Letters to the Editor

You can’t use pope to excuse Obama vote

Tue, 09/02/2008 - 3:27pm
By: Letters to the ...

It is true, as Robert Clark pointed out in the Aug. 27 issue of The Citizen, that the former Cardinal Ratzinger was quoted saying that voting for a “pro-choice” candidate was “permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons (though it should be noted that he wasn’t specifically speaking about John Kerry, this quote is from a 2003 Vatican memorandum entitled Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles).”

The question is whether or not “proportionate reasons” exist when it comes to voting for Barack Obama.

I’m sure that Mr. Clark will agree with me and the Catholic Church on the Catholic doctrine that abortion is murder. So what the question of “proportionate reasons” really comes down to is this: are a better economy and the end of the Iraq war worth the continued destruction of about a million innocent lives each year?

Should the promise of change lead us to vote for a man who opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which would legally protect infants who came out of their mother’s womb alive after surviving an abortion?

Given the fact that we have a pro-life candidate available, should we vote a man into office who says that the question of when life begins is “above his pay grade?”

The simple answer to these questions is no. The Catholic priest Fr. Frank Pavone discusses the possible results of this election in an article entitled “Elections Have Consequences,” which can be found on his website www.priestsforlife.org.

According to this article (which I would recommend to all who are pro-life, not just Catholics) the two Supreme Court justices who are most likely to retire in the next four years are both pro-abortion, meaning that our next president will have the chance to replace them with pro-life justices.

This will not happen if Barack Obama becomes President. Everyone who claims to oppose abortion should think carefully about that before voting in November.

Ethan Milukas

Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Pro Abortion vs Pro Choice
Submitted by Mrs. Richard Harper on Mon, 09/08/2008 - 10:39am.

I think you need to understand the difference between the two Mr. Ethan Milukas. Just because you are Pro Choice does NOT mean you are for abortion. I have been raised all my life as a devout Catholic and I don't agree with abortion but I also do not agree that a male like you, can or will tell me what I can do with my body.

Abortion has long lasting, lingering pain for those that choose this. You have never had to walk in their shoes!

People like yourself will vote for a candidate based on this one issue. You are voting with blinders on. If all the issues were put up line for line, you would realize that a vote for McCain is just the same. Remember, Sen McCain is a Maverick, and you have no idea how he will vote when it actually comes down to it! He has reversed his issues many times. My bet is - if his youngest daughter was raped, he would flip flop in a second.

It is sad to see so many narrow minded people in this county. When I vote this November, I will have researched ALL the issues and will be more informed as a woman, as a mother, as a grandmother and my vote will be for the person that can make my country a better place in this world. There are many important issues on the table not just one!

login to post comments
Mrs. Richard Harper: Abortion
muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 7:04am.

I won't re-enter the abortion debate here.

But I cannot resist comment on two points that Mrs. Richard Harper offers in her reply to Milukas.

(1) I also do not agree that a male like you, can or will tell me what I can do with my body.

Abortion has long lasting, lingering pain for those that choose this. You have never had to walk in their shoes!

This suggests that having the proper anatomical equipment is necessary for assessing the abortion debate. I find myself wondering how otherwise bright people can suppose this to be true. The human body comes equipped with a variety of organs, each with a different function. Hearts pump blood, lungs take in gases. The function of reproductive organs is, well, to reproduce. I have not seen that they play a role in the rational assessment of anything.

Whether it is true that the unborn have rights that are unjustifiably violated by abortion is determined only by careful thought about the nature of personhood plus a set of issues of normative ethics--issues that are quite indifferent to the gender of those who would engage in debate and assessment.

Besides, the argument, bad as it is, is commonly employed in a one-sided way. After all, if males are unequipped to assess the abortion issue, then, of course, they have no business taking a pro-choice stance. Shame on Obama!

(2) People like yourself will vote for a candidate based on this one issue. You are voting with blinders on.

Quite frankly, I categorically reject the notion that "single-issue voting" is, by definition, unbecoming of a rational agent. I should think that it depends upon the issue and what other isues are found to be in competition with it.

Unfortunately, no candidate is likely to line up, issue for issue, with a thinking voter's views. And so, one is forced to prioritize.
Voting for a pro-life candidate who also has, say, a bad track record on the environment might amount to what Aristotle calls a "mixed voluntary action"--as when a sea captain throws the cargo overboard in order to save the ship.

To assume that there is something narrow or irrational about regarding the abortion issue as paramount begs the question against the pro-lifer and underestimates the significance of the issue as seen from that perspective.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue


login to post comments
Abortion Has Long Lasting Consequences
Submitted by Daniel Malneritch on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 10:46pm.

One is either for life or against it. There is no middle ground. By being “pro-choice” you are inviting murder to take place.

The problem with the argument about someone telling you what to do with your body is that an unborn child is NOT your body. A woman does not have two different blood types and two different heartbeats (or for that matter four arms and legs and two brains).

The other issues typically affect the near future and will not affect this country so much in the long run. For instance, we have seen the economy in the past century go through good times and bad times. It changes at the drop of a hat. The abortion issue is long-term.

There are very few issues even when all added up that can ever be more important than abortion. Aside from the fact that abortion does indeed take an innocent human life, it also reduces the outlook that our society has on the dignity of all humans, regardless of age. It starts with the unborn being looked upon as not human. Then people will begin to loose respect for the life of those outside the womb. Those who are handicapped or afflicted with a severe medical condition will be looked upon as a burden, or their life is seen as having no quality. People will then think it best to terminate the life. We can already see this happening especially in other countries. But who are we to decide the “quality of life?”

Once the society looses respect for the unborn - the most innocent of people - what will happen in the future? It’s a downward slope that is easy to go down but not to come back up. Right now, McCain is promising that he is pro-life. Obama is the most anti-life candidate that we have ever seen.

I think we should prayerfully discern our options and think of all the long lasting consequences.

God bless,
Daniel Malneritch

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.