Obama NOT "aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic"? Cardinal Stafford reconsidered...

As a fervent Obama supporter and ever-disgusted Catholic at the single-issue mentality of so many bishops, as well as the outrageously strong influence of the EWTN and Neuhaus/neocon crowd, I must say that I agree with Allen. As usual, he cuts through the haze to provide facts and clear analysis.

I get all your points about Obama's pro-choice stance, and by no means do I consider myself pro-choice. I do consider myself a pro-life democrat however, which IS a viable position to hold.

I understand that at the local level there are one-issue voters who term themselves Republican for the value-based ideologies to which they hold; to be respected! Yet, at the state and national levels I observe the candidates topping the tickets of their respective races - most recently and recognizably John McCain - using that issue not as a platform for them to move their life agenda in the proper direction, but as a means of trying to corner people of faith and get elected.

I base that opinion on a few things: My assertions, though talking about McCain point to a pattern I have seen in the entire Republican party over the past 20 years or so. McCain did not arrive at his current stance on Roe v. Wade until 2007, just months if not weeks if not days before entering the race to claim what he felt should rightfully have been his in 2000, during his first run at the White House. It's a helpful tool for a centrist in the Republican party to adopt a conservative stance on Roe v. Wade.

Similarly, his stance on embryonic stem cell research was readjusted in the nick of time for his first run at the White House.

There are plenty other issues when it comes to respecting life such as his approach to this unjust war which has killed thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians as well as in excess of 4,000 US soldiers' lives for baseless intelligence, if you can call it that.

More? Ok. How about his approaches to reduced funding (regardless of whether one calls them 'cuts' or 'reduced increases') for social programs, his problematic approach to social security, health care for the elderly, capital punishment, the arts and plenty more.

...And I have not even began to touch on the despicable tenor of his campaign which made issues out of non-issues, did little to defend untruths about his opponent such as his religious affiliation and ethnicity (until it had been going on for a while), and even then presented "decent" as an antonym to "Arab".

As for cries of "terrorist" and "kill him" aimed at Obama by people at McCain's rallies: "fringe people" they shall be called, and no repudiation of the violence in those cries was ever made. Pro-life? Let's start by defending the life of your opponent which your supporters are shouting to end!

Nor have I mentioned the fact that the number of abortions in this country increased under Regan and both Bushes, but decreased under Clinton. How can that be?

It is due to the democrat party's acknowledgment of the critical role of education in preventing unwanted pregnancies which includes abstinence education. Interestingly, the educational wing of planned parenthood is never recognized but is also applicable here.

I grow nervous about the inherent elitism that exists when a religious body instructs its entire flock to vote one particular way, but does so in a way that preserves its tax-exempt status.

And I grow absolutely outraged at news of my Church denying the body & blood of Christ to Catholics who vote a certain way, as if the Eucharist is a weapon. Christ was put to death WITH a weapon and I highly doubt he'd prefer his flesh and blood to be used AS one today.

Christ died for all - not just Republicans. How ironic, that those accused of not protecting life are members of the party that has statistically proven to do a better job at protecting the unborn than those receiving our Lord without opposition.

The ancient Romans used to do everything they could to prevent Christians from receiving the Eucharist, yet Christians had the will to bind together and risk execution to receive the body and blood in secret. Yet, here we American Catholics are, dividing a Church with the very thing which previously bound us together. SHAMEFUL.

How did things turn out for the Romans?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[9]

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[9]

The linear chart found on the page of the link I posted seems to indicate that abortion declined steadily ever since the Reagan Administration, including both Bushes.

Right on, Phil!

For years I voted a straight pro-life ticket beginning with Reagan but after the wars... the lack of justice for those sitting on death row when dna testing would prove them innocent... the poor sentenced to lives with little or no health insurance.. the greed and general lack of concern for anyone except the uber rich ... the disappearing middle class due to the failure of trickle-down economics...well I realized there were other lives at stake besides the unborn.