Governments were established to preserve life. I thought it would be fitting to comment on the presidential candidates stance on life today the 35th anniversary of Roe v Wade.
First the Catholic Church states very clearly that life is the most important issue when considering a candidate, not one of many issues. Life is the issue.
Second supporting a culture of life ought to be seen in three different levels: record and rhetoric on life, judicial appointment philosophy, and leadership needed to get results.
Now that Thompson has dropped out of the race the field is leaner. If his supporters gravitate to one candidate this could be a turning point in the primary.
McCain - opposes abortion and has for many years (75% voting record from the National Right to Life), however he supports funding embryonic stem cell research, crafted campaign finance bill that damaged pro-life movement, and filed a friend of court brief against Wisconsin Right to Life, seeMcCain versus Wisconsin Right to Life. See also National Right to Life on McCain (2000), to be fair to McCain here is a defense of his pro-life record by Gerry Bradley.
Romney - opposes abortion and embryonic stem cell research. The greatest problem with Romney is that he has changed from being "pro-choice" to pro-life more recently. He clearly campaigned as a "pro-choicer" in his campaigns but his action seems to be decidedly pro-life. The first life issue to cross his desk caused him to veto funding for embryonic stem cell, and then again he vetoed an over the counter contraception bill. To be sure he did stop the advancement of evil while also expand abstinence funding. Each time he vetoed a bill he went right to the people with an op-ed explaining his rationale and reasoning. Not bad in such a liberal state. Far from perfect but not bad either.
Huckabee - opposes abortion and embryonic stem research. As governor he championed the passage of a number of pro-life laws. I think his pro-life record is quite impressive. See on the issues.
Giuliani - was pro-abortion, is pro-abortion, and promises to be pro-abortion in the future. His words and his record show him to fully support abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
Judges? I find all of the candidates saying similar things when it comes to the appointment of judges, even Giuliani. But obviously those who support abortion on-demand such as Giuliani can not be equally trusted.
Then comes the pro-life leadership question which I think goes clearly first to Huckabee then Romney. McCain has fought the Right to Life and pro-life leaders such as Santorum behind the scenes leaving me very concerned with his "leadership" on this issue, not to mention his role in the gang of 14 holding up judges.
Huckabee and Romney are clearly out in front on the issue of life in the race for president. Now there must be a more thorough look at both of these candidates on the other issues, and then what support for them means in light of the current landscape.
Who is most likely to achieve the most good? Politics is not a theoretical game but a practical reality.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
An ethic of life has to extend beyond simple political issues to a culture of life. If it is only the traditional political issues that we deal with, our thinking will be stuck in the box of reflexive partisanship.
This is a real danger right now. There are two wars going on. Americans are responsible for the killing of innocent life in the broader middle east. Do we ignore this?
We have to confront it. Are the wars in which we are currently engaged justified? There are strong reasons for thinking they are not. Whatever the answer is, we must at least address the issue. We can't assess the candidates on life issues without thinking about it.
Where's Ron Paul on this list? He's the only candidate directly taking on this issue.
Mike Huckabee has singled a willingness to be critical of what could fairly be called a disastrous foreign policy of an ostensibly pro-life president. That should be a point in his favor on the life issues.
As long as pro-lifers are not consistent in their defense of life, they will be rightfully branded meddlers who, more than caring about innocent life, want to impose their views on others.
McCain is not impressive on pro-life nor other values that conservative Catholics hold dear. I am concerned that he is gaining momentum. Romney is certainly better, but I am concerned about his commitment to Mormonism. This makes me question his judgment. I am interested in hearing what other Catholics think about this issue. I like Huckabee the best on pro life matters, but can he win the national election with the media trying so desparately to label him a fundamentalist? I heard his response to a question in a debate about wives submitting to their husbands and he gave a very Catholic sounding answer: he articulated the concept of mutual submission in Christ!
Lafayette: Regarding Ron Paul and his politics of defeatism in Iraq, please consider...would the killing be worse if we left prematurely? Here's what Bernard Lewis, the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University, and the free world's preeminent student and interpreter of Islam, the Ottoman Empire, and the modern Middle East wrote:
"If freedom fails and terror triumphs, the peoples of Islam will be the first and greatest victims...They will not be alone and many others will suffer with them."
Staying the course in Iraq will, I believe, in the long run save lives by promoting democracy and freedom throughout the region.
Amen!
Here's my brief input:
Romney's Mormonism should not be a huge issue for Catholics or anybody else. We're electing a president, not head theologian or bishop. There is no religious litmus test in America, unless that person's religion holds views harmful to American society (like Islam does). I'm a little concerned that his conversion to conservatism is genuine, but we can't know for sure. He's saying the right things and sounds like a true believer.
Huckabee is solidly pro-life. No questions there.
Ron Paul is solidly pro-life, despite certain votes he cast on principle. I'll elaborate more above (later).
McCain has proved good pro-life cred. His support of ESCR doesn't make him not pro-life, in my opinion - it's a position that many reasonable people have come to, and I think he's persuadable on the issue. As for his support of campaign finance reform "that hurt the pro-life movement", let's not labor under the delusion that this makes him less pro-life. His support of the bill was to curb abuses of the political funding system and it harmed ALL special interest groups alike. Don't make it sound like he did it to screw pro-lifers.
"his support of ESCR doesn't make him not pro-life"? So killing a human that is 1 week old is wrong if its mom's choice, but its right if the embryo is going to be used for research? A quick look on NRL's site shows that in 7/06 McCain voted for funding of embryo killing research, and as late as 4/07 he voted for a bill sponsored by Harry Reid that would give fed funds for ESCR- a move that would overturn Bush's current pro-life ban on such funding. McCain's current campaign website sounds prolife and he is NOW saying he is against "the intentional creating of embryos for research purposes". Yea, right. And people say that Romney's conversion to pro-life 3 yrs ago is not sincere? How can you possibly think McCain is.
Oh, and about McCain-Feingold. I do NOT have to make that a pro-life issue to oppose McCain over it. It is a BLATANT restriction of free speech and in McCain's own words has not taken $ out of politics- it has made it worse.
And one more thing (sorry, I just can't seem to stop!)how can you POSSIBLY trust McCain on appointing judges after he led the Gang of 14 to stop a simple Senate rule change to prevent the Dems ridiculous filibustering of Bush's judicial nominees? The Republicans were finally showing some hutzpa and here he comes to screw it all up. He's for conservative judges- sure he is...
I had this whole reply to Alicia typed out and it didn't post and now it's gone. *sigh* OK, here goes again...
There are a good many people who are generally pro-life, yet support ESCR because they weigh the perceived good that everyone is touting (the miracle cures this research will bring about, saving thousands of people from terrible diseases and debilitating conditions) against their doubtful, half-hearted assumption that an embryo is a human person. A two-week old embryo has no nerves, no brain, no heart, no identity and perhaps a soul of sorts. If they are slated for destruction anyway (since there are millions of them on ice, unethically created and stored for future implantation or disposal), many people support their being put to good "use" - including people who are pro-life in every other case, like him.
If you want to oppose his position on McCain-Feingold, that's fine. I was simply pointing out that it's not a pro-life issue, which the original post and NRL made it out to be.
His involvement with the Gang of 14 led to the Senate's acceptance and eventual confirmation of Justices Roberts and Alito, because he got them to admit that these nominees were acceptable. And they did it without changing Senate procedural rules that had governed the operation of that body for decades. Changing rules when your party is in power can turn around and bite you when you're in the minority. Maybe the rule on its face deserved to be changed, but as I remember it, that was one of the reasons McCain gave for putting that coalition together. If it achieved its objective and these great nominees were confirmed (with McCain voting for both of them, I recall) without having to change a rule that we could use to our advantage in the future, then I don't know if he "screwed it all up".
I realize the issue of frozen embryos ect is a difficult one, but using the $ of the American people to fund ESCR is not acceptable and it is not pro-life.
As far as the Gang of 14- you really think the Rs would ever have the guts to filibuster a Democratic judicial nominee? Wow. You are giving them alot more credit than I would. It seems to me the filibuster is a weapon the only the Democrats would use on nominees. Its a weapon that the Repubs wouldn't use, so eliminating it altogther would only help the Republicans- since I doubt very highly they would never use it as a weapon themselves.
J- we obviously don't spend enough time together. You have to come visit again or move closer so we can have these debates over a bottle of vino!!
Helas, you are right. After our last visit, we were all missing you guys sumthin' awful.
I think a business relationship would serve to get us together on a monthly basis. Now we just need a business plan and that bottle of vino.
Back to work! I'll check in and post something inflammatory later. *grin*
Post a Comment