DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay,

With all do respect Jay, I’ve avoided this web log for a while and have observed how unfortunately (I suppose as November approaches), your position regarding this coming election has vividly become a simple “one-issue” election. This particular new thread bears it out. Not only have all but one of the original “five” big issues been pushed aside for one, you have – to my observation – reduced the important decision persons “should” make this coming November to be measurable by a litmus test of a single question…which candidate is (more) pro-life than the other?

Your defense of George Bush as unassailable regarding the issue of abortion reflects the very political naiveté that Bush wishes to capitalize on. Moreover, the processes and procedures of partisan politics have been ignored all for a well nigh synthetic band-aid that you hope (no guarantees by any means even if Bush wins!) might be placed on the issue of abortion with a Bush victory. Your evolved position also suggests a relatively truncated understanding of what in fact, constitutes a “Culture of Life.”

You might argue that a Bush victory will mean “less” death by abortion. Another might respond to you that Bush’s foreign military and global economic policies result in millions of deaths as well, to which you will no doubt respond “Well, at least they had a chance to love God and experience God’s love.” In turn, someone might suggest to you that you dare not utter that (if you could) to a child whose one and a half years of life on this earth was marked by severe hunger, pain, want, and every other malady one might imagine. “What chance did I have?” such a child might wonder. I suggest that such an opinion (“at least they have a chance…”) is a common one among many wealthy, comfortable North American Christians who have experienced God’s love, but HAVE NOT experienced abject poverty, pain, and starvation.

As our Catholic Bishops suggest to us, the question we must ask as faithful Catholics regarding this election is who is guaranteed or being denied a place at the table of Life – and so vote as our faith-full conscience dictates. They are not reducing the election to a single issue.

Peace!

Jack,
In my mind, your argument is a clear example of moral relativism. You equate other issues as if they are equal to or somehow make up for the abortion issue. I guess my question would be: If Hitler took care of the poor, didn't attack other countries, etc, but only killed the Jews, would you consider voting for him? If not, you've made it a "one issue" election. Could you vote for a pro-lifer who offered peace and a good economy, but wanted slavery to be legalized?

There are some issues so serious they force us to focus in on them. These issues can be overcome by other, significantly large problems, but not by side issues that we as Catholics are allowed to dissent on (e.g. the death penalty, war, etc). These issues can't be reduced in their importance simply because we don't want a "one issue" election.

Secondarily, I believe abortion carries graver concerns. A person who supports abortion cannot be trusted to uphold justice, or care for the poor, or even prevent war. The pro-abortion stance, in fact, provides us with a clear signal that the person is already corrupted and should not be given the opportunity to take office.

I understand you have issues with Bush, but they aren't strictly religious issues. Bush is pro-life (for a protestant), pro-family (anti-gay marriage), anti-euthansia, against stem cell research, against human cloning, etc. This isn't a "single issue" unless you roll all of the "life" issues together. Basically, you're also upset about one issue: the War in Iraq.

So, to sum it up: I politely disagree that abortion can be reduced to the level of other issues. I also disagree with the notion that I am pushing a "one issue" vote. In fact, I believe exactly the opposite: pro-lifers against Bush are either anti-Republican in general or simply anti-War in Iraq (both are single issues).

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Wow I shutter to think what four years of Gore would have been like?

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

I blogged on George Bush's Pro-Life Record myself a while back, with a quote from Gloria Steinheim that I found compelling (""To my knowledge, there has never been an administration that has been more hostile ... to reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right, and has acted on that hostility").

On the topic of the 'single-issue' voter, Bishop John J. Myers of Peoria, IL had this to say regarding Bill Clinton's election:

"he human person, created in the image of God, has a whole spectrum of rights. All of these rights must be respected. But none is more fundamental than the right to life. Certainly, when one engages in political activity or votes for candidates for office, it makes a great deal of sense to have this one over-riding right be a fundamental factor in making one's judgment. Not only is it permissible, it may be a solemn responsibility to be a "single issue voter." We simply cannot allow our country to continue down the road to becoming a "culture of death."

It defies right reason for anyone to promote abortion, euthanasia, suicide or assisted to suicide. Certainly, it is important to recall that Catholics who endorse such legislation or who back politicians who do so are being radically inconsistent with their faith. Not only are they harming our society., but also they are harming their own faith. It is imperative that they change. We must invite them to choose life and to defend life."

Jay, I respond [[in brackets]] to your points in turn below”

------------------------------------
In my mind, your argument is a clear example of moral relativism. You equate other issues as if they are equal to or somehow make up for the abortion issue.

[[I do not look at each issue possible, hold it up against abortion, and make a decision for one or the other. But what I do consider is the total picture – the many other issues that impact “Life” and the growth (or not) of a culture of Life. Bush’s administration fails miserably.]]

I guess my question would be: If Hitler took care of the poor, didn't attack other countries, etc, but only killed the Jews, would you consider voting for him? If not, you've made it a "one issue" election. Could you vote for a pro-lifer who offered peace and a good economy, but wanted slavery to be legalized?

[[I can only respond to this with another question: If Bush procured policies that result in the deaths of millions of children year-in-year-out by starvation, that ensured third world countries remain in a state of under-development WITHOUT U.S. assistance (and so economic/cultural colonialism), that ensured the continued exploitation & destruction of the environment (the source of air, food, and water) but attempted to make abortion illegal in the U.S. (accept in cases of incest and rape), would you vote for him? I know that your answer is yes! And it is NOT based on the same criteria our US Bishops have instructed the faithful to utilize in order to come to a decision. Our Bishop’s have a wholistic eye toward the Culture of Life, while your perspective reduces it to a singularity…again, a luxury that wealthy North Americans enjoy.

I am truly thankful that our Bishops are choosing to tackle this important electoral decision the hard way, which is – I think – the only legitimate way, i.e. by NOT reducing it to such a singularity. “Who is being denied a place at the table of Life?” This is their driving question, and they make no attempts to answer it simplistically.]]

There are some issues so serious they force us to focus in on them.

[[Indeed, this is true. There are as well, issues that are as subtle in character as they are deathly in nature, so that they escape our notice all too easily (our Bishops know this!).]]

These issues can be overcome by other, significantly large problems, but not by side issues that we as Catholics are allowed to dissent on (e.g. the death penalty, war, etc). These issues can't be reduced in their importance simply because we don't want a "one issue" election.

Secondarily, I believe abortion carries graver concerns. A person who supports abortion cannot be trusted to uphold justice, or care for the poor, or even prevent war. The pro-abortion stance, in fact, provides us with a clear signal that the person is already corrupted and should not be given the opportunity to take office.

[[Likewise, my perspective on Bush is that his partial-pro-life stance is nothing more than a political ploy to garner votes from “conservative” Christians as well as some Catholics who remain undecided. This is anything but honest, and indicates to me – coupled with his deathly foreign military/economic agenda – a thoroughly corrupted individual, like Kerry – but for different reasons.]]

I understand you have issues with Bush, but they aren't strictly religious issues. Bush is pro-life (for a protestant), pro-family (anti-gay marriage), anti-euthansia, against stem cell research, against human cloning, etc. This isn't a "single issue" unless you roll all of the "life" issues together. Basically, you're also upset about one issue: the War in Iraq.
[[I’ve made no mention at all about the War with Iraq. Be careful not to lump me in too easily with “the other side” Jay.]]

So, to sum it up: I politely disagree that abortion can be reduced to the level of other issues. I also disagree with the notion that I am pushing a "one issue" vote. In fact, I believe exactly the opposite: pro-lifers against Bush are either anti-Republican in general or simply anti-War in Iraq (both are single issues).

[[First, being Republican or not does not constitute an issue. It does constitute a political inclination though. I am personally not anti-Republican. Many “Republican” perspectives are laudable – as are many “Democratic”, and yes! Therein lies a portion of the rub.

Second, as a Catholic Christian, I struggle to make sense of the issues, guided by the teachings of the Church, and with an ear inclined toward the instructions offered by our US Bishops (the USCCB). I am concerned only with the securing of a thoroughgoing Culture of Life, wholistic in nature, and NOT with partisan politics as you suggest. How I, as guided by a faithful conscience, think it is best to go about seeing this through may be – and in fact, can be different than how you think Jay.]]

[[Blessings!]]

George W. Bush:
"As a matter of fact, I think a noble goal for this country is that every child, born and unborn, ought to be protected in law and welcomed into life." (Presidential Debate, Oct. 3, 2000; Boston, MA.)

How does Bush utter this, and then make exceptions for rape and incest, if not for the sole purpose of ensuring as nearly as possible a victory at the ballot box??

Why does an unborn child conceived by a rape not deserve to be "protected in law and welcomed into life"???

Just two questions I wish someone would ask Bush. We'd either be served a load of philosophical twaddle, or the truth that the bottom line is victory in the polls.

For all the anti-Bush, pro Kerry fans, I have some questions, not necessarily concerning Abortion.(Although I will get to it) How have we, as Americans, fallen so far away from the Judeo-Christian ethics that our country is Founded on. Even Sacred Scripture makes it clear there is a "Time For Peace, and A Time for War" because Bush has involved us in The Iraq War, does not mean he is not pro life.I remind you that The Holy Father may not support Troops in Iraq, but he is only infallible in matters of DOGMA! Also Bush's stance on the death penalty does not make him Anti Life, for example: I am pro life, however if you come into my house shooting at my Family and have the means to kill you, Your a dead man! Does that make me Pro Choice? A man convicted of 12 counts of murder all of the sudden can be seen in the same light as an unborn baby, I dont think so! Abortion is used for victims of rape or Incest less than 7 percent of the time, however over 100,000 abortions occur a year to women who have had 3- or four previous abortions. 57 million HUMAN LIVES, have been taken by abortion since 1975. Less than 1500 Lives have been taken by war since the end of vietnam, you tell me Where is the justice?
You want to make this a multiple-issue election, how about the fact that Kerry voted in support the War, and then voted against funding for it. Does that make you feel comfortable voting for him, that he promotes sending men without Flack Jackets, or enough Ammunition. At the very least Bush has remained steadfast, while you mock and spit at him. I remind you, it was less than a year ago, women and children were being tortured and raped in the streets by their own Government. How about the fact that John Kerry, along with Ted Kennedy, and most Catholics in Politics are Lunch Line Catholics, they pick and choose what they want to believe to receive the highest polls. Im sorry but banning Partial birth abortion, referencing Scripture in Congress, attempting to re-kindle and ensure the Sanctity of Marriage between a man and a woman, discrediting Affirmitave action, and condemning stem cell research and cloning,are not ways to gain popularity, they are clearly ways to Re-Christinize The U.S. A qucik point, something has happened to the meaning of Christian Charity, it has been replaced with Tolerance, there is a huge difference between those two words!
If you would like to know whats really going on in Iraq, talk to someone who is there! You'll find that 95% of the time, Our soldiers are called Heroes,and thanked for their service. I tell you, an extremely Liberal Media, is trying to swing the Vote, because, yes somewhere behind "Queer Eye" and "Farenheit 9-11" Satan is lurking, and feasting on the Millions who fall hook line, and Sinker into dangerous culture of death our world has become! And It all comes down to Money, Who has it, who wants it, what are you willing to do for it.
Catholics need to learn to take the offensive. If there was a show called "Straight is Great" or "Choose Life" The producers actors and viewers would be painted as biggots, Yet when a man or womans decision to remain chaste until Marriage comes under fire(Im Nineteen and still a virgin, It Happens!), no one lifts a finger or raises their voice.
Did you know that when Bush was in Texas as Governer, he passed Legislation stating that in any school Private Or Public, Sexual Education must be based on abstinence until Marriage, and that It is illegal for a teacher or anyone affiliated with the school to distrubute any form birth control or contraceptive or give information about where to access it! Women have the right to choose, only once, that is in the Bedroom! Instead of Birth Control, women and men must exhibit SELF Control! On the opposite end of the Country, In my home-state of Maine, Legislation has been passed that if a foster child is confused about his or her sexuality, he or she is to be placed with homosexual pair foster parents!Yet im certain that if Catholic Charities in Maine attempted to retreive and educate this child, it would be brainwashing and unhealthy for the child.
Bush, Mel Gibson, Jim Caviezel and many other's attempts to Re-Christianize America, are not for money or PR, They are Career Enders, quoting scripture in congress and on National Television is not a PR Stunt. It is truly an act of heroism and courage. "All that is necessary for the Triumph is that Good Men, do nothing"

Pax et Bonam.
Patrick

Jay,
Great article! Thank you for posting it, thank you for the link so that we can see truth for ourselves. I pray for our country, that President Bush is allowed to sit another term as well.

Patrick,
Good for you and may God bless and keep you! I loathe reality tv shows, but I would learn how to work the VCR to tape one if "Straight is Great" was created!

Jack,
As Catholics, we MUST protect life. Period.
In this election, we have two men: Kerry, who has been clearly wishy-washy on the issue of life and our President Bush who has repeatedly protected life. I don't beleive that this is the only issue, but is not true that all things begin with life? What in the world is more important than human life, it is the first issue, not the only issue. If a politician, like John Kerry, cannot remain true to the faith that he proclaims then what in the world can he remain true to? Maybe I am simple minded, but it is just that simple to me.

Do I understand your comments to imply that some of our Catholic Bishops have suggested we ignore the issue of life when electing our next President? Truthfully, my decision to support life is not based on our Bishops (though I think my oppinion follows their's), my decision is based on God, the One who creates life.

Again, there are many issues but LIFE is the most important one. How can you argue that as a Christian and a Catholic?

Krista, I respond to your points/questions in turn below, and in [[brackets]].
____________________________________________________

As Catholics, we MUST protect life. Period.
In this election, we have two men: Kerry, who has been clearly wishy-washy on the issue of life and our President Bush who has repeatedly protected life. I don't beleive that this is the only issue, but is not true that all things begin with life? What in the world is more important than human life, it is the first issue, not the only issue. If a politician, like John Kerry, cannot remain true to the faith that he proclaims then what in the world can he remain true to? Maybe I am simple minded, but it is just that simple to me.

[[You are not simple minded! But you may not understand that I do not consider Kerry to be any more acceptable than Bush. I believe they are both unacceptable for the office.

Yes, indeed, we Catholics must protect Life! All things begin with life, yes! THE question is how do we best protect Life & move toward building a Culture of Life, both in this country and world. Do not think that simply because I mention, say, the issue of the environment that I’ve taken my eyes off of the issue of Life! The health of the planet is directly related to the LIFE of us humans. But we North Americans are presently the last to feel the devastating/deathly affects of a devastated environment since we are on top of the global-economic “food” chain. The folks at the bottom, that is, our Third World neighbors, experience death & dying first hand as a result of the destruction of the environment, often (but not always) because of the creation of economic monocultures that serve the U.S. consumer. Indeed, even their unborn children experience this death when they are naturally aborted because of malnutrition, or when they die in their mother’s womb because of a mud-slide caused by over-cutting of upland forests to serve the needs of our timber industry, etc.
The proliferation of the Culture of Life is an intricate enterprise since it must tackle a considerably intricate culture of death.]]

Do I understand your comments to imply that some of our Catholic Bishops have suggested we ignore the issue of life when electing our next President? Truthfully, my decision to support life is not based on our Bishops (though I think my oppinion follows their's), my decision is based on God, the One who creates life.

[[I don’t mean to imply in any way that our Catholic Bishops here in the U.S. ignore the issue of life, nor are they instructing Catholics to ignore it. What is clear is that the USCCB refuses to narrow the election down to a single issue, namely, abortion. Why? I suspect because they are aware of the intricacies of the problem that the Culture of Death presents us as Catholic Christians, AND because they are not in the least bit naïve about what is involved with the sickly partisan politics that characterizes this coming election.

Go to this URL to read the document that our Bishops have released for the faithful as a guide for this election.

http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/pdf/brochure.pdf

Here is the URL to the introductory page at the USCCB website too.

http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/introduction.html

I think we Catholics will be better served by the guidance of the USCCB rather than the guidance of say, EWTN.com, or something of the kind.]]

Again, there are many issues but LIFE is the most important one. How can you argue that as a Christian and a Catholic?

[[We agree Krista! What folks – especially comfortable North Americans like ME – fail to recognize often is that many of the other issues ultimately have to do with that very thing…LIFE!

I hope you might realize Krista that I am an advocate of the Culture of Life, which includes being actively pro-Life/anti-abortion. That said, the Bush administration is, to my mind, so negligent with respect to the totality of the other issues that directly promote/maintain the Culture of Death over-against LIFE, that I cannot presently in good conscience render a vote for him. Kerry is of course, an easy "No way". This is where I stand at the moment.]]

[[Grace and Peace]]

Jack,
Well, I'm grateful for the clarification that you brought. If I could make one suggestion, respectfully: There is no need to copy and paste what you are responding to, just respond to it. I think everyone will follow along. If someone is confused, they can scroll up to the last comment and re-read it. Sometimes, the dialogue gets so long and drawn out that I think it can seem overwhelming to others reading the dialogue. I've certainly felt that way in the past. Then both of our efforts are lost, right?

As for your "tree hugging"... :) (I'm just joking, I'm a tree hugger myself!) I agree that we should respect Mother Earth, but Mother Mary is my first devotion. Clearly we disagree on this point. I can go to Africa and feed the hungry myself or help them plow the land, but I cannot pass a law that bans abortion... my President can.

I'm thankful that you aren't supporting Kerry, I was afraid that you were by your anti-Bush sentiments. But, Jack, the fact is that we have only two choices in this election, Bush or Kerry. If you don't vote for either, everyone else will still vote for their pick of the litter, and in the end, what have you accomplished? It is your American right not to vote, but I feel like we each have a moral obligation to pick the best, if all else fails, the best of the worse. Personally, I don't think George Bush is at all the best of the worse. I'm not saying he's a saint, but I think he's a wonderful President. That is my oppinion.

Of all the politicians, there are few who are brave enough to run a Pro-Life campaign. Those who do aren't given an easy ride or a free ticket, I think their campaign is more difficult because of that decision, sadly.

On election day, I pray we all make a prayerful decision. Every vote will count, but your voice is muted if you do not vote at all.

In Christ,
Krista

A appreciate your reply Krista, and respect your opinion regarding Bush even though I cannot share it with you.

Regarding my devotion to Mother Earth (I am phrasing it that way, you have not :-)): Such devotion is not devotion as such, but a recognition of our call to wise stewardship of the Earth (in biblical parlance, “the Land”). Our responsibility to Lord it over the Land with the same wisdom, justice, and mercy that Christ lords over us, is writ loud and clear in the creation narratives. Indeed, our human sinfulness illustrated in the account of the Fall, results DIRECTLY in the spoiling of the Land, the creatures therein, and humans’ relationship to it and them.

As Paul said, the creation waits with eager longing (hope-fully) for the revealing of the children of God – until then, it is groaning in agony – an agony that directly affects human Life!!

With respect to Bush’s environmental policies, it is hard to even imagine the emergence of such hope-full longing among God’s children, but very easy to presently witness the agony.

But the destruction of the environment is only one side (one angle!) of the multi-faceted face of the culture of death.

Rest assured that I will stand before/in a voting machine on election day Krista. What I do there will be guided by my conscience – prayerful, obedient, and guided by the Holy Spirit and the teachings of the Church. I can only pray for complete surrender to the Spirit of God at that point. Right now, as I see it, I simply cannot render a vote for either of the two front runners – and I likewise, simply do not buy the argument that unless I vote for one of them, my vote is wasted.

Grace and peace to you!

Jack,

(Thanks for taking heed my suggestion for response, very good of you.)

I'm just not good at that whole "agree to disagree" thing, I think it's such a cop out. Though I am not a very good debater either, I must ask you this: While I totally agree in saving the trees, do you think it's more important than saving a human life that will be ripped from his/her mother's womb? While I think I understand you are saying that we cannot survive without our enviroment, my point still is that in comparison to one human life, what is a rain forest? While both are beautiful works of God that deserve defending, there is no limit to what I'd do to protect my child... but even a forest of trees, yes I have limits.

Again, not that it's any of my business, but I'm glad to know that you intend to vote because your previous statements implied the opposite. I don't think I wrote that your vote was wasted if you don't vote for Bush or Kerry (personally though, I do think your vote is wasted if you vote for Kerry), I meant that your voice cannot be heard if you do not vote at all. I think we all should enter the voting booth prayerfully, as you suggest.

God Bless and grant you peace as well,

Krista

Hi Krista,
I do not like “agreeing to disagree” either, esp. if used to avoid the conversation. I am simply calling it like it is, i.e., we disagree. Your choice of the word “debate” (“I am not a very good debater”) is interesting too. Conversation about important issues is far too often reduced to “debate” – where the intent is to one-up the other at worse, or at best to convince the other of another way of thinking, granted that way is a Truth-full way. I think that it is a better path to try and understand the other, and really listen to the other – trying to understand why the other thinks the way s/he does. Usually, debates involve merely hearing (reading) without understanding because we’re too busy constructing a rebuff – and without even understanding!!! But this only reflects my frustration with apologetics.

You and I agree in “saving the trees,” but what I mean by that may be different from your meaning. What I mean by “saving the trees” is not with an eye toward saving the trees as such, but with an eye toward faithful stewardship of “the Garden”, if you will, because God gave us the Garden to be our material source of Life. Destroy the Garden, then the possibility of Life is destroyed as well. I agree that the saving of a human life (“ripped from the womb”) is a more important venture than saving a stand of trees, as such, in a South American rain forest. But these are not the choices before us!

Rather, the way I understand it, is that abortion is an intrinsic evil that is a symptom of the Culture of Death. There are many other symptoms of this deathly culture that if individually compared to abortion, are not nearly as “important.” But if one truly has an eye toward moving away from a Culture of Death toward a Culture of Life, the entirety of the symptoms must be considered – and not each individually vis-à-vis abortion.

This is simply a classic problem faced by human beings because of the broken-ness of the creation. Sure, we could pour all of our resources into halting abortion in the U.S. and even world wide, but if while we do that, we effectively ignore the many other symptoms of the Culture of Death, then we may find ourselves at death’s door immediately after celebrating our victory over abortion – not to mention continuing to nurture a global economy (on top of which we North Americans sit protected, comfortable, and insatiable!!) that directly results in social, economic, and environmental conditions that kill millions of children – born and un-born – year in and year out in Third World and developing countries.

I am convinced that this is why our Catholic Bishops at the USCCB refuse to reduce the election to the one issue of abortion. They are operating with an eye toward the Culture of Life vs. the Culture of Death, and moving toward the former rather than the latter.

Christ’s peace!

Just to point out once again: if you are voting based on "Culture of Life" issues, this is a clear election. I have a hard time with those who suggest that pro-lifers are simply voting based on abortion: Bush is a better choice than Kerry on every Life issue: abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, and human cloning. (Remember, Catholics are allowed to support the death penalty - it cannot be equated to these issues, but even so both candidates support it).

Take another look at this chart detailing the candidate's positions on "Catholic" issues. Far from being a one-issue race, you can pick your critical issue and the vote remains the same.

God bless,
Jay

By the way, Kerry said the other day he would have gone into Iraq as well.

Jay,

Sure, George Bush comes through with flying colors on your list of “big five” issues – this is a duplicate of the list (“Voter’s Guide”) found at the EWTN web site. “Flying colors” accept for his strange negotiated position on abortion.

Jay, these five are simply NOT the only issues having to do with the proliferation of a Culture of Life.

I suggest that interested Catholics consult the document published by our own Bishops rather than an openly “far-right-of-center” Catholic television network. The document is called “The Challenge of Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility” and is a much more balanced guide for this election – one that deals far more adequately with the intricacy of (ALL) the issues involved regarding the Culture of Life than does EWTN’s voter guide. Here is the URL:

http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/pdf/brochure.pdf

Bush’s positions on the “big five” issues does little to camouflage (though I am convinced he is counting on just such a ruse) the toxic policies he promotes regarding nearly every other issue relevant to the emergence of a Culture of Life. We should all be very careful not so easily “name” the demons, since after doing so we may indeed, become so complacent in our own self-assuredness, that we allow death to step in behind us. This is always the problem with political (ultra?) conservativism. That said, I am well aware of the problems of political (ultra?) liberalism too.

Grace and Peace!

Nice dialogue, especially JACK! How refreshing to find someone with a wholistic view of Life issues and political responsibility. Now I must ask, is there a candidate worthy of our vote? Is there anyone who will work to reduce abortions AND work to close the ever-widening gap between rich and poor, work to reduce toxins emitted into the environment, act responsibly in the global arena, etc.?

BTW, I was a virgin until I married at age 32. I knew I was really in the minority when my doctor acted extremely surprised at my physical state. :) The poor doc assumed I was abused as a child and avoided men for that reason or something! BUT---I know that not everyone is gifted with a strong will. Which is why we must focus our efforts and our political alignments on fostering a culture of self-respect and dignity among young people. We must combat the culture of peer pressure that dominates kids' lives, and the only way to do that I believe is to allow parents to have time to stay in touch with their kids, instead of working two jobs to make ends meet. My family is very fortunate to be able to get by on one income, so that one parent can stay home with the kids. But that is not the case for the working poor, many of whom are single parents. One way to prevent future abortions would be to vote for candidates who would fund quality educational programs for kids--not just abstinence programs for teens, by then it's too late. Young children need to be taught that they are valuable, that they have dignity, that they can do better than to give in to peer pressures of various kinds. If there are any opportunities to foster better parent-child releationships, especially for the working poor, that would get my vote. I have yet to see a candidate either nationally or locally in my area that has proposed anything quite like this, so I'm throwing it out there, and for now voting primarily on social & economic justice issues.

when he ran in 1978 bush was pro-choice...

The Avalanche-Journal reported: "Bush said he opposes the pro-life amendment favored by Reese and favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question. 'That does not mean I'm for abortion,' he said."

http://slate.msn.com/id/1005555/

Kim,
When Gore first ran he was avidly pro-life. What matters more, the old history or current situations? I think it matters more that Bush is unequivocably pro-life now.

God bless,
Jay

Post a comment