I know that there is a ban on political discussions, and that I am kind of ignoring it by posting this, and I really do apologize for that, but I read this on my friend's blog, and I just felt obligated to post it.
It seems to be a new on spin on the issue, or a new way to look at it, at least for me it is.
Anyway, I don't intend to start some nasty debate, I just thought it was very interesting and worth posting.
I havn't said much about Bush Kerry for a while. I know Voici thought it was fun when I got all riled up over it. And well today I talked to Shelly Freak who got me thinking on it again.
So I present to you, a candid world my post. I know some of you, Colleen, are going to think I am trying to rationalize supporting Kerry. That wasn't my intent. When I started to gather my numbers it was more of to show Bush for what he is. A bush. Smaller than a tree, almost a shrub. With a little Quyale in him. Hehe.
As a Catholic I am bound to be poltical active to some extent. I am moraly required to vote as part of my faithful citizenship. This is great with me because I have been poltical vocal senice I turned 14. I was looking forward to this Nov to vote my voice. And I knew who I was voting for senice Al Gore conceded in Dec of 2000. Whoever runs against Bush.
The man the democrats picked to run against Bush was John Kerry. I good liberal from MA. Plus he was educated and didn't dumb down. I loved him.
And there was icing on the cake, he was CATHOLIC!
I was supporting him everywhere I went. John Kerry is the man to beat Bush.
Than abortion came up as an issue.
To me, personaly, abortion is a non-issue. I think and know it to be bad beyond any doubt whatsoever. However, I see it as a vote grab by the G.O.P. A "the liberals are ruining America, that is our job!" type thing.
Maybe not the thats is our job but they do do it. Hehe.
But Catholic Answers wrote their "Voters Guide." And that had me worried about if voting for Kerry was a sin or not. So what did I do?
I ran to Father. He told me that it isn't wrong to support Kerry insofaras I support him because I think he is the one who would do the best for the pro life movement ACROSS (not isolated) the spectrum.
I see, unlike Bush, pro life to mean more than anti abortion. So do the Bishops.
But I was still nevrous about supporting Kerry. I was finding a lot that seemed to imply abortion to be the largest life issue.
I couldn't vote one issue. That would be a betrayal, in my mind, to all that my faith stands for. So I wandered.
I couldn't support Bush. I knew that. I have a list the length of my leg on why I won't vote for Bush. Most of them are a tie in between social justice and respect for life issues.
But I couldn't find anyone in the 3rd party fringe that really repersented me like Kerry does.
So I looked and looked for a reason to support Kerry. I mean I had reasons, social justice and respect for life, but I couldn't find anything to overtake abortion. And I did at last. I should have seen it at first.
Abortion will always be overcome by...
Yes, you did read that right. Abortion is more important than abortion. Bear with me, it will all makes sense.
R. Reagan was anti abortion. Can we agree on that? And he was in office from 1981 till 1989. I found the CDC number of abortions per year for 1980 and 1990. So a year before and the year after Reagan was in office to have a pre and post Reagan compresion. Now logic says that if Reagan was pro life and tried to limit the number of abortions what should have happened?
Well, in short it didn't.
Under Reagan the number of abortions went UP (yes UP) by 0.2 million (200,000) abortions per year. Whoa, that backfired.
And abortions PEAKED in 1990? Under Bush the Elder? A pro lifer? Thats odd.
And what happened when W. Clinton came to Washington.
Can we all agree Clinton wasn't anti-abortion?
Good, let us go on.
Clinton was in office from 1993 until 2001. Between thoses years there was close to a half million per year drop.
Whoaness again! A drop in the rates of abortions as the pres tries to make abortions easier to get.
So the man who tries to stop abortions leads to higher abortions but the guy that tries to have more abortions ends up reducing them... hmmm.
So one of these four statments must be true.
1. The Dems treated a root cause of abortion that was ignored by the GOP.
2. The GOP fail(ed)(s) to grasp the deapth of the abortion issue and treated it as a skin deep issue.
3. Abortion is a purly social trend.
4. If the economy is good than the rate of abortions goes down.
If any one of those statements is true I am free to vote for John Kerry and if either 1 or 2 or maybe even 4 is true I am obliged to vote for John Kerry by the Church.
Part One. What is an issue that the Dems love that the Replubicans dislike or don't support? A few things come to mind. Foremost in them is welfare and education FUNDING (note FUNDING NCLBA delvered little or no funds to support its mandates).
If proverty is a root cause of abortion would it not be smart to address it? The main goal of welfare was to support those in proverty with federal funds while they seek work. Reagan and Bush the Elder disliked welfare and rolled back on it. They also supported SSE (Supply Side Economics) which involes giving more money in tax breaks to the rich and letting it, in theory and not in reality, trickle down to the lower classes. That put a larger crunh on the poor because it was in essence a tax cut to the upper classes which needed a spending cut. So less money was given out to the states. So more states increased their taxes. Taxing the poor more heavily. So the poor where getting less and less money in welfare and more and more in taxes under Reagan and Bush.
Abortions went up.
Clinton increased welfare spending. Increased spending and in turn decreased the pressue applied on the poor. And... abortions went down.
Is it no surprise that the majority of abortions are for ecominic reasons and just over half are preformed on single black females under the age of 25 and poor. You know, the "Welfare Queens." Getting abortions because they don't have money and still have sex. I don't get the still (well at all) having sex part but if we ease the stresses than in theory there will be a lower abortion rate.
The more education a person has the less often they have sex. So than isn't funding Fed. Higher Education Aid Programs a smart move? The less people have sex the less "unplanned" fetuses. Moreover, if they have sex less often, than won't they being thinking about having a family more?
Both of these conjutrues are supported by the lower abortion rates in the Socialist welfare and healthcare and education nations like the UK and Canada.
Part Two. Abortion isn't just a skin deep issue. Abortion is like someone suffering from an illness. You can treat the symtoms or you can treat the illness. One gives temporay relief. The other kills it off.
Part Three. If Abortion is soly a social trend than I should vote for whoever more closely reps the Church. And that man is John Kerry from the respect for life and social justice issues point of view.
Part Four. If abortion is the result of a poor economy than I should support the man with the best ecomonic plan. Bush is a support of SSE, which is a flawed idea. I have explained how to most of you so I shall refain from speaking about SSE unless you all post an I am confused about the flawed nature of SSE.
Moreover, during the part 50 years the stock market has grown at a rate of 10-15% more per year under Democrats than they have under Republicans. For example, if the avg GOP return is 5%, the avg Dem return would be between 10-15%. (I think it is around 5% for GOP and 16% for the Dems on avg.). So historical prefrence is on the Dems here.
So for thoses reasons I feel called to vote for John F. Kerry for pres in 2004. I do this from a deep down desire to vote for the pro life guy. And if any of the above are true and the historical record is true and if either 1 or 2 or 4 are true than Kerry is the guy.