It was and is not a right given to women by our Constitution. As far as me making this political, all's I did was answer Sean on why I would not vote for Kerry even if he were truly pro-life. YOU on the other hand started bashing the President and singing the praises of the immoral Kerry. I am not going to argue with you on this board anymore. Your twisted views aren't worth arguing over. I know what is right and wrong and you would do good to learn that lesson yourself. Have a good day.

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 04, 2004.

Part of Suzanne's answer was on topic. Could we have more stuff on topic?

For those who have forgotten the topic, Would you vote for a democrat who was even somewhat for pro-life? For example, if Kerry had been, would that have made a difference.

I have one vote of 'no'.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), November 04, 2004.

Sean,

I will only vote for a pro-life candidate, period. I believe that if pull the lever for a candidate that supports abortion, in any form, I share in the guilt of the blood of the innocent children being slaughtered. Until abortion is once and for all removed from this land, no other issue is as important.

That addresses part of your quesion. Another part is, would you vote for a democrat? Yes, I would. But that doesn't mean I would have voted for Kerry. He was a liar and traitor with his post Vietnam activities. He offered no vision for what he would do different, he just kept saying he would do it better than Bush, but offered no explanation of how he could accomplish it. And his record as a Senator proves he's done little as a Senator for 20 yrs - he's goofed off. Very few bills or initiatives. Extremely low voting record and what's there is the most liberal on all issues in the Senate. And he's an extreme hypocrit - most of his criticisms of Bush apply more to him than they do to "W".

There's a lot about Bush that I wish were different, but I trust him far more than Kerry.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), November 04, 2004.

Thank you David for an honest answer. I have included it in the talley collumn.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), November 05, 2004.