• RSS GLOBAL VOICES – Burma/Myanmar

  • October 2008
    S M T W T F S
  • honor-the-dead.jpg Gaza Carnage Counter
  • [clearspring_widget title="The Trail" wid="48613409efac8054" pid="48bccfd800f3b17a" width="160" height="300" domain="widgets.clearspring.com"]
  • svaw-banner-eng1.gif
  • save-darfur
  • Archives

  • Meta

To Be Prolife, Wanting to Vote for Obama?

There was this announcement at the God-o-Meter, a Belief.net blog passing along the addresses of two websites dedicated to being “prolife” and voting for Barack Obama.   One is the Matthew 25 Network; the other is ‘ProLife – ProObama.’  The Matthew 25 Network has an adjunct website: Put Away Falsehood that addresses the various mistruths, lies, deceptions, and rumors aimed at Obama – while quoting from Ephesians:  “Therefore, having put away all falsehood, let each one of us speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are all of the same body.”  (Eph. 4:25)

The Matthew 25 Network is a community of Christians – Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, and Evangelical – inspired by the Gospel mandate to put our faith into action to care for our neighbor, especially the most vulnerable..

Therefore, while no elected official will be without flaw, we come together as individuals to support candidates for public office who share the values of the Matthew 25 Network: promoting life with dignity, caring for the least of these, strengthening and supporting families, stewardship of God’s Creation, working for peace and justice at home and abroad, and promoting the common good

Some time ago a gentleman by the name of  Douglas W. Knemic wrote a statement clarifying the reason why he, as a ‘prolife Christian’ would be voting for Obama.  Knemic, it seemed, had been assistant attorney general (Office of Legal Counsel) during Reagan’s and H.W. Bush’s administrations, a professor at Notre Dame & Catholic Univ., as well as endowed chair of constitutional law at Pepperdine University.  (Endowed is quite the honor, BTW).  Mr. Knemic’s statement was published in Feb/March of this year.

However none of that was what irritated the hell out of me.

It was this comment by a ‘Dr Ed.’  Dan Gilgoff had written a brief introductory paragraph, ending with these words, “making a case for how to reduce demand for reducing abortion without criminalizing it.”

Okay – notwithstanding the grammar, I don’t have a problem with the idea of reducing the demand for abortions although I see no purpose in having abortion criminalized, especially that of forced/legal criminalization by the state or federal government.   Of coure this is primarily due to my belief that it’s ALL about control.  I do NOT think it’s about ‘life’ at all but the controlling of women’s sexuality.  I find this comment dragging in parallels between the Dred Scot decision and abortion.  This ‘you don’t have to own a slave if you don’t want one’ bullshit.  See below.

Dough Kmiec’s attempt to do this is exactly like trying to reduce slavery without criminalizing it.

In 1857 the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Dred Scott Decision. By a 7-2 vote it ruled that black people were not “legal persons,” that they were the property of the slave owner, who was granted the basic constitutional right to own a slave. Abolitionists protested, to be met with this answer: “We understand you oppose slavery and find it morally offensive. That is your privilege. You don’t have to own a slave if you don’t want to. But, don’t impose your morality on the slave owner. He has the constitutionally protected right to choose to own a slave.”

It is insane, but if ideas like those of Dough Kmiec had succeeded Senator Obama wouldn’t even be allowed to vote.

I suggest you go, register to vote and VOTE for the only candidates (Mc Cain and Palin) who believe that ALL individuals are equal.

The travesty of the Obama campaign (a Saul Alinsky Trojan Horse) + a partisan Media are unparalleled.

Without a doubt, the last two sentences are the ones that sent me over the edge.  I suppose, however, I should have recognized a troll.  But nope – I was off ….

“All individuals are created equal”, eh?

The only way to STOP abortion is to criminalize it. Well now – we know that has never worked.

If all individuals are created equal then that ‘equality’ extends to those who bear the responsibility of an unexpected, unplanned or an otherwise unforeseen pregnancy. That means the responsibility does not lie solely with women, as is so overwhelmingly the case now – regardless of the gains made with respect to women’s rights.

I would NEVER vote for the McCain/Palin ticket – NEVER. Credibility goes beyond one issue and being a ‘christian’ doesn’t automatically ensure my vote. In fact, it generally raises a flag when someone finds it necessary to characterize themselves as such.

For the sake of argument, the decision to terminate a pregnancy usually only directly involves at the most two people; the woman and whoever her partner may be.  Decisions are made based on how best to deal with the ‘circumstances’ and the desired outcome.  I would venture, it is also usually based upon the notion that the pregnancy does not involve the human characterizations assigned to it such as ‘the child,’ ‘the baby’, ‘the little one’ and whatever else may be used to define.   The pregnancy isn’t a child; my granddaughter is a child – now.  The pregnancy isn’t a baby – my twin grandnephews are babies – now.  Biologically, it’s cells, then on through the stages to fetalhood.  Misnomers solely used to frame the issue to exert control.

Back while working for an insurance company in town while attending B.S.U parents of newborns would call seeking life insurance.  At least for life insurance policies then, there was a waiting period of 14 days – meaning that until the age of 14 days old, it was not technically considered ‘an individual’ by the insurance industry.  In answer to my question at the time, the agent for whom I worked told me it was “the industry standard.”

An article from a mid-September NYT in which, ‘Abortion Issue Again Dividing Catholic Votes.’  Sunday school teacher at Holy Rosary in Scranton, PA, said he’s been watching “…. progressive Catholics work with the Democratic Party over the last four years to remind the faithful of the party’s support for Catholic teaching on the Iraq war, immigration, health care and even reducing abortion rates.”

But then his local bishop plunged into the fray, barring Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, from receiving communion in the area because of his support for abortion rights.

And that is certainly no different than some evangelical churches who last week were promoting speaking from the pulpit about who would be the best candidate “on the life issues.”

The choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as Mr. McCain’s running mate had clinched it for him, Mr. MacDonald said. “She is anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage, anti-Big Oil, a lifetime member of the N.R.A., she hunts, she fishes — she is the perfect woman!”

One parishioner ruled out voting for Mr. Obama explicitly because he is black. “Are they going to make it the Black House?” Ray McCormick asked…

Yesterday in the New York Times, there was a story on that local bishop above from Scranton who barred Joe Biden from receiving the Eucharistic sacrament.   This ‘A Fight Among Catholics Over Which party Best Reflects Church Teachings.’   The 5th of October was the annual “respect life” Sunday for Catholic parishes across the country.

It is a contest for credibility among observant Catholics, with each faction describing itself as a defender of “life.” The two sides disagree over how to address the “intrinsic evil” of abortion.  That local bishop, Joseph Martino, wrote a letter that is to be read in every Catholic parish in Scranton with the “warning that voting for a supporter of abortion rights amounts to endorsing “homicide.”

This comes full circle.  The very gentleman mentioned in the first paragraph, the prolife professor with very political conservative leanings who is now endorsing Obama, Mr. Doug Knemic – he’s traveling around Pennsylvania “and other swing states” to Catholic audiences to reinforce that “Mr. Obama’s platform better fits Catholic social teaching, including reducing the abortion rate.

I absolutely agree.  And as for Bishop Martino, he is creating further scandal by denying someone the Eucharist.

I stumbled across a blog entry at the Caucus (NYT political blog) wondering, ‘Is Era of Dominance Over for Conservatives.’  No mention of religion; no mention of abortion, but the very first comment

As a Catholic, the Bishops lost me at Boston and subsequently, when they refused to take responsibility for their cover-up of crimes against children. It’s still going on, and it’s quite sad and outrageous at the same time.

Had the Church hierarchy ever valued family life they would have helped women in their new roles as breadwinners, mothers with multiple responsibilities and the new economy. Instead, they continue to hammer away at abortion. How about hammering away at paid maternity leave?

– Kate

No shit, Kate.  No shit.

%d bloggers like this: