I think that some posters here are overly partisan and will excuse being pro-choice against a republican and not a democrat. I'm unconvinced by their claims otherwise given their other responses. People don't often understand what their motives are.
I agree that sometimes we don't understand our own motives, but that is probably true for you, as well.
What makes you think that you
understand the motives of others and that you know what those are despite
the plain language of what they have posted here?
Aren't we obligated to judge their opinions by what they post, and not what we wish to read into it?
Jennifer: I think the overly partisan tone of some posters is evidenced by overly harsh comments about "evil dems" and outright lies like "90% of all republicans are pro-life." That someone would say that indicates that they are overly partisan because they see the facts in a light most favorable to their political party.
To conservatives, your
tone is harsh and overly partisan.
Pardon me, but your posts sound very left of center.
They come off not as the objective "voice of reason," but as rabid, anti-Bush rant.
Jennifer: I also don't think that we are commanded to be 'single issue' voters. Abortion is an important issue and if we had a truly pro-life candidate, we would have to vote for him. But being anti-abortion doesn't make someone pro-life. The pope cautions against a 'culture of death.' A 'culture of death' is manifested in many ways. Including executing retarded people or people who can't speak english. I don't the death penalty is immoral by itself but if it's used then we must ensure that we safeguard life and Bush's actions in Texas don't indicate a "respect for life." And undoubtedly some of the people executed are innocent.
How does the inability to speak English render a person immune to the death penalty for capital crimes?
I have never read of anything Bush did in Texas that was wrong.
Your argument sounds like clutching at straws to try to justify voting for a man (Kerry) whose positions are anti-Christian.
You can vote for him if you wish, but it's not right.
Jennifer: I also think a pre-emptive strike (condemned by the pope as well) is not indicative of a "respect for life."
What "pre-emptive strike?"
There was loads of justification for our actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Pope offered his opinion, which, in this case, I don't believe even the staunchest RCs would regard as infallible.
Good thing, because he was wrong.
Jennifer: Overall, Bush won't do anything to outlaw abortion so voting for him when we know he'll do other anti-life things isn't the 'moral' choice in my opinion.
We don't "know he'll do other anti-life things."
We do know Kerry is pro-abortion and supported by the disciples of Death.
Bush would not veto anti-abortion legislation. He supports overturning Roe vs. Wade.
Jennifer: Truthfully what is Bush done to stop abortion? He passed a law outlawing partial birth abortions which everyone knows is unconstitutional so it will be struck down.
Everyone does not know it is unconstitutional if, in fact, it is.
At least Bush signed the legislation.
Clinton vetoed similar legislation. Kerry would do likewise.
Bush in the White House means anti-abortion legislation has a chance at success.
Kerry in the White House (God forbid!) would mean that Pro-Life legislation would be dead on arrival.
Jennifer: I think his claim to be pro-life is an easy for him to make because the average american (squeamish about abortion but doesn't think it should be illegal) knows that voting for him won't make abortion illegal.
I don't think it's so easy.
His actions (in signing anti-abortion legislation, for example) prove his Pro-Life stance is more than a mere "claim."
When Kerry says he is a Catholic, now that
is just a claim.
Jennifer: Abortion is allowed in this country because of the supreme court and the majority of justices sitting on the court were appointed by republican presidents.
It may be true today that most of the justices were appointed by Republicans (I'm not sure), but was that true of the Court that decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973?
Besides, that's not important.
What is important today is to elect a president who is Pro-Life.
Is Kerry Pro-Life?
Jennifer: If Bush had indicated an overall respect for life in a catholic way I'd give his anti-abortion stance more credit. But I think his disrespect for life and protestant affiliation proves that his anti-abortion stance is 'establishment.' Since it's 'establishment' he won't go against the norm. Look what 'life' issues he chooses to care about. Unborn children over potentially innocent illegal immigrants and off-white people far away. Being anti-abortion isn't just concern for unborn children. There's a 'maintenance of the sexual status quo' as well. I suggest that his anti-abortion stance is more the latter reason than a catholic 'respect for life.'
I think you're erecting a pacifist, Quaker sort of standard of "overall respect for life" and calling it "Catholic."
I don't see the things Bush has done as inconsistent with his Pro-Life stance.
How is it consistent with an "overall respect for life" to allow a nasty dictator who torments his own people and threatens the peace and safety of the entire world to remain in power?
Sounds to me like Neville Chamberlain would be your ideal "Catholic" candidate.
How is being Pro-Life "establishment?"
The liberal establishment has foisted the culture of death upon us and made the murder of innocent infants a fact of law.
We Christians struggle today against that terrible establishment.
Kerry is the Establishment's standard bearer.
His flag is a Death's Head with a baby in its gaping maw.