It’s not an auspicious start to Bush’s second term. Fox News is reporting that White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez is being tapped to replace pro-life John Ashcroft as attorney general. That’s bad news for pro-lifers.
When Gonzalez was on the Texas Supreme Court, he wrote the opinion that allowed minor girls to have abortions without parental permission. He also helped torpedo Priscilla Owen’s nomination to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals by attacking her position that minor girls need parents’ permission qas “an unconscionable act of judicial activism.” That led to Democrats rejecting her confirmation.
In interviews, it is reported that Gonzalez said he was “personally opposed to abortion, but ...”
I hope this isn’t true, but if it is, I think it’s a bad start to the second term.
But the good news is that he won’t be appointed to the Supreme Court. Whatever he might do as AG could no way be as bad as his being on the Supreme Court.
We will also have to wait an see how he acts on Oregons euthansia law and whether he brings the current effort forward.
I was just going to ask what the AG’s involvement in prolife issues was, but Jeff just reminded me.
In other cabinet positions, a pro-choice person wouldn’t have much effect (pro-choice Sec’y of Energy? no biggee.) But the AG is supposed to argue the federal government’s side in the Supreme Court, among other things. However, as Jeff says, this indicates that he won’t be appointed to any court as a judge any time soon. As AG, he won’t have as much discretion when it comes to arguing Supreme Court cases – it will be his job to support admin positions. If Bush tells him he’s got to oppose euthanasia laws, then he’s going to have to do it, or resign.
Whatever he might do as AG could no way be as bad as his being on the Supreme Court.
It depends; a pro-abortion AG might be less inclined to enforce pro-life legislation or judicial rulings (e.g. the Partial Birth Abortion Ban ).
Whatever he might do as AG could no way be as bad as his being on the Supreme Court.
It depends; a pro-abortion AG might be less inclined to enforce pro-life legislation or judicial rulings (e.g. the Partial Birth Abortion Ban ).
Then again folks….let me re-iterate this….BUSH IS NOT PRO-LIFE!!!!! Bush supports abortions in the cases of rape and incest.
We have played Russian roulette and we may have lost. I don’t think that Bush will have any qualms about naming a pro-abort anything. I mean he has a pro-gay VP.
Again, don’t be suprised…..I tried to talk about this before the election and no one would listen. Everyone was so opposed to Kerry (and rightfully so) that they were blinded to the fact that Bush is also not pro-life. It was proportionate reasoning, it was the lesser of two evils….well, here comes the evil.
I also voted for Bush, but I knew the consquenses in doing so…..that having a pro-abort Republican cabinet was a possiblity.
Cam
Then again folks….let me re-iterate this….BUSH IS NOT PRO-LIFE!!!!! Bush supports abortions in the cases of rape and incest.
We have played Russian roulette and we may have lost. I don’t think that Bush will have any qualms about naming a pro-abort anything. I mean he has a pro-gay VP.
Again, don’t be suprised…..I tried to talk about this before the election and no one would listen. Everyone was so opposed to Kerry (and rightfully so) that they were blinded to the fact that Bush is also not pro-life. It was proportionate reasoning, it was the lesser of two evils….well, here comes the evil.
I also voted for Bush, but I knew the consquenses in doing so…..that having a pro-abort Republican cabinet was a possiblity.
Cam
I’m tired of people saying this, because it’s wrong. Bush does not support abortion in the case of rape or incest. He is willing to allow it legislatively as a compromise to reduce the number of abortions from the current abortion on demand because that is what he thinks he can get. If he thought he could reduce abortions to zero legislatively, then he would.
It doesn’t make it right, but it also doesn’t make him pro-abortion. It also doesn’t mean he’s not pro-life.
I’m tired of people saying this, because it’s wrong. Bush does not support abortion in the case of rape or incest. He is willing to allow it legislatively as a compromise to reduce the number of abortions from the current abortion on demand because that is what he thinks he can get. If he thought he could reduce abortions to zero legislatively, then he would.
It doesn’t make it right, but it also doesn’t make him pro-abortion. It also doesn’t mean he’s not pro-life.
Dom,
McCAIN [to Bush]: Do you believe in the exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother?
2004-11-11 21:32:31
2004-11-12 01:32:31
Hey Guys,
BUSH: Yeah, I do.
McCain: [But you] support the pro-life plank [in the Republican Party platform]?
BUSH: I do.
McCAIN: So, in other words, your position is that you believe there188.116.20
You are forgetting from where Bush is coming…….He is a PROTESTANT. That means that he is a material heretic…..He does not view the situation as would an orthodox Catholic…..
You Eccumanists want to jump in bed with the Protestant pro-lifers……this is the price that you pay…. and the results that you receive….
Where would one think that our President stands on artificial contraception?……Is this issue not one of the orthodox Catholic issues?
Dom,
McCAIN [to Bush]: Do you believe in the exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother?
2004-11-11 10:10:43
2004-11-11 14:10:43
The effort to change to eradicate abortion has more to do with evangelizing our country than it does with passing laws
BUSH: Yeah, I do.
McCain: [But you] support the pro-life plank [in the Republican Party platform]?
BUSH: I do.
McCAIN: So, in other words, your position is that you believe there35.66
But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith… – Sen John Kerry from transcripts of the second presidential debate.
Evangelization has nothing to do with it. If life begins at conception, it is a matter of justice no matter if you believe in a faith or not. That is exactly where Kerry was being a hypocrite.
As far as reading Bush’s words with prejudice, here’s another quote from the 2000 Iowa caucus.
Later, when asked what he would tell a friend’s or relative’s child if they were raped and sought his about abortion, Bush said: “I would say, first of all, I believe in three exceptions when it comes to abortion. But I would say, I would hope I would be able to evoke enough sympathy from a rape case that I could help comfort her as a friend.’’
Dom you can’t read prejudice into that statement. He clearly has no intention of eradicating abortion. He will hopefully be immensely better than Kerry. But he is pro choice to a lesser degree. He has nominated a pro abortion attorney general and LET’S NOT FORGET, He campaigned for Specter as well.
You can’t be mostly prolife much like you cannot be mostly pregnant.
I used evangelization in the generic sense, not in the “conversion to faith” sense. The political reality is that the vast majority of Americans do not support an exception-less ban on abortion. Until you convince them otherwise, you’re not going to pass a ban on abortion.
And I still don’t buy the language. Bush is not pro-abortion. You can spin it however you want but he’s not.
Dom you’re right of course about the political reality. You have no disagreement from me there. Where you and I disagree is on where Bush stands. You stated that he does not support it in cases of rape and incest. Bush’s own words state the contrary. Your position on abortion is stronger than our president’s. I respect the fact that you are a huge Bush supporter, but his views are clear.
I’m genuinely concerned with the direction he’s heading. His support of Specter and his nomination of Gonzalez are not good indicators. I truly believed that if Bush returned for a second term, he would nominate strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. I’m starting to doubt that now.
Cam, I’ve pointed out to you that the McCain/Bush exchange from 4 1/2 years ago is entirely disengenous on the part of McCain – as McCain’s position on abortion was/is the same as Bush – no abortions except for rape, incest, and life of mother – as what would be legislated for pragmatic reasons before a ban which would exclude rape and incest.
I’m not willing to dismiss Gonalez as being opposed to the Bush-Scalia-Thomas judicial philosophy. After all, he’s been Bush’s counsel for years and Bush must know him well.
Ashcroft himself was confirmed in the understanding that he would “enforce” Roe.
I’ll join the anti-Bush chorus only when he puts up for nomination to the SC a Souter-Kennedy-O’Connor and not a Scalia-Thomas.
You can be pro-life and disagree on the best politcal tactics to accomplish that goal.
Looks like Bush may already be backing down from Arlen Specter.
You pro-life political purists have handed out some jawdroppers.
That honestly made me laugh out loud!! I thought I might be in the majority on this one. The issue of pro-life is not a negotiable one. Not for us Catholics anyway. As for Bush, he has stated on numerous occasions that he is for abortion in the case of incest and rape. He supports abortion in those two (and life of the mother) cases. How does that not make him pro-abortion? Seriously.
And if you want to call Bush mostly pro-life, then you better refer to Kerry mostly Catholic.
doing what he *can* for the pro-life cause, but not surrendering vital ground by demanding the whole Christian worldview to prevail immediately.
I’m not even sure what that means. First, I don’t recall anyone saying that he needed to act immediately on the “whole Christian worldview”. I’m saying that what he has done to this point doesn’t exactly instill me with a lot of confidence.
but unlike armchair combox pundits
Is that another phrase for registered voter? If so then so what? If I vote, I will voice my opinion on what my leaders are doing.
There is one good to come out of the appointment of Alberto Gonzales as AG; Miguel Estrada has now moved up as 1st pick for SCOTUS placement.
Now, if we can just make sure Specter doesn’t get that seat…
It means that any president who is as consistently pro-life as *you* demand must quit his job.
You’re inferring a lot Padraiq. I’m not demanding that Bush change his views. What I tried to do is to call out what that view is. The only opinion that I’ve offered about Bush is that the nomination of someone who is pro-abortion to AG does not instill me with a lot of confidence about future court nominations. Hey don’t get me wrong. I’ve bashed Bush a bunch around these parts on various issues. But I haven’t gone on the offensive once on this thread.
Would I sleep a lot better if abortions were “limited to rape, incest and mother’s life” issues? Emphatically yes. Its a huge step in the right direction.
However, in regards to my “purism” let me throw this by you: When engaged in discourse, a little purism ain’t a bad thing.
For the record, I never said Bush was pro-life Great, I’m glad we agree.
Yes Bush is more pro-life than Kerry
Kerry is more Catholic than Bush
That is there only to illustrate my point about Bush’s pro-life status. It should not be inferred that I would not be very proud of Bush (and btw retract many of my statements about the man) if he nominated strict constructionists to the court (if given the opportunity).
As for what elected figure in American politics….
I honestly can’t think of one. I’m sure there may be a couple out there. As for the last election, I voted for Peroutka. Did I have any “purist” notion that he would win? nope
Dom,
“You are reading Busheath occurs, it is a natural death, not a directly or indirectly procured abortion.
“Bush wants to eradicate abortion, not just reduce them, but he believes that there isnxotic fervor in a way since it seems to hold to the High Ideal, but third party votes are utterly, foolishly—maybe diabolically—wasted votes. The Constitution Party, the Losertarian Party, and the Green Party & Co. all sit in the same pew in different churches: the back pew, stuck behind the last pillar, in the shadow of the poor box, far from the altar of real change. You admit this and defend it. What can I say?
Why don’t you and Cam move to Ireland, and then when Irish abortion law goes sour, you can start your own Aseptically Pure Catholic Nation somewhere. Maybe take over Guam. But your bullying tone is just annoying. Please stop it. If this is the way you people hector other pro-life Catholics who’d like abortions reduced to zero, good luck with pro-choice secularists.
Jaime:
Ah, the mask drops. A Peroutka voter! One must admire quixotic fervor in a way since it seems to hold to the High Ideal, but third party votes are utterly, foolishly—maybe diabolically—wasted votes. The Constitution Party, the Losertarian Party, and the Green Party & Co. all sit in the same pew in different churches: the back pew, stuck behind the last pillar, in the shadow of the poor box, far from the altar of real change. You admit this and defend it. What can I say?
Why don’t you and Cam move to Ireland, and then when Irish abortion law goes sour, you can start your own Aseptically Pure Catholic Nation somewhere. Maybe take over Guam. But your bullying tone is just annoying. Please stop it. If this is the way you people hector other pro-life Catholics who’d like abortions reduced to zero, good luck with pro-choice secularists.
Hey Brian,
Being pro-life is not only a Catholic issue. It’s a human issue. It is a moral issue that applies to everyone, Catholic or otherwise.
I could care less if Bush was Catholic, but then again, evangelizing him wouldn’t be a bad idea….although I think that Jeb is working on that for us.
Patrick,
“Why donare reading a heck of a lot more into what I am writing than is there!!
Hey Brian,
Being pro-life is not only a Catholic issue. It’s a human issue. It is a moral issue that applies to everyone, Catholic or otherwise.
I could care less if Bush was Catholic, but then again, evangelizing him wouldn’t be a bad idea….although I think that Jeb is working on that for us.
Patrick,
“Why don12 04:24:35
No mocking, Jaime. Just describing. Third Party candidates are inevitable losers at the polls. Losers. They can’t win. Ever. And you proudly support perpetually marginalized, thus ineffective, political losers. It would be funny except that we need you where you’re needed. The all-or-nothing stance is a bag of sand on the pro-life racehorse. Hello—is this thing on?
A more rational, more pragmatic way of actually bringing to existence PJP2’s civiliation of love, is to support candidates within the major Party that CAN do something. And it ain’t the Democrats, at this point in time. It’s interesting that you quote the UCSSB, which sent out troops of lawyers to quell authentically prolife vote guides from orthodox Catholic groups. Does it bother you that Mike Peroutka is a fallen-away Catholic who can hardly vouch for Humanae Vitae, and therefore the policy he’d like us to live under is pro-abortion because the Pill can be abortifacient? Let’s be consistently pro-life, Jaime.
This blog has a space cap, but a few of Bush’s pro-life efforts are worth listing. Next entry. Thanks for the spirited exchange.
No mocking, Jaime. Just describing. Third Party candidates are inevitable losers at the polls. Losers. They can’t win. Ever. And you proudly support perpetually marginalized, thus ineffective, political losers. It would be funny except that we need you where you’re needed. The all-or-nothing stance is a bag of sand on the pro-life racehorse. Hello—is this thing on?
A more rational, more pragmatic way of actually bringing to existence PJP2’s civiliation of love, is to support candidates within the major Party that CAN do something. And it ain’t the Democrats, at this point in time. It’s interesting that you quote the UCSSB, which sent out troops of lawyers to quell authentically prolife vote guides from orthodox Catholic groups. Does it bother you that Mike Peroutka is a fallen-away Catholic who can hardly vouch for Humanae Vitae, and therefore the policy he’d like us to live under is pro-abortion because the Pill can be abortifacient? Let’s be consistently pro-life, Jaime.
This blog has a space cap, but a few of Bush’s pro-life efforts are worth listing. Next entry. Thanks for the spirited exchange.
BUSH PRO-LIFE ONE
The next few entries list Bush’s pro-life initiatives from the very first day he took office.
January 22, 2001 President Bush Reinstates Mexico City Policy (bans use of U.S. money for organizations that promote abortion overseas)
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/articles/01-29-01/mexicocity.html
March 22, 2001 President Bush Helps Dedicate Pope John Paul II Cultural Centerill That
Kerry Opposed
Source: National Right to Life
April 2, 2004Advocates Complain at UN that Universal Right to Abortion is Stalled
Abortion advocates met last week to complain that the global advance for abortion on demand has been stalled because of ongoing opposition from the Bush Administration and the Catholic Church.
Source: Friday Fax, C-FAM
April 2, 2004458.html”>http://www.lifenews.com/nat458.html
April 26, 2004 Bush Administration Scraps Agency’s Plans to Back
Pro-Abortion Conference
http://www.lifenews.com/nat477.html
These are just a few among many more examples. Your bitter gripe that “Bush is pro-abortion” is incomprensible, absurd. What no angel from heaven could convince you is, our only choice as Catholics is not between the black knight Kerry (electible and dangerous) and the white knight (inelectible and irrelevant) Peroutka. To your credit, you admit that you can’t think of single elected official who passes your flawless test. And I’m officially outta this debate. Good luck with your less-than-one percent candidates.
BUSH PRO-LIFE ONE
The next few entries list Bush’s pro-life initiatives from the very first day he took office.
January 22, 2001 President Bush Reinstates Mexico City Policy (bans use of U.S. money for organizations that promote abortion overseas)
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/articles/01-29-01/mexicocity.html
March 22, 2001 President Bush Helps Dedicate Pope John Paul II Cultural CenterY FAX
April 21, 2004 Vice President Cheney Defends President’s Strong Pro-Life at
National Right to Life Awards Dinner
Source: http://www.lifenews.com/nat458.html
April 26, 2004 Bush Administration Scraps Agency’s Plans to Back
Pro-Abortion Conference
http://www.lifenews.com/nat477.html
These are just a few among many more examples. Your bitter gripe that “Bush is pro-abortion” is incomprensible, absurd. What no angel from heaven could convince you is, our only choice as Catholics is not between the black knight Kerry (electible and dangerous) and the white knight (inelectible and irrelevant) Peroutka. To your credit, you admit that you can’t think of single elected official who passes your flawless test. And I’m officially outta this debate. Good luck with your less-than-one percent candidates.
Third Party candidates are inevitable losers at the polls. Losers. They caned out your opinion, but not my inconsistencies. I have answered those questions.
“Does a candidate who does not advocate for the outlawing of all contraceptives and contraceptive devices with the potential to act as abortifacients likewise forfeit the possiblity of calling himself as “participated in an evil act.” Rational grounds for further discussion are out the window. Might as well try to explain gravity to a willful child who just saw Peter Pan.
I’m exiting this angels-dancing-on-pinheads discussion, back to the real world: the one in which God sits in His throne, George W. Bush sits in the White House, and Michael Peroutka sits in his rec room.
Yes, you’ll both probably respond with bold font, ALL CAPS, and a promiscuous use of exclamation marks that Bush is pro-abortion and that I’ve missed the point, misunderstood, or some such. Good for you. Maybe others more patient and more persuasive than I can now try their hand.
And nice going with your 0.01 percentile Turd Party candidates, guys. We’re all glad you only helped Kerry a little bit. It could have been worse.
Third Party candidates are inevitable losers at the polls. Losers. They canAbortion is not ever, ever justifiable, under any single circumstance. Your “anti-war” analogy has more holes in it than a howitzer blast point.
Cam
The overall point that I’m getting at (Cam can speak for himself) is the EXACT SAME POINT that Dom used to start the thread. Bush is showing definite signals of moving back to his moderate roots. And that’s not a good sign.
You can hold the position that Bush is “mostly prolife”.. Whatever. (It does remind me of The Princess Bride when Billy Crystal said “He’s only mostly dead” meaning Wesley was actually alive.) I will disagree with you. I don’t believe its semantics.
Let’s take my example again. Is John Kerry mostly Catholic because he believes in most of the things within the Catholic church? Not when he disagrees with non negotiable beliefs. Is that a self defeating absolutist position? No its just stating the truth.
If Bush continues to move back to his moderate roots (and why not? He has nothing left to run for) in regards to SC nominations, what happens then? Will all those who voted for him be shocked and dismayed? Will they console themselves with their pragmatism?
Again I hope he does the right thing. And for the third time, the AG nomination does not warm my heart.
No, Cam, I’m not saying anything like that. Perhaps you should read my post again, because I do think you’ve demonstrated that this is indeed a semantic argument.
“You are saying that being unconditionally pro-life is absolutist, well, that is true. Supporting life from conception to natural death is an absolute prinicple.”
Yes, that’s correct. Note that you used the term, “unconditionally pro-life.” I, like you, am “unconditionally pro-life.”
Is President Bush “unconditionally pro-life”? No.
Does that mean that the President is not “pro-life”? No.
You prefer to attack allies as undeserving of the label “pro-life.” I prefer to stand with those who will advance incremental positive change. Once again, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Here is what Dom said to start this thread, speaking of the pending Gonzalez nomination…..
I hope this isnounds like you agree that there’s some room for negotiation.
You say you “prefer to hold him accountable to what he ran on,” yet you insist that he’s never been “pro-life.” So, what are you holding him accountable to? A “pro-abortion” position, in your view?
You’re getting tied up in knots over semantics, Cam. Either Bush is pro-life, or your pro-life views are not as “unconditional” and “non-negotiable” as you maintain. Perhaps the President’s not as pro-life as you or I might wish, but that doesn’t mean he forfeits the label under all circumstances.
PMC,
I did vote for Bush, but I also stated that I knew the possible consquences for doing so.
I also have gone to confession and I have confessed that I have made a mistake.
I voted with the understanding of proprotinate reasoning. That is was better to vote for Bush than Kerry, based on the overall issues. As I have just stated, I have gone to confession, because there is a possiblity that I have pariticpated in an evil act.
That being said, I am unconditionally pro-life. I did not support Bush on this issue and have been on record not supporting Bush’s stance on life. I made that statement about a month ago, on this blogsite.
I am not tied in knots over semanitcs, I am very well aware of what is going on. The problem is that knowing that this is a possiblity, should we have voted for him in the first place? I am not so sure now.
“Perhaps the President2004-11-12 15:07:29
2004-11-12 19:07:29
(And breaking the double posting rule for the first time)
Note the fact that Cam and I have not resorted to insults.
Uh….well said, el Himester!!!
“This is an unresolvable disagreement.”
Why? Because some refuse to see Bush for what he is when it comes to the pro-life movement? I think that is why. Simple…..It is resolvable. Bush is pro-choice. He accepts and advocates abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. This makes him pro-choice. He supports the right of the woman to choose herself over the life of the child. END OF STORY.
“Itly some very respectable pro-life organizations are applauding Gonzalez’s nomination, and saying that he is very misunderstood on the abortion issue. Whether that’s true or just trying to put a shine on a sneaker, I don’t know. So, I guess the answer is that we don’t know if this is a bad start to the second term yet.
Another hypothetical: If you can’t be pro-life unless you are unconditionally 100% always and everywhere, won’t settle for anything less than a complete ban or nothing at all pro-life, then wouldn’t we also have to say that you’re not pro-choice unless you are unconditionally 100% always and everywhere, won’t settle for anything less than abortion on demand or nothing at all pro-choice? So where does that leave the other 90 percent of people. I guess they’re neither pro-life nor pro-choice.
Further I would also suppose, based on the reaosning given here, that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was actually pro-abortion because it only prevented some abortions and not all abortions. Similarly, the Unborn Victims of Violence Law is also pro-abortion because it only protects babies who are the victims of felonies and not killed in abortions. Thus, according to that logic, it would be better if neither of those two laws had been passed because it’s better that all unborn babies at risk die for a principle than some be saved through imperfect laws and policies.
Apparently some very respectable pro-life organizations are applauding Gonzalez’s nomination, and saying that he is very misunderstood on the abortion issue. Whether that’s true or just trying to put a shine on a sneaker, I don’t know. So, I guess the answer is that we don’t know if this is a bad start to the second term yet.
Another hypothetical: If you can’t be pro-life unless you are unconditionally 100% always and everywhere, won’t settle for anything less than a complete ban or nothing at all pro-life, then wouldn’t we also have to say that you’re not pro-choice unless you are unconditionally 100% always and everywhere, won’t settle for anything less than abortion on demand or nothing at all pro-choice? So where does that leave the other 90 percent of people. I guess they’re neither pro-life nor pro-choice.
Further I would also suppose, based on the reaosning given here, that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was actually pro-abortion because it only prevented some abortions and not all abortions. Similarly, the Unborn Victims of Violence Law is also pro-abortion because it only protects babies who are the victims of felonies and not killed in abortions. Thus, according to that logic, it would be better if neither of those two laws had been passed because it’s better that all unborn babies at risk die for a principle than some be saved through imperfect laws and policies.
Gosh Patrick, I very much feel like a relatively unimportant chick flick. You’ve jumped all over one point while ignoring the larger picture.
You jump all over Cam and myself (and yes being called a fool, compared to a pig, etc. is insulting) while missing the larger point brought to the table. Bush is a moderate who has appealed to the conservatives of his party. Now that he has nothing to run for, his first nomination is a moderate one. That could be telling for future actions.
You’re wrong that he has consistently nominated pro-life judges. And I can’t believe you would make such a ridiculous statement on this particular thread. Who do you think endorsed Gonzalez as a judge in Texas?
Interesting how you state no facts but bad attempts at pithy comments. The only facts that you pull up are the 27 links posted in your triple posting (yes you’ve double posted under one name punkin) yet you offer nothing intelligent to suggest you’ve read any of them.
You suggest that I should be ashamed of myself to criticize Bush’s nomination because I didn’t vote for him? It doesn’t work that way. If I vote, I get to voice my opinion. You think that it was diabolical of me to vote third party (Again you are a member of a former third party) ? Well here’s the deal Patrick, when I die, I don’t think I will be judged by how good a pragmatist I was. I may be wrong about that. No on second thought, I’m not.
And that is the real world isn’t it? Listening to my bishops on what is non negotiable in the voting booth, living as the best Catholic I can be, etc.
Of course you’re not reading any of this since you’ve bid us adieu once again. I’m certain your busy dealing with another timely piece about a movie that hasn’t been in the theaters for years. Maybe you could review “We’re no Angels” .
Gosh Patrick, I very much feel like a relatively unimportant chick flick. You’ve jumped all over one point while ignoring the larger picture.
You jump all over Cam and myself (and yes being called a fool, compared to a pig, etc. is insulting) while missing the larger point brought to the table. Bush is a moderate who has appealed to the conservatives of his party. Now that he has nothing to run for, his first nomination is a moderate one. That could be telling for future actions.
You’re wrong that he has consistently nominated pro-life judges. And I can’t believe you would make such a ridiculous statement on this particular thread. Who do you think endorsed Gonzalez as a judge in Texas?
Interesting how you state no facts but bad attempts at pithy comments. The only facts that you pull up are the 27 links posted in your triple posting (yes you’ve double posted under one name punkin) yet you offer nothing intelligent to suggest you’ve read any of them.
You suggest that I should be ashamed of myself to criticize Bush’s nomination because I didn’t vote for him? It doesn’t work that way. If I vote, I get to voice my opinion. You think that it was diabolical of me to vote third party (Again you are a member of a former third party) ? Well here’s the deal Patrick, when I die, I don’t think I will be judged by how good a pragmatist I was. I may be wrong about that. No on second thought, I’m not.
And that is the real world isn’t it? Listening to my bishops on what is non negotiable in the voting booth, living as the best Catholic I can be, etc.
Of course you’re not reading any of this since you’ve bid us adieu once again. I’m certain your busy dealing with another timely piece about a movie that hasn’t been in the theaters for years. Maybe you could review “We’re no Angels” .
Dom,
I cannot believe that you are arguing for abortions. This is simply amazing. You’re telling me that you will settle. You are telling me that it is ok for there to be abortions in this country with the hope that someday there might be a change in legislation.
Dom, that is crazy talk. That is also directly contrary to the CCC. As a Catholic, you are bound to it. We are called to be pro-life 100%.
As far as legislation goes, it does fall short. And it is a matter of compromise. And that is sad. Why do we need to allow abortion at all? Oh yeah, to pander to the will of the people. Again, this being American first and being Godly second.
So, let me ask you Dom, what is more important, being an American (Republican) or being Catholic? Which will save your soul?
Being pro-life is non-negotiable. As for your “law issue” here is a link that says it better than I can. (I still can’t believe I am having this conversation with you.)
http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/02-09-18evangeliumvitae73.htm
As for your hypothetical….it is ludicrous. If one does not support life 100% then yes, he is pro-choice. If he denies one precept of the sanctity of life he is not pro-life. It is that simple. We are bound to follow the precept that everyone has a right to life, if they are not afforded that then it is unjust.
This should help another link.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/appleargument.htm
Cam
Dom,
I cannot believe that you are arguing for abortions. This is simply amazing. You’re telling me that you will settle. You are telling me that it is ok for there to be abortions in this country with the hope that someday there might be a change in legislation.
Dom, that is crazy talk. That is also directly contrary to the CCC. As a Catholic, you are bound to it. We are called to be pro-life 100%.
As far as legislation goes, it does fall short. And it is a matter of compromise. And that is sad. Why do we need to allow abortion at all? Oh yeah, to pander to the will of the people. Again, this being American first and being Godly second.
So, let me ask you Dom, what is more important, being an American (Republican) or being Catholic? Which will save your soul?
Being pro-life is non-negotiable. As for your “law issue” here is a link that says it better than I can. (I still can’t believe I am having this conversation with you.)
http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/02-09-18evangeliumvitae73.htm
As for your hypothetical….it is ludicrous. If one does not support life 100% then yes, he is pro-choice. If he denies one precept of the sanctity of life he is not pro-life. It is that simple. We are bound to follow the precept that everyone has a right to life, if they are not afforded that then it is unjust.
This should help another link.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/appleargument.htm
Cam
Gonzo wrote an opinion against parental notification when 13 year olds want abortions….this seals it: He’s pro-abortion and probably Catholic.
Gonzo wrote an opinion against parental notification when 13 year olds want abortions….this seals it: He’s pro-abortion and probably Catholic.
Cam,
Next time you’re surfing thru the excellent Priests For Life website, check out their page titled “The President Speaks Up For Life”, which opens with the words: “America has not always enjoyed leaders who speak about the right to life of the unborn child. At the present moment of history, however, we do have such a President.”
http://www.priestsforlife.org/news/presidentlife.htm
They also link to the “Pro-Life President” website: http://www.ProLifePresident.com/”
Looks like Priests For Life fail to measure up to your test of linguistic absolutism. I wonder if there is anyone in this fallen world who could pass your purity test?
Cam,
Next time you’re surfing thru the excellent Priests For Life website, check out their page titled “The President Speaks Up For Life”, which opens with the words: “America has not always enjoyed leaders who speak about the right to life of the unborn child. At the present moment of history, however, we do have such a President.”
http://www.priestsforlife.org/news/presidentlife.htm
They also link to the “Pro-Life President” website: http://www.ProLifePresident.com/”
Looks like Priests For Life fail to measure up to your test of linguistic absolutism. I wonder if there is anyone in this fallen world who could pass your purity test?
I cannot believe that you are arguing for abortions.” argument that he is a good Catholic.
2. I truly believe that if we were having this same discussion about a bishop who advocated for the exemptions, there wouldn’t be a soul on this thread calling him pro-life. Hey I could be wrong.
The more that comes out about Gonzalez, the more concerned I get. Adding more fuel to the fire, Gonzalez wrote 57 briefs for then Governor Bush about the death row inmates requests for clemency. The information coming out suggests that he repeatedly failed to apprise Bush of the salient issues on each case.
And Thomas brings up an interesting point. Is Gonzalez Catholic? Anybody know? If so,Balestreiri has another heresy suit to file.
I cannot believe that you are arguing for abortions.blanket statement that Bush cannot be at considered pro-life because he posits a legislative exemption.
And, yes, Kerry does have the right to call himself Catholic, because he received the sacraments of initiation in the Church. Is he a “good” Catholic? No. But he is a Catholic.
In the same way, is Bush a “pure” pro-lifers? No. Is he at all pro-life? Yes.
And once again, I don’t think Bush believes that abortion is “ok” in cases of rape and incest, but that it is the most a politician can reasonably expect the people of the United States to support.
Oh and Cam, I never said I was Republican. I resent your snide implication that I place politics before my faith. I suggest you all read what I wrote more carefully. Until you do, I have nothing more to say.
Wading in against my better judgment …
I’m not sure Camilam grasped the first link on his last note (the discussion of Evangelium Vitae 73, which at face value makes stances like Bush’s perfectly acceptable as a concession to political reality). Yes, Mr. Luno rebuts what Dom said at face value, but since Dom was putting forth a reduction ad absurdum that he obviously doesn’t believe, this wasn’t the most-wise citation. The article pretty much says that imperfectly pro-life laws are fine under some circumstances.
Since I guess I’m “Pro-Choice By Camilam’s Definition” (since I acknowledge political reality), I suppose it’s relevant that I found nothing in it with which I disagree. Nor did I see anything in it which denies that one can accept an imperfect law as a way station, including a law that depenalizes some specified abortions (he does not deal with rape and incest exceptions specifically). The article was primarily concerned with defending EV73 as not being an example of proportionalist or consequentialist reasoning.
Under the three scenarios, it even has this highlighted in boldface under #1:
“If the proposal for repeal is aimed at obtaining the most protection for unborn human life which hic et nunc can be obtained, then it is clear that the object of their act is the defense of human life and the limitation of the evil here and now possible, without implying any necessary approval or responsibility for what cannot be prevented.”
In scenario #2, the writer is more equivocal, but is primarily concerned with avoiding the false inference of sectarianism (abortion is a “Catholic thing” like the Assumption, rather than a denial of human rights … this is presumably not an issue when discussing a Protestant lawmaker). It leaves the door open for the law to be silent on “life of the mother” cases. But in any event, it still has this bold-faced passage:
“I believe, in light of what has been said above, that it would be morally licit to propose a new law on abortion, which is more restrictive than the one currently in force, but which depenalizes some cases of abortion, but only if three conditions are simultaneously present (1) those given in Evangelium vitae 73 [see above, n. 4]; (2) the promotion of the new law permits the obtaining of the greatest protection for human life which here and now, after evaluating all the circumstances, is possible; (3) it would not be possible to arrive at an analogous level of protection of human life through a simple repeal.”
And scenario #3 is clearly inapplicable to the American status quo.
So a Professor of Moral Theology at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome is “Pro-Choice By Camilam’s Definition.” As are L’Osservatore Romano and Priests for Life (for disseminating this pro-choice propaganda). Nice company.
Holy Cow….this has been blown totally out of proportion.
Dom makes the statement, “Ithis job to support admin positions. If Bush tells him he’s got to oppose euthanasia laws, then he’s going to have to do it, or resign.